Frank P. Harvey

When Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people in Syria, he clearly crossed President Barack Obama’s "red line." At the time, many argued that the president had to bomb in order to protect America's reputation for toughness, and therefore its credibility, abroad; others countered that concerns regarding reputation were overblown, and that reputations are irrelevant for coercive diplomacy. Whether international reputations matter is the question at the heart of Fighting for Credibility. For skeptics, past actions and reputations have no bearing on an adversary’s assessment of credibility; power and interests alone determine whether a threat is believed. Using a nuanced and sophisticated theory of rational deterrence, Frank P. Harvey and John Mitton argue the opposite: ignoring reputations sidesteps important factors about how adversaries perceive threats. Focusing on cases of asymmetric US encounters with smaller powers since the end of the Cold War including Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Syria, Harvey and Mitton reveal that reputations matter for credibility in international politics. This dynamic and deeply documented study successfully brings reputation back to the table of foreign diplomacy.

When Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people in Syria, he clearly crossed President Barack Obama’s "red line." At the time, many argued that the president had to bomb in order to protect America's reputation for toughness, and therefore its credibility, abroad; others countered that concerns regarding reputation were overblown, and that reputations are irrelevant for coercive diplomacy. Whether international reputations matter is the question at the heart of Fighting for Credibility. For skeptics, past actions and reputations have no bearing on an adversary’s assessment of credibility; power and interests alone determine whether a threat is believed. Using a nuanced and sophisticated theory of rational deterrence, Frank P. Harvey and John Mitton argue the opposite: ignoring reputations sidesteps important factors about how adversaries perceive threats. Focusing on cases of asymmetric US encounters with smaller powers since the end of the Cold War including Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Syria, Harvey and Mitton reveal that reputations matter for credibility in international politics. This dynamic and deeply documented study successfully brings reputation back to the table of foreign diplomacy.

This book explores the paradox of the ‘security dilemma’ in International Relations, as applied to the post-9/11 context of homeland security. The book's central argument can be summed up by the following counterintuitive thesis: the more security you have, the more security you will need. It argues that enhancing security does not make terrorism more likely, but rather it raises public expectations and amplifies public outrage after subsequent failures. The book contests that this dilemma will continue to shape American, Canadian and British domestic and international security priorities for decades. In exploring the key policy implications resulting from this, the book highlights the difficulty in finding a solution to this paradox, as the most rational and logical policy options are part of the problem. This book will be of interest to students of Homeland Security, Security Studies, US politics, and IR in general.

The threat of terrorism has become a fact of life for American citizens and, by extension, an important issue for current and future U. S. governments. International relations are inevitably affected by this situation, yet allies of the United States have of late been decrying the Bush administration's move toward unilateralism and its sceptical attitude toward multilateral approaches to security. In Smoke and Mirrors, Frank P. Harvey mounts a powerful case for American unilateralism by exposing the real costs, potential risks, and catastrophic failures of multilateral alternatives, that are rarely acknowledged by proponents. He addresses the relationship between globalization, terrorism, and unilateralism, and provides a systematic explanation for, and defence of, Washington's response to threats of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The reality of an increasingly fragile national security environment will impose tremendous pressure on Republican and Democratic leaders alike, and will compel American officials to prioritize safety, protection, and invulnerability above all else in an effort to become self-reliant in matters of security. Harvey develops his arguments with evidence from two significant case studies: the American ballistic missile defence program and the 2003 war in Iraq. He argues that, as the costs and risks of relying exclusively on multilateralism increase, the logical, legal, strategic, and moral reasons for embracing only multilateral approaches to security are becoming more tenuous. The implications for Canada and Europe are obvious. As the U. S. becomes more threatened, the pressures that drive American unilateralism will clash with the foreign, economic, and security policies of other powers, including traditional allies, themselves motivated by a competing set of unilateral self-interests. Smoke and Mirrors will compel critics of the Bush administration to move beyond the assumption that American foreign policies are temporary in nature. Indeed, the tensions caused by terrorism and proliferation will continue to shape Washington's threat perceptions and responses for decades. The book challenges critics to demonstrate the successes ? as distinct from the promises ? of multilateral security and to prove that their preferred alternative has achieved the victories that would justify a sweeping rejection of unilateralism.

More than ever before, ethnic struggle finds expression in the growing incidence and scale of displaced persons and refugee flows, as well as in exacerbated levels of ethnic minority abuse and involuntary assimilation. Demographic and political sources of instability in multi-ethnic societies assure the continuing significance of ethnic strife and the potential for intrastate ethnic violence far into the next millennium. While not all disagreements between ethnic groups can be expected to escalate into violence, more than a few have produced intractable and destructive conflicts, and one or more of these conflicts could ultimately reach levels that overwhelm international resources and capabilities. Carment and Harvey examine how regional and international security organizations can prevent destructive ethnic conflict and manage cases in which violence already is at hand. First they develop a conceptual framework for advancing basic research on the prevention and management of intrastate ethnic violence. They evaluate theoretical knowledge about the nature of ethnic conflict, using case material and quantitative assessments, and they apply these assumptions against recent instances of conflict management through an in-depth study of NATO's involvement in Kosovo and Bosnia. This book serves as an important research tool for students, scholars, and policy makers involved with ethnic conflict and international relations.

Arguing that previous critiques of rational choice and deterrence theory are not convincing, Frank Harvey constructs a new set of empirical tests of rational deterrence theory to illuminate patterns of interaction between rival nuclear powers. He analyses the crisis management techniques used by the United States and the Soviet Union in twenty-eight post-war crises and isolates factors that promote or inhibit escalation of these crises. This "crises"-based data set serves as the basis for identifying patterns of response when one nuclear state is threatened by another. The Future's Back offers new directions for testing that emphasize a more unified approach to theory building and assesses the feasibility of alternative courses of action to prevent escalation of future disputes characterized by nuclear rivalry.