Revolution and War
The author seeks to explain why revolutionary states often become embroiled in wars with their neighbors. The answer, derived from detailed case studies of the French, Russian, and Iranian revolutions, is unsurprising: revolutions usually augur a shift in the ‘balance of threat,’ which, when coupled with the spiral of suspicion caused by the interaction of offensive and defensive military strategies, leads to conflict. The author seeks to preserve the validity of the realist paradigm by substituting balance of threat for balance of power as the major factor. In so doing he admits a whole range of domestic variables (intention, ideology, perceptions) into the realist model and transforms it into something quite different.
Related
Colombians no longer trust their government to salvage the economy, fight the drug lords, or negotiate with the rebels. A bad neighborhood is about to get worse.
The brutality in Kosovo, East Timor, and Rwanda has fed the conventional wisdom that tribal and nationalist fighting is raging out of control. It is not. Since the early 1990s, the number of new ethnic wars has dropped sharply and many old ones have been settled. The world has found a new way to manage secessionism and nationalist passions: granting autonomy, devolving and sharing state power, and recognizing group rights. Ethnic warfare's heyday may belong to the last century.
When Vicente Fox stunned the world last year by becoming Mexico's first opposition leader elected president in 71 years, he began a process that reverberates throughout Latin America. Fox has abandoned Mexico's longstanding tradition of nonintervention, leading his country to deeper involvement throughout the western hemisphere. Mexico's new diplomacy has great potential to improve the lives of its neighbors-none more so than the United States.
