International Security

William Z.Y. Wang responds to Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth's winter 2015/16 article, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in the Twenty-first Century: China’s Rise and the Fate of America’s Global Position."

This analysis suggests that the United States will continue to face difficult trade-offs in its Taiwan Strait policy. On the one hand, the United States should not—as some prominent analysts have suggested—scale back its commitment to Taiwan. Such a change in U.S. policy would accelerate the shifting balance of power in the strait, thereby magnifying the risk of armed conflict between the PRC and Taiwan. On the other hand, Washington must continue to tread cautiously on the Taiwan issue. The fact remains that many in China care deeply about Taiwan.

Does economic interdependence promote peace or war between states? In Economic Interdependence and War, Dale Copeland argues that the answer depends on states’ expectations of future trade and their assessments of whether interdependence will benefit them or make them vulnerable. Snyder reviews the book and considers the historical relationship between trade expectations and conflict.

Since 2008, tensions between China and Taiwan have decreased significantly. Is the risk of cross-strait conflict likely to remain low? There are reasons for optimism: economic ties between the two states are increasing; China’s growing military strength is still offset by the U.S. commitment to Taiwan; and Taiwanese remain pragmatic regarding Taiwan’s sovereignty.

States have long worried that their dependence on oil gives producers a means of coercion. The oil market, however, is far larger and more integrated than it used to be. The potential for coercion differs across a series of distinct market segments. In this varied market, the United States remains the dominant force.

Richard W. Maass and Carla Norrlof respond to Daniel W. Drezner's Summer 2013 International Security article, "Military Primacy Doesn't Pay (Nearly As Much As You Think)."

The United States' extended system of security commitments creates a set of institutional relationships that foster political communication. Alliance institutions are first about security protection, but they also bind states together and create institutional channels of communication. For example, NATO has facilitated ties and associated institutions that increase the ability of the United States and Europe to talk to each other and to do business. Likewise, the bilateral alliances in East Asia also play a communication role beyond narrow security issues. Consultations and exchanges spill over into other policy areas. This gives the United States the capacity to work across issue areas, using assets and bargaining chips in one area to make progress in another.