Regime Change as a Non-Proliferation Strategy

Robert Kagan argues, "Regime change in Tehran is the best nonproliferation policy." Supporting an opposition more open to the West, and seeking to reintegrate into the global economy and internatonial order (a big assumption here) could help reverse, or at least slow Iran's march down the nuclear path. Is regime change the safer than the status quo (doing nothing). Kagan believes regime change is safer than waiting for Iran to build the bomb, or having Israel pre-empt Iranian nuclear facilities which could escalate to a regional conflict. But the "do-nothing" option would in my mind be the more conservative/safer strategy. I should qualify that "do-nothing" also includes passing UN sanctions/resolutions and providing public moral support with more quiet political/economic aid. "Do-nothing" is acutally a safe form of attacking the regime's moral legitimacy. This strategy is the better (or at least more legitimate) strategy in ensuring a safer world than regime change IF Iranians can vote out of power (or topple over) the current government before the regime acquires nuclear weapons.

New Research

After rejections from fellowships this year, I'm back to the drawing board regarding research topics. Hopefully I can turn the "Politicization of North Korea" topic into at least a paper.

Peter Katzenstein's address at the Rising Powers Initiative project launch was the first time in a while I felt my intellectual brain ticking. Anyway, here are 2 possible topics I might explore:

1) Social Movements in International Relations: this would extend out of my first book project on anti-base movements. Lately, we've seen protests/riots/social mvts around: Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, Iran just to name a few. Do these movements have any implications for international relations? If so, it's not apparent. I'd like to come up with a theory which helps us evaluate the impact of social movements in IR. A domestic-int'l linkage type argument if you well. One think PK argued was that revolutions don't come from below, but are top-down. The storming of the Bastille and people power come to mind when we hear revolution. But by then, it's too late.

2) Let's Talk (International conferences and forums). We've seen a proliferation of global summits (the nuclear summit, Copenhagen, etc...). Are they effective, or a waste of time? Have western diplomats adopted eastern practices of talking about talks. Has process become valued as much as outcomes for Western diplomats - an adoption of the ASEAN way?

The State and Global Governance

I assigned 3 articles related to global governance. Two are related to the nuclear security, and one on Europe’s loan package to Greece. Hopefully, students are beginning to pick up on some of the key questions of our times in international relations: cooperation under anarchy (to steal from Kenneth Oye's title). States remain the central actors in international politics. However, world leaders continue to increasingly rely on international institutions, supranational organizations, or world forums and conferences to tackle global issues. Does this suggest a) the decline of states in international politics b) a revamping of state power filtered through international institutions c) or a new form of global politics defined by international institutions and forums? I like answer “b” – but I won’t elaborate here.

On the point about forums, is it just me, or do we see more and more of these loose international forums on the rise. Recently, we have forums on climate change, financial regulation, and nuclear proliferation. Is this a sign that process is just as important as outcomes when devising solutions to world problems?