Econ decline causes diversionary war

Since the 2000s, many pundits and scholars have attributed two rising powers’ instances of aggression to their domestic problems. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea and its deployment of troops to Syria, along with China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea, have been seen as aggressions arising out of domestic weakness (Kaplan, 2016). Some have attributed China’s recent provocative actions against India, Japan, and Taiwan to its struggling economy in the wake of the pandemic (Myers, 2020). In the post-Cold War period, these two great powers, often regarded as revisionist powers, have regained their national capabilities to some extent and have sought higher status in international politics (Larson & Shevchenko, 2010). What made them more aggressive in the 2010s? One promising explanation is their decreasing economic growth rates. Due to their abundance of natural and human resources, the two former communist countries had maintained their increased status relative to their neighboring states since the 2000s or even earlier. However, falling energy prices and the reform-incapable structures of their economies retarded their further growth and increased the burden on their authoritarian leaders, who also had to manage domestic calls for political freedom and maintain the legitimacy of their rule. According to this article’s causal explanation, Russia and China became more revisionist actors in the 2010s at least partly because their economies went downhill, and their aggressions were directed at smaller and more vulnerable economies. A slowing economy and economic dependence have both individual and interactive effects on military conflict in international politics. Slow growth rates contribute positively to conflict initiation, especially when an autocracy suffering from a slowing economy targets a democracy whose economy is dependent on the autocracy. Whereas economic interdependence has been regarded by many liberal scholars as a reason for international cooperation, this study shows why and how asymmetric interdependence contributes to interstate conflict by articulating its interaction with an economic slowdown in a dyadic relationship. Both political unrest and economic problems have destabilizing effects on international politics, but their effects differ when economically dependent democracies are the target. Future research should compare different types of domestic unrest and their effects on international relations with sophisticated logic and strong evidence. This analysis shows that economic growth has two distinct effects. Slower growth makes one state weaker than others and its leaders more vulnerable to domestic challenges. A state’s economic slowdown not only causes a change in the balance of economic power so as to favor its competitor but also increases the troubled state’s foreign aggression, which can harm its adversary. Therefore, it is uncertain whether one state’s economic slowdown benefits its rival’s security. An autocracy’s slowing economy can be a warning, rather than good news, to its democratic opponents if the latter maintain economic relationships with the former. In this regard, economic sanctions may provoke the target leader’s diversionary tactic of blaming its poor economy on the sanctioner. We can see this pattern in Tokyo’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor at a time of US sanctions against Japan, which had continued since the late 1930s. The current global economic outlook is uncertain in the wake of COVID-19. Although we do not yet know the pandemic’s long-term economic consequences, all states will likely struggle with slower growth and the erosion of democracy and will engage in more protectionist policies to reboot their economies and save major industries. In this context, we should be especially concerned about the risk that troubled economies pose to international security. As this study’s findings suggest, slower growth causes domestic problems, which often lead to the diversionary use of force against foreign states. If we cannot prevent struggling leaders from using diversionary tactics, worsening economies in authoritarian states will likely drive such states into a more confrontational or aggressive stance toward their economic partners, if not toward political and ideological partners. We can all hope world leaders will realize that this is a time to beat a global pandemic and an economic recession, not to beat up on a foreign state.