Threats and Challenges: 'Power and Weakness' and the Rhetorical Presentation of Problem-Solving Alternatives
| Author | Gregory Smith |
| Position | Senior Sophister Law, Trinity College, Dublin |
| Pages | 156-176 |
THREATS
AND
CHALLENGES:
"POWER
AND
WEAKNESS"
AND
THE
RHETORICAL
PRESENTATION
OF
PROBLEM-SOLVING
ALTERNATIVES
GREGORY
SMITH*
When
it
comes
to
setting
national
priorities,
determining
threats,
defining
challenges,
and
fashioning
and
implementing
foreign
and
defense
policies,
the
United
States
and
Europe
have
parted
ways.
-
Robert Kagan,
Power
and
Weakness'
This
article
addresses
the
ongoing
discussion
of
differences
between
European
and
American
political
ideologies,2
taking
their
divergent
methods
for
problem-solving
as
the
root
of
transatlantic
antagonism.
It
will
also analyse
how power
is
conceived
and presented within
these
methodologies.
Legal structures
designed
to
facilitate agreement,
negotiation,
compromise,
and,
sometimes, legitimise
military
action
are
central
to
problem-solving
at
local
and
global
levels.
In
approaching
international
problems
from
terrorism
to
global
warming,
states
often
choose whether
to
take
legal,
or
extra-legal action or
to
participate
in
multilateral
international
legal
initiatives.
International
law
presents
an
available
structure
for
organising
and
determining co-operation
among
states,
defining
their
acceptable
roles
in
approaching problems.
The
value
of
conforming
to
*
Senior Sophister
Law,
Trinity
College, Dublin.
'(June/July
2002)
113
Policy
Review
.
html>
(last
visited 5
February
2005).
All
citations
are
to
the printer
friendly version
available
on
this
website.
2 Some examples
(of
which
there
are
many more):
Ibid.;
Lambert, "Misunderstanding
Each
Other"
(March/April
2003)
Foreign
Affairs
62;
Kennedy
and
Marshall,
"The
Real
trans-
Atlantic
Gap:
US
and European Public
Opinion
Differences" (November/December
2002)
133
Foreign
Policy
66; Menon,
Nicolaidis
and
Welsh, "In
Defence
of
Europe -
A
response
to
Kagan"
(2004)
3
Journal
of
European
Affairs
1.
3.pdf'>;
and
(2003)
4
German
Law
Journal
9.
com/pdffVol04/pdf
vol_04_no_09.pdf>.
This
is
a
special
issue
focusing
on
Robert
Kagan.
©
2005 Gregory
Smith
and
Dublin University
Law
Society
Rhetorical
Presentation
of
Problem-Solving
international
law
is
a
point
on
which
America and Europe
increasingly
differ.
Differing
value
orientations
are
based
in
political
ideology,
and
can
be traced
to
conceptions
of
sovereignty, institutional
structure,
and
each
region's
own
conception
of
its
world
political importance.
The
divergence
is
also
reflected
in
the
narrative projected
from
each
region, represented
in
the
media
and
through political
speech.
3 Political
speech
in
America,
particularly
that
of
the current
administration,
is
characterised
by
monologic
and
militaristic
rhetoric.
In
Europe,
a
pluralistic
narrative
-
where more importance
is
attributed
to
international
law,
co-operation
and
multilateralism -
emerges
from
the
institutional
structure
and
political
success
of
the
European
Union
(EU),
prioritising solutions
which
emphasise
institutional, piecemeal and
technocratic
progress
assisted by
legal
norms
and
an
expectation
of
co-operation.
The
difference
in
American
and
European approaches
to
international
law
suggests
two
interpretations
of
its
legitimacy.
While
Europe
favours
co-operative
and
multilateral
problem-solving
alternatives,
America
claims
that
they
are
not
plausible solutions
to
perceived 'threats'.
Legitimacy,
in
this
respect,
should be
examined from
several
standpoints.
First,
American unilateralism hinders
the
development
of
international
legal
norms;
the
customary
practice
of
states
is
a
primary
source
for
determining
the
content
of
international
law.
Consequently, the
legitimacy
of
existing
mechanisms
and norms (such
as
adherence to
UN
resolutions)
is
questioned,
and
their
content
potentially
altered.
Secondly,
American
unilateralism discounts
the efficacy
of
international
legal
mechanisms,
presenting
many
initiatives
and
norms
as
insufficient
to
deal
competently
with
existing
'threats'.
This
can
be
seen
most clearly
in
current
political
and
some academic
discourse, which treats
American sovereignty
as
immutable
and
international co-operation
as
unnecessary.
This
article
is
concerned
with
consequences
of
that
discourse, which increasingly
equates
power
with
military
strength,
poses
foreign
adventures
as
predestined,
and
works
towards
removing
multilateral
approaches
from
the
array
of
problem-solving
alternatives
available.
As
a
focus
of
argument, this piece
will
critique Robert
Kagan's
article
"Power
and
Weakness.
' 4
Kagan
is
a
member
of
The
Project
for
the
Howse
and
Nicolaides,
"This
is
my EUtopia:
Narrative
as
Power"
(2002)
40
(4)
J
Corn
Mar
Studies
767.
4
Kagan's
article was
later expanded
into
a
book,
Of
Paradise
and
Power
(Knopf,
2003).
The
article
had
a
considerable impact, initiating
a
transatlantic
debate about
the
validity
of
Kagan's
contentious
analysis
(Supra,
fn.
2).
Both
book
and
article
employ
the same
thesis
and
arguments,
and
most commentary has
used
the
freely
available
article
for
critique.
2005]
To continue reading
Request your trial