 |
Prof. Emanuel Adler
University of Toronto
January 25, 2008
Jointly presented by the University of Washington International Security Colloquium (UWISC), UW Institute for National Security Education and Research (UW INSER), Marc Lindenberg Center for Humanitarian Action, International Development and Global Citizenship (MLC), Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Center of Global Studies at the Jackson School of International Studies, and the Department of Political Science
Presenter
Emanuel Adler is the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Chair of Israeli Studies at the University of Toronto and the editor of International Organization. Previously, he was Professor of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The author of numerous books and articles—including The Power of Ideology (University of California Press, 1987, Communitarian International Relations (Routledge, 2005), and “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations (1997)—he is best known for his contribution to the subjects of epistemic communities, security communities, and, more generally, constructivism in International Relations. His latest projects include a study of rationality and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a constructivist reconsideration of strategic logic, including deterrence, in post–Cold War international security, and a project on the role of practice in international relations.
Theme
Professor Adler’s work seeks to initiate a new round of strategic intellectual innovation in an era when threats posed by non-state terrorist organizations and their state supporters do not resemble Cold War threats. Based on an interpretative sociological reading of the concepts of power, security, and rationality, it argues that a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma is to the post–Cold War era what the danger of surprise or unintended nuclear war was to the Cold War: the defining structural threat of international politics. The dilemma leaves states confronting asymmetrical warfare with the choice of reacting with force to a terrorist act or practicing appeasement. Neither approach, however, can achieve the goal of putting an end to terrorism. Deterrence sustains the dilemma by providing a rationale for why force should be used and self-restraint is irrational. Adler proposes a third option—defusing, which may be accomplished by denial (preventing provocateurs from dragging states into the use of force) and “restructuration” (transforming the structure and rules of the situation). Defusing relies on “performative power”—the capacity to project a dramatic and credible performance on the world stage and to decouple social actors, their audiences, and their most deeply held strategic beliefs. The force of the argument is illustrated by examples from the global war on terror, the 2006 Lebanon War, and the Iranian nuclear crisis.
Audience
The audience consisted of approximately 35 people. Audience members came from multiple academic units across campus including the Department of Sociology, the Department of Political Science, the Jackson School of International Studies, and the Evans School of Public Affairs. Faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students were all represented.
Implications for National Security
Current security threats are not the same as those the United States faced during the Cold War. In a post-9/11 world we need a better understanding of how to confront threats posed by non-state terrorist organizations and their state sponsors. Professor Adler addresses this key question and suggests a new strategy.
Report by Stephan Hamberg
|
|
