تأثیر مجتمع‌های نظامی-‌ صنعتی بر سیاست خارجی ایالات متحد در برابر روسیه و چین (۲۰۰۱ تا ۲۰۲۰)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، گروه مطالعات منطقه‌ای، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران

2 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد مطالعات منطقه ای/ دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

رویداد یازده سپتامبر در سال 2001 بهانه‌ای شد تا مقام‌های ایالات متحد مبارزه با تروریسم جهانی را بهانه‌ای برای به‌کارگرفتن سیاست‌های تنش‌زای خود در جهان مطرح کنند. سیاستی که در ادامه و به‌سبب نفوذ عاملی به اسم مجتمع‌های نظامی‌- صنعتی در ساختار قدرت آمریکا، با بزرگ‌نمایی تهدیدهای کشورهای چین و روسیه، موجب تنش و اختلاف در تعدادی از مناطق از جمله آسیای شرقی و اروپای شرقی شده است. از این‌رو، این پرسش مطرح می‌شود که مجتمع‌های نظامی- ‌صنعتی آمریکا چگونه بر سیاست خارجی این کشور در برابر روسیه و چین تأثیر گذاشته است؟ در پاسخ، این فرضیه مطرح می‌شود که مجتمع‌های نظامی‌- صنعتی با استفاده از ظرفیت‌های در اختیار و ارکان مؤثر خود و در نوک آن پیمانکاران نظامی، با تأثیر بر تصمیم‌گیری‌های مقام‌های آمریکایی، سبب به‌کارگرفتن سیاست فروش تسلیحات نظامی به بهانۀ محدودسازی قدرت‌های بزرگی مانند چین و روسیه شده‌اند. در کنار روند افزایشی درآمدهای پیمانکاران نظامی، سبب ایجاد اختلاف و تنش در مناطق آسیای شرقی و اروپای شرقی شده‌اند. در این نوشتار برای تشریح تأثیر جریان مجتمع‌های نظامی‌- صنعتی، از نظریۀ نخبگان رابرت دال به‌عنوان چارچوب نظری استفاده می‌کنیم تا در قالب آن تأثیرگذاری این جریان بر سیاست‌گذاری ایالات متحد در برابر این دو کشور بهتر تبیین ‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Impact of the Military-Industrial Complex on US Foreign Policy Towards Russia and China (2001 to 2020)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hamed Mousavi 1
  • Majid Adeli 2
1 Assistant Professor, Regional Studies Department, Faculty of Law & Political Science, Tehran University
2 M.A., Regional Studies Department, Faculty of Law& Political Science, University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: The 9/11 attacks US media propaganda to combat terrorism led many countries worldwide to ally with the US. In the meantime, even America's traditional rivals, Russia and China, came to terms with this. This approach, which extremist ideologies have influenced in areas such as the Chechen Autonomous Region in Russia and Xinjiang in China, has changed over time as the goals of American politicians behind their counter-terrorism policy became apparent. This behavior change was strongly influenced by the provocative and at times controversial actions of the US towards China and Russia, to the extent that even in the last days of 2014, and due to the tense activities of the US in regards to the expansion of NATO to Eastern European countries and toward the borders of Russia, led the country to define NATO as a military threat and even its number one enemy, in its new security doctrine. On the other hand, the adoption of provocative US policies toward China, especially in the last two decades, such as keeping tensions between South Korea, Japan and North Korea high in order to pressure China, has also become centerpiece of the US foreign policy During the presidencies of George Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, increasing pressure on China to limit its power has become more pronounced.
Research Question: The Main Question is: what impact has the military-industrial complex had on the US foreign policy toward Russia and China.
Research Hypothesis: The  Hypothesis  posed  the question as mentioned earlier   is  that  the flow of the military-industrial complex, using the available capacities, as well as its effective pillars, headed by military contractors, by influencing the decisions of US officials, has led to the adoption of military arms sales policies under the pretext of limiting great powers such as China and Russia. Along with the increasing trend of military contractors' incomes, it has provided the cause of discord and tension in the regions of East Asia and Eastern Europe.
Methodology (and Theoretical Framework if there are): Due to the fact that most researchers in the field of regional studies use the combined method in their research, this method will also be used in this research. In this method, both quantitative and qualitative methods are used. In the research process, the library method is used to collect data. In this method, two types of first-hand and second-hand sources are used; From first-hand sources, we can mention interviews, documents and news, and from second-hand sources, we can mention books, articles and strategic reports. In addition, due to the volume of research and related articles, Internet resources, including the sites of think tanks and research centers, have been used.
Results and discussion: One of the main reasons for the US policies cited above during the last two decades is the fulfilment of the interests of the US military-industrial complex. A trend has led the country's officials to create discord and tension in many parts of the world, including East Asia and Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the role of military contractors as one of the critical pillars of this process, which is known as to the link between other pillars of the military-industrial complex, is vital in adopting this policy. The arms industry, in the last two decades and due to the circumstances after September 11, has increased its influence, concluded heavy arms contracts and has made huge profits. At the same time, it has created military dependence in some countries in the East Asian and Eastern European regions, as well as increased tensions in these areas.
Conclusion: The Military contractors have constantly tried to persuade countries in the region to increase their “security” by threatening Russia and China. At the same time the escalation of tensions has benefited them and they have used widespread lobbying and even bribery to achieve the continuance of weapons purchases. Military arms companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, which use their close ties to US officials and influential politicians to stabilize profitability and even increase it, often sacrifice US national security. For example, the above policy shave encouraged Russia and China, to develop advanced military weapons in order to counter American power. This has sometimes been achieved by stealing the intellectual property of advanced American weaponry and has provoked protests from US officials to the extent that it is mentioned in the 2017 US National Security Strategy as a threat to the country.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • military-industrial complex
  • Conflict
  • Lockheed Martin
  • Military Contractors
  • Northrop Grumman
Alliance Ground Surveillance (2019), Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/ en/natolive/topics_48892.htm, (Accessed on: 23/2/2021)
Baldwin, David (2016), Modern Power Analysis. in: Power and International Relations: A Conceptual Approach, Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691170381.003.0002
Bradley, Robin (2019), The Contours of the United States' Shadow War, Available at: https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/americas-shadow-war-russia-china/, (Accessed on: 6/6/2019 )
Chang, Booseung (2017), A Political Earthquake in Seoul and Its Repercussions for U.S. Policy, Available at: https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/01/a-political-earthquake-in-seoul-and-its-repercussions.html, (Accessed on: 25/1/2019 )
Chossudovsky, Michel (2018), Dangerous Crossroads: Both Russia and America Prepare for Nuclear War? Available at: https://www.globalresearch.ca/ dangerous-crossroads-both-russia-and-america-prepare-for-nuclear-war/5548074, (Accessed on: 20/3/2020)
Cloughley, Brian (2018), NATO Is a Goldmine for US Weapons’ Industries. Available at: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/07/30/nato-is-goldmine-for-us-weapons-industries/, (Accessed on: 30/7/2020)
Cole, Chris (2013), Drone Proliferation in Europe: Domestic Surveillance and Unmanned Warfare, Available at: https://www.globalresearch.ca/drone-proliferation-in-europe-domestic-surveillance-and-unmanned-warfare/5335752, (Accessed on: 20/5/2019)
Cudworth, Erica and McGovern, John and Timothy, Hall (2007), The State and the Power Elite, in: The Modern State: Theories and Ideologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dahl, Robert (1958), “A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 52 , No. 2 , pp. 463 - 469. doi:10.2307/1952327
Daloz, Jane (2010), “Introduction: Elites and their Representation: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives”, Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.1 – 6. doi: 10.3167/hrrh.2010.360301
Elegant, Naomi (2020), Why China is Sanctioning Lockheed Martin. Available at: https://fortune.com/2020/07/14/china-sanctions-lockheed-martin/, (Accessed on: 25/9/2020)
Friedman, Benjamin (2011), The Survival of Dumb Ideas, Available at: https://www.cato.org/blog/survival-dumb-ideas, (Accessed on: 12/2/2019 )
Gansler, Jacques (2011), Democracy’s Arsenal: Creating a Twenty-First-Century Defense Industry, London, Engeland: The MIT Press.
Hadar, Leon (2009), With Missile Shield Change, National Interests Get a Leg Up on the Military-Industrial Complex. Available at: https://www.cato.org/ publications/commentary/missile-shield-change-national-interests-get-leg-militaryindustrial-complex, (Accessed on:22/9/2020 )
Haines, John (2016), If the Atlantic Ocean Is the New Black Sea, What’s the Black Sea? Aegis Ashore and the Black Sea Region’s Changing Security Dynamic, Available at:https://www.fpri.org/article/2016/07/atlantic-ocean-new-black-sea-whats-black-sea-aegis-ashore-black-sea-regions-changing-security-dynamic (Accessed on: 5/7/2019 )
Hartung, William (2012), The Prophets of War, Lockheed Martin and The making of the Military-Industrial Complex, New York, U.S.A: Bold Type Books.
Hartung, William (2019), The Raytheon United Technologies Merger and the Military Industrial Complex. Available at https://www.globalresearch.ca/ william-hartung-raytheon-united-technologies-military-industrial-complex/ 5688579, (Accessed on: 18/3/2020)
Hurd, Hilary (2017), Fighting Corruption Is a Security Imperative, Not a Moral Crusade. Available at: https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/edition-153/ fighting-corruption-security-imperative-not-moral-crusade, (Accessed on: 16/2/2020)
Italie, H (2014), Robert A. Dahl, Yale professor and Political Scientist Who Wrote on Democracy, dies at 98, vailable at:https://www.washingtonpost.com/ national/robert-a-dahl-yale-professor-and-political-scientist-who-wrote-on-democracy-dies-at-98/2014/02/08/505b4140-9012-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html, (Accessed on: 8/2/2020)
Johnson, Chalmers (2004), The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, New York, USA: Metropolitan Books.
Johnson, Jake (2018), Peace Is “Bad for Business”: Defence Stocks Plummet After Trump-Kim Summit, Available at:https://www.globalresearch.ca/peace-is-bad-for-business-defence-stocks-plummet-after-trump-kim-summit/5644153, (Accessed on: 14/1/2020)
Klingner, Bruce (2014), The U.S. and South Korea Should Focus on Improving Alliance Capabilities Rather Than the OPCON Transition, Available at:https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/the-us-and-south-korea-should-focus-improving-alliance-capabilities-rather, (Accessed on: 8/3/2019)
Korb, Lawrence and Ogden, Peten (2005), A Time for U.S. Diplomacy in East Asia, Available at: https ://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-time-for-u-s-diplomacy-in-east-asia/, (Accessed on: 9/5/2020)
Lofgren, Mike (2016), The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government, New York: Penguin Book.
Mazza, Michael (2019), Assessing the Utility of New Fighter Aircraft for Taiwan’s Defense Needs, Available at:https://www.aei.org/articles/ assessing-the-utility-of-new-fighter-aircraft-for-taiwans-defense-needs, (Accessed on:7/5/2019)
MCCartney, James and McCartney, Molly (2015), Americas War Machine, New York, USA: Thomas Dunne Books.
National Security Strategy of the United States of America (2017), Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf, (Accessed on: 17/3/2020)
Neill, Alexander (2010), Spears and Shields: China's 11 January Missile Defence Test. Available at:https://rusi.org/commentary/spears-and-shields-chinas-11-january-missile-defence-test, (Accessed on: 3/9/2019)
Oliker, Olga (2016), Unpacking Russia's New National Security Strategy, Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/unpacking-russias-new-national-security-strategy, (Accessed on: 14/6/2019)
Panda, Ankit (2020), Next RQ-4 Global Hawk Drones Arrive in South Korea, Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/next-rq-4-global-hawk-drones-arrive-in-south-korea/, (Accessed on: 9/2/2020)
Pavelec, Michael (2010), Military Industrial Complex and American Society, California, USA: ABC-CLIO.
Pho, Sandy (2018), The Month in US-China Relations, Available at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/the-month-us-china-relations-zhong-mei-guan-xi-yi-ge-yue-january-2018, (Accessed on: 17/1/2020)
Pieraccini, Federico (2017), The Military Industrial Complex Is Undermining US National Security, Available at: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-military-industrial-complex-is-undermining-us-national-security/5601108, (Accessed on: 23/3/2020)
Pollack, Jonathan (2016), South Korea’s THAAD Decision: Neither a Surprise nor a Provocation, Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/07/08/south-koreas-thaad-decision-neither-a-surprise-nor-a-provocation, (Accessed on: 8/7/2016)
Schmitt, Gary and Mazza, Michael (2018), The F-35: How Taiwan Could Really Push Back against China, Available at: https://www.aei.org/articles/the-f-35-how-taiwan-could-really-push-back-against-china, (Accessed on: 19/1/2020)
Thrall, trevor and Dorminey, Caroline (2018), Risky Business: The Role of Arms Sales in US Foreign Policy, Available at: https://www.cato.org/publications/ policy-analysis/risky-business-role-arms-sales-us-foreign-policy, (Accessed on: 13/3/2020)
Wall, Robert (2014), Drone Maker Northrop Grumman Eyes Europe Orders, Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/drone-maker-northrop-grumman-eyes-europe-orders/, (Accessed on: 21/8/2019)
Walters, Relay and Beleson, David (2018), This Chinese Company’s Intellectual Property Theft Is No Isolated Incident, Available at: https://www.heritage.org/ asia/commentary/chinese-companys-intellectual-property-theft-no-isolated-incident