Answer the following question with a 2000 word essay, written in Chicago referencing style, i.e. using footnotes:
‘A defensive approach to foreign and security policy can be successful in guaranteeing state security’.
Discuss with reference to how one particular country (Finland, Turkey and India are possible examples), in the quest for power and/or security, has interacted with other states in the context of a ‘security dilemma’ or ‘balance of power’.
This question invites you to critically reflect on the various realist concepts, defining and conceptualising defensive and offensive realism in the context of your chosen country.
The question allows you to identify and ponder over the country’s understanding of local, regional or global security dilemmas and balances of power, elucidating their origin, logics and effects.
As such, you are encouraged to use the literature and the ideas explored during Unit 1. As a starting point, the following readings can assist you in the initial phase of your research.
Finland
Sami Moisio, “Competing Geographies of Sovereignty, Regionality and Globalisation: The Politics of EU Resistance in Finland 1991–1994,” Geopolitics 11, no. 3 (2006): 439-464. (opens in a new tab)
Henrikki Heikka, “Republican Realism: Finnish Strategic Culture in Historical Perspective,” Cooperation and Conflict 40, no. 1 (2005): 91–119. Hans Mouritzen, “Finland: Realism versus Idealism,” Cooperation and Conflict 35, no. 4 (2000): 441–446. (opens in a new tab)
Kristi Raik, “Renaissance of realism, a new stage of Europeanization, or both? Estonia, Finland and EU foreign policy,” Cooperation and Conflict 50, no. 4 (2015): 440–456.(opens in a new tab)
Jarmo Mäkelä, ‘When Realism is the Only Game in Town: How to Defend Finland?’. International Centre for Defence and Security Estonia, published June 17, 2017, https://icds.ee/when-realism-is-the-only-game-in-town-how-to-defend-finland/ (opens in a new tab)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, Prime Minister’s Office Publications, Report on Finnish and Security Policy, 9 (2016), http://bit.ly/39aooXE(opens in a new tab)
Turkey
Faruk Yalvaç, “Strategic Depth or Hegemonic Depth? A Critical Realist Analysis of Turkey’s Position in the World System,” International Relations 26, no. 2 (2012):165–180. (opens in a new tab)
Tarik Oğuzlu, “Turkey and Europeanization of Foreign Policy?,” Political Science Quarterly 125, no. 4, (2010): 657–683.(opens in a new tab)
Hasan Kösebalaban, “Turkey and the New Middle East: Between Liberalism and Realism,” Perspectives 16, no. 3 (2011): 93–114. https://core.ac.uk/reader/38301893(opens in a new tab)
Şaban Kardaş, “Turkey: Redrawing the Middle East Map or Building Sandcastles?,” Middle East Policy 17, no. 1 (2010): 115–136. (opens in a new tab)
Faruk Yalvaç, ‘Approaches to Turkish Foreign Policy: A Critical Realist Analysis’, Turkish Studies 15, no. 1 (2014): 117–138. (opens in a new tab)
Tarik Oğuzlu, “The Changing Dynamics of Turkey–Israel Relations: A Structural Realist Account,” Mediterranean Politics 15, no. 2 (2010): 273–288.(opens in a new tab)
India
Michael Arndt, “Realist Constructivism and the Indian-Pakistan Conflict,” Asian Politics and Policy 10, no. 1 (2018): 100-114. (opens in a new tab)
Runa Das, “Explaining India’s Nuclearization: Engaging Realism and Social Constructivism,” Asian Perspective 32, no. 1 (2008): 33–70. (opens in a new tab)
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, “Still Under Nehru’s Shadow? The Absence of Foreign Policy Frameworks in India,” India Review 8, no. 3 (2009): 209–233. (opens in a new tab)
Sumit Ganguly & Manjeet S. Pardesi, “Explaining Sixty Years of India’s Foreign Policy,” India Review 8, no. 1 (2009): 4–19. (opens in a new tab)
Anindya Batabyal, “Balancing China in Asia: A Realist Assessment of India’s Look East Strategy,” China Report 42, no. 2 (2006): 179–197.
