 |
India-US Relations & Indian Strtageic Culture: A Constructivist Approach to Indian National Security Policy
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
The ISA paper March 2008 –
Recovering Indian Strategic Culture
By Rudra Chaudhuri
1
Introduction:
Historical experiences, institutionalised beliefs, and ideas shape the way nation-states behave in the international system. During the conduct of war, or in the construction of foreign policy, actor’s strategic preferences are motivated by a cultural system operating at the domestic level.
2
This system provides the underlying ideational lens through which the actor
views the world. While responding to the power maximising efforts of potential foes, or solving diplomatic debacles with potential friends, the domestic cultural context of state preferences informs state behaviour. In the domain of security studies, beliefs and practices that influence the state’s grand strategic preferences have been placed under the broader title of ‘strategic culture’.
3
Strategic historians and international relations (IR) scholars have used strategic culture to provide explanations for state behaviour that are not always in consonance with neo-realist tenets. Neo realists largely reject strategic cultural determinants as a sound basis for explaining a state’s strategic behaviour. “States are instrumentally rational”, ideas and beliefs have little part to play in the manner in which the state manoeuvres itself within the international system.
4
Strategic culturalist’s, for their part, are unsatisfied with the neo-realist
contention that “units” or states in the international system “are functionally undifferentiated”.
5
This does not mean that those adopting a strategic cultural perspective
outright reject neo-realism, they do not! They reject the neo-realist assumption that their research programme represents the dominant theoretical lens by which state behaviour can be explained. For strategic culturalist’s, “different states have different predominant strategic preferences that are rooted in the early or formative experiences of the state.” State practices are “influenced to some degree by the philosophical, political, cultural, and cognitive characteristics of the state and its elites.”
6
Soviet military doctrine during the Cold War has been explained by looking at “pre-existing cultural beliefs” that led to the institutionalisation of Soviet “strategic inferiority”.
7
Military
operations led by the United States are said to have been influenced by “technological fetishism, casualty aversion and legal pragmatism”, three biases that constitute US strategic culture.
8
Chinese strategic culture has been situated in what Alistair Johnston calls the
‘Parabellum’, or “hard realpolitik view of security” that is a product of Chinese historical experiences.
9
1
Rudra Chaudhuri is a Phd Candidate a the Department of War Studies, King’s College London
2
Theo Farrell, “Strategic Culture and American Empire”, SAIS Review of International Studies,
volume XXV, no 2, (Summer-Fall 2005): 8
3
Alastair Iain Johnston, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History,
(Princeton University Press, 1995): 1
4
John J Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions”, International Security,
Volume 19:3, (Winter 1994-1995): 9-11
5
Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, (McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1979): 104
6
Alastair Johnston, “Thinking About Strategic Culture”, International Security, Volume 19:4, (Spring
1995): 34
7
Jack Snyder, “The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations”, A Project
Air-Force Report Prepared for the USAF, (RAND Cooperation, 1977): 38
8
Farrell, Strategic, 8 For a similar viewpoint on American strategic culture See: Colin Gray, “National
Style in Strategy: The American Example”, International Security, 6:2, (Autumn 1981)
9
Johnston, Cultural, 61
1
|
| | Authors: Chaudhuri, Rudra. |
|
| |
|
|
The ISA paper March 2008 –
Recovering Indian Strategic Culture
Introduction:
Historical experiences, institutionalised beliefs, and ideas shape the way nation-states behave
in the international system. During the conduct of war, or in the construction of foreign
policy, actor’s strategic preferences are motivated by a cultural system operating at the
domestic level.
This system provides the underlying ideational lens through which the actor
views the world. While responding to the power maximising efforts of potential foes, or
solving diplomatic debacles with potential friends, the domestic cultural context of state
preferences informs state behaviour. In the domain of security studies, beliefs and practices
that influence the state’s grand strategic preferences have been placed under the broader title
of ‘strategic culture’.
Strategic historians and international relations (IR) scholars have used strategic culture to
provide explanations for state behaviour that are not always in consonance with neo-realist
tenets. Neo realists largely reject strategic cultural determinants as a sound basis for
explaining a state’s strategic behaviour. “States are instrumentally rational”, ideas and beliefs
have little part to play in the manner in which the state manoeuvres itself within the
international system.
Strategic culturalist’s, for their part, are unsatisfied with the neo-realist
contention that “units” or states in the international system “are functionally
undifferentiated”.
This does not mean that those adopting a strategic cultural perspective
outright reject neo-realism, they do not! They reject the neo-realist assumption that their
research programme represents the dominant theoretical lens by which state behaviour can be
explained. For strategic culturalist’s, “different states have different predominant strategic
preferences that are rooted in the early or formative experiences of the state.” State practices
are “influenced to some degree by the philosophical, political, cultural, and cognitive
characteristics of the state and its elites.”
Soviet military doctrine during the Cold War has been explained by looking at “pre-existing
cultural beliefs” that led to the institutionalisation of Soviet “strategic inferiority”.
operations led by the United States are said to have been influenced by “technological
fetishism, casualty aversion and legal pragmatism”, three biases that constitute US strategic
culture.
Chinese strategic culture has been situated in what Alistair Johnston calls the
‘Parabellum’, or “hard realpolitik view of security” that is a product of Chinese historical
experiences.
1
Rudra Chaudhuri is a Phd Candidate a the Department of War Studies, King’s College London
2
Theo Farrell, “Strategic Culture and American Empire”, SAIS Review of International Studies,
volume XXV, no 2, (Summer-Fall 2005): 8
3
Alastair Iain Johnston, Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History,
(Princeton University Press, 1995): 1
4
John J Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions”, International Security,
Volume 19:3, (Winter 1994-1995): 9-11
5
Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, (McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1979): 104
6
Alastair Johnston, “Thinking About Strategic Culture”, International Security, Volume 19:4, (Spring
1995): 34
7
Jack Snyder, “The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations”, A Project
Air-Force Report Prepared for the USAF, (RAND Cooperation, 1977): 38
8
Farrell, Strategic, 8 For a similar viewpoint on American strategic culture See: Colin Gray, “National
Style in Strategy: The American Example”, International Security, 6:2, (Autumn 1981)
9
Johnston, Cultural, 61
1
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 12 
