Transcript of "Political Science 7 – International Relations - Power Point #10"
Dr. Tabakian’s Political Science 7 Modern World Governments – Spring 2013 Supplemental Power Point Material #10
LECTURE HIGHLIGHTS (1)• Spheres Of Influence• Transitional Effects• Stabilization• Spheres of Influence Makes A Nation• Communication Between Spheres• State Interdependency• Unilateral Grand Strategy• Transnational Communication• Rules Based Regimes & Organizations• The Wars Of The World• Types Of War
LECTURE HIGHLIGHTS (2)• Causes Of War• Conflicts Of Ideas• Nationalism• Ethnic Conflict• Religious Conflict• Ideological Conflict• Conflicts Of Interest• Control Of Governments• Economic Conflict
SPHERES OF INFLUENCEPolitical Science 1 examined pluralism as beingthe best theory that describes how competingspheres of influence protect minority rightsagainst majority factions. These majority factionsmay consist of individual powerful elite entities orgroups of “spheres of influence”. Alliances willform among once competing spheres in order to“check” another sphere or individual elite basethat acquires too much power. This constant“checking” as described in the “competingspheres of influence” diagram describes how thisplays out in all systems. Individual spheres ofinfluence are always on the alert for one of theirpeers assuming too much power. This argumentalso applies to International Relations. Justreplace these spheres with nation-states.
TRANSITIONAL EFFECTSCompetition among spheres of interest produces great returns forhumanity. The constant strive for marketplace acceptance has resulted inAmerica progressing from a predominantly agricultural society to anindustrial, nuclear, and information based society. The United States isunique in that it excels in more than one particular capitalist endeavor.Innovation has led to advancements that have greatly influenced everyaspect of society. Society has benefited from constant advancements inenergy harvesting, computers, communication, water purification,medicine and all other areas not listed for the list would be enormous.Every significant discovery has in turn greatly influenced societal normsof behavior. Masses today view internet communications as a vitalnecessity. It is nearly impossible to operate in a complex society withouteasy access to the web. The majority of masses did not have this belieffifteen years ago. Only society determining that the internet allowed forgreater efficiency was it adopted as a societal norm. Those not willing toadapt became obsolete.
STABILIZATIONSudden instability is the greatest threat to humanity for itthreatens to cause irreparable harm to the individual. Onemay never consider harming another person in a state ofnature. Elimination of one’s sustenance throws the individualinto a state of war, because their survival is now threatened.Nation-states consist of multiple spheres of interest in turnconsisting of individual units consisting of people. As survivalis the primary goal of man, so it is the ultimate pursuit ofnation-states. The primary concern is that of stability. Thisphilosophy has prevented a major war from taking place overthe last sixty years. Instability is the primary cause of allconflict both within and between nation-states.
SPHERES OF INFLUENCE MAKES A NATIONSpheres consist of individuals whoshare a common set of interestsand/or belief systems. Individualparticipants are the absolute micro-level of every sphere. Here are someexamples of spheres: family, work,school, political parties, and religion.Different spheres of influencecommunicate with one anotherthrough the individual who is amember of those same spheres.Various societal interactions influenceindividual behavior.
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SPHERES(1)Communication is essential between spheres of interest toprevent misunderstandings. A good example of this wouldbe a nation-state undertaking a war games exercise near itsborder. Bordering states would be naturally concerned,perhaps to the point of contacting political leaders in thestate conducting these games. Let us presume thatcommunication lines were down due to some technical error.This situation may lead those bordering states to launchdefensive measures to an eminent offensive attack. Thisargument carries over from transparency theory, whichargues that the United States in particular discloses itspolitical, economic, and military policies and powercapacities to prevent misunderstanding among itsinternational peers.
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SPHERES (2)Communication essentially maintains open lines ofcommunications to prevent all actions, especially those thatare peaceful, being misconstrued. Imagine if you will that,the “red line” between Russia and the United Statescollapsed due to a technological glitch. Now let us presumethat a satellite being rocketed into space went off coursetowards Moscow. What would convince Russian militaryleaders that the rocket’s payload was not a nuclearwarhead? Communication helps to preventmisunderstandings that in turn could spell disaster.
STATE INTERDEPENDENCY (1)Societal interdependence addresses situations in whichevents within one society affect events in another.Government involvement in instigating these events doesnot have to take place for this to occur. Transnationalrelations helped to encourage interdependency betweenstates. Nation-states interdependent on one anotherpresented each with economic and political trade-offswhereas gains in one may lead to the weakening of another.Economic gains that may be derived from external sourcesthat are able to produce them more efficiently while onlyretaining those industries that are efficient may allow a stateto achieve higher overall productivity. This comes at a pricewhen a state becomes so dependent on foreign sources ofgoods that it affects how its foreign policy is conducted.
STATE INTERDEPENDENCY (2)As a state becomes more interdependent on one another italso serves to prevent it from acting overly aggressiveagainst those states that it has become dependent.Interdependence reversed the low levels of politicaloptimism beginning in the 1970s that established linkagesbetween the West, Latin America, and Asia and culminatedwith the collapse of the Soviet Union.
STATE INTERDEPENDENCY (3)Simple interdependency is morphing into a complexinterdependence that was uniting economic and political interests ofstates into one cohesive block. War among the advanced statesbecame unthinkable as interdependence made it ever more costly.Interdependent world of liberal-democratic states can at some pointin time lead to world peace. Regardless of these economic forces,security concerns as well as the drive for national honor canoverrule the costs associated with breaking linkages. Countries thatwish to attract foreign investments or accrue technologicalinnovations have to wear a “golden straitjacket”. This is a set ofpolicies that include balanced budgets, economic deregulation, freetrade, a stable currency and most importantly an overalltransparency so that people can predict the overall direction of acountry.
STATE INTERDEPENDENCY (4)Societal and economic interdependence can interlink thedomestic policies of two nation-states. Take the example ofCanada and the United States. The high degree of societalinterdependence assures that Canada will be strongly affectedby American policies. The most powerful nation-state canmore affect the policies of another country interdependent onits society as the US and Canada example shows.
STATE INTERDEPENDENCY (5)Underlying most analyses of world politics and internationalorganization is the state-centric approach. This makes twoassumptions:(1) Governments remain the most significant actors in world politics.(2) Governments are unified actors. Transgovernmental is a reference to direct interactions between agencies (government subunits) of different governments where those agencies act relatively autonomously from central governmental control.
UNILATERALISM OR MULTILATERALISM? (1)There are policymakers within the United States calling foran end to multilateralism. The US has won not only theCold War, but has surpassed every nation in terms ofpolitical, economic and military power. This position allowsthe US to act unilaterally without much repercussion.History has shown that even the most powerful states canachieve greater advantages in the long run by supportingand operating within an international system of rules andinstitutions. History has shown that the most powerfulcountries are able to author the rules of the game as itpertains to international rules and institutions. America isin a far better position if it continues to work within thesystem it created.
UNILATERALISM OR MULTILATERALISM? (2)America may be the most powerful nation on Earth, but itshould not rely solely on its power to achieve its objectivesfor doing so is short-sighted and dangerous in the long run. Itdoes not matter who sits in the White House or whichpolitical party controls the government. America is walkingdown a path of unilateralism that hegemonic powersnormally accepted as its fate. This results in a hegemonic ledpower-based international order. History has shown that thisdirection will at some time lead to the destruction of thoseempires that act unilaterally. There are three reasons whythe United States should support multilateralism and rule-based order: the functional demands of interdependence, thelong-term calculations of power managements, andAmerica’s political tradition and identity.
UNIVERSAL GRAND STRATEGY (1)America has entered into a new paradigm as she feels thather obligations to its partners and international rules shehelped construct have subsided. She has begin to play amore unilateral role in areas aside from merely seekingterrorists or confronting rogue states that seek tomanufacture or traffic weapons of mass destruction. Thereare seven elements that help make up this “grand strategy”.1. America commits itself to maintaining a unipolar world that can never have a peer competitor.2. A new analysis of global threats and how they should be handled.
UNIVERSAL GRAND STRATEGY (2)3. The Cold War concept of deterrence is outdated. Deterrence, sovereignty and the balance of power work together. This is exemplified with the Bush administration’s security doctrine that makes clear that the US now claims the absolute right to preemptively attack any nation or entity that is deemed to be a risk to its national security.4. This new strategy requires a new definition of sovereignty for the US has declared its right to act unilaterally to preemptively enter into any territory “anywhere, anytime” to destroy any threat. It is not a new situation for great powers to transgress on the affairs of sovereign governments, but this was only true within a given sphere of influence. What is new now is that the Bush administration has decided to apply this on a global basis.
UNIVERSAL GRAND STRATEGY (3)5. The deprecation of international rules, treaties, and security partnerships.6. America will have to remain able to respond to any threat. This belief is based on the realization that there exists no other country or coalition on the planet that has the force- projection capabilities of the US.7. There is a sense among the unilateralists that past traditions of multilateral cooperation has been rendered obsolete.
TRANSNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONTransnational communication and shared civicvalues have played a distinct role in erodingnational loyalties, creating radical strains ofpolitical association that focus on internationallaw and other normative principles that focus oninternational concerns. Changing the interests ofpolitical actors from the domestic to internationalhelps to alter the direction of their actions.
RULES BASED REGIMES & ORGANIZATIONS (1)Liberal institutionalists are not concerned whetherinstitutions help thwart conflict, but they do pursue theclaim that states cooperate when doing so does notcontradict its self-interests. The theory is found todisregards security issues, instead focusing on economicand environment issues. Liberal institutionalism is basedon the postulation that international politics is split intotwo camps: security and political economy, but its theoryconcerns political economy. Cooperation is more likelywhen the issue is economic.
RULES BASED REGIMES & ORGANIZATIONS (2)Regimes contain sets of implicit or explicit principles,norms, rules, and decision-making procedures based onthe expectations of those participating actors regardingareas of concern pertaining to international relations.Regimes seek to eliminate many of the risks or costs thatstates face when dealing with other actors. Prisoner’sDilemma theory presents a good argument to how statesact when agreements go against their own self-interest.Non-state actors are going to play an increased role ininternational relations as economic-technologicalinterdependence continues to assume greaterdominance in the world. This situation will furtherencourage non-state actors to compete with nation-states themselves to further exploit world resources.
RULES BASED REGIMES & ORGANIZATIONS (3)Susan Strange argues, “The progressive integration ofthe world economy, through international production, hasshifted the balance of power away from states andtoward world markets.” Strange offers three schemes tobackup her argument: first, “power has shifted upwardfrom weak states to stronger ones that in turn haveglobal or regional reach”; second, “power has shiftedsideways from states to markets and thus to non-stateauthorities deriving power from their market shares”;third, “some power has evaporated with no oneexercising it.”
THE WARS OF THE WORLD• Largest contemporary wars: – Iraq – Western Sudan (Darfur) – Afghanistan• Of the 11 wars, all but Chechnya (Russia) are in the global South.• All but Colombia are in a zone of active fighting spanning parts of Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East.• Most peace agreements in the world’s postwar zones are holding up.
TYPES OF WAR (1)• Hegemonic war: – War over control of the entire world order – the rules of the international system as a whole, including the role of world hegemony. – Last hegemonic war was World War II. – Likely that due to the power of modern weaponry, this kind of war could not occur any longer without destroying civilization.
TYPES OF WAR (2)• Total war: – Warfare by one state waged to conquer and occupy another. – Goal is to reach the capital city and force the surrender of the government, which can then be replaced with one of the victor’s choosing. – Napoleonic Wars. – Evolved with industrialization, which further integrated all of society and economy into the practice of war. – Last total war: World War II.
TYPES OF WAR (3)• Limited war – Includes military actions carried out to gain some objective short of the surrender and occupation of the enemy. – War to retake Kuwait from Iraq (1991). – Raids • Limited wars that consist of a single action. • Raiding that is repeated or fuels a cycle of retaliation usually becomes a limited war that is sometimes called a low-intensity conflict.
TYPES OF WAR (4)• Civil war: – Refers to war between factions within a state trying to create, or prevent, a new government for the entire state or some territorial part of it. – U.S. Civil War of the 1960s - secessionist civil war. – El Salvador in the 1980s - civil war for control over the entire state. – May often be among the most brutal wars.
TYPES OF WAR (5)• Guerrilla war: – Includes certain types of civil wars; is warfare without front lines. – Irregular forces operate in the midst of, and often hidden or protected by, civilian populations. – Purpose is not to confront an enemy army but rather to harass and punish it so as to gradually limit its operation and effectively liberate territory from its control.
TYPES OF WAR (6)War is never pretty. Multiplemethods of engagement arenecessary in order to pacify anenemy. The GenevaConvention maintains strictguidelines to warfare. Itidentifies acceptable methodsof killing, the rights of prisonersof war (POWs), etc. Unusualmethods include acts of terroragainst civilians. This videoexamines the morality of rapeas a method of warfare.
CAUSES OF WAR (1)• The question of why war breaks out can be approached in different ways. – Descriptive approaches – Theoretical approaches• Broad generalizations about the causes of war have been elusive.• Wars do not have a single or simple cause.• Levels of analysis can help us organize theories of war.
CAUSES OF WAR (2)• On the individual level of analysis, theories about war center on rationality. – One theory, consistent with realism, holds that the use of war and other violent means of leverage in international conflicts is normal and reflects rational decisions of national leaders: that “wars begin with conscious and reasoned decisions based on the calculation, made by both parties, that they can achieve more by going to war than by remaining at peace.” – An opposite theory that conflicts often escalate to war because of deviations from rationality in the individual decision-making processes of national leaders. – Neither theory holds up well.
CAUSES OF WAR (3)• The domestic level of analysis draws attention to the characteristics of states or societies that may make them more or less prone to use violence in resolving conflicts.
CAUSES OF WAR (4)• Theories at the interstate level explain wars in terms of power relations among actors in the international system. – Power transition theory holds that conflicts generate large wars at times when power is relatively equally distributed and a rising power is threatening to overtake a declining hegemon in overall position. – Deterrence – stop wars by building up power and threatening its use. – Theory of arms race – wars are caused, not prevented by such actions. – No general formula has been discovered to tell us in what circumstances each of these principles holds true.
CAUSES OF WAR (5)• At the global level of analysis, a number of theories of war have been proposed.• Several variations on the idea that major warfare in the international system is cyclical. – One approach links wars with long economic waves in the world economy (~50 years) – Another approach links the largest wars with a 100- year cycle based on the creation and decay of world orders.• These cycle theories at best can explain only general tendencies toward war in the international system.• Theory of linear long-term change: war as an outcome of conflict is becoming less likely over time due to the worldwide development of both technology and international norms.
CONFLICTS OF IDEAS• Six types of international conflict: – Ethnic – Religious – Ideological – Territorial – Governmental – Economic• Most difficult types of conflict have intangible elements such as ethnic hatred, religious fervor, or ideology – all conflicts of ideas.• These identity-based sources of international conflict today have been shaped historically by nationalism – link between identity and internationally recognized statehood.
NATIONALISM• Devotion to the interests of one’s own nation over others. – May be the most important force in world politics in the past two centuries. – Nationality is a difficult concept to define precisely.• Historical development of “nationalism”. – Principle of self-determination.
ETHNIC CONFLICT (1)• Quite possibly the most important source of conflict in the numerous wars now occurring throughout the world.• Ethnic groups: – Large groups of people who share ancestral, language, cultural, or religious ties and a common identity. – Often form the basis for nationalist sentiments.• Territorial control.
ETHNIC CONFLICT (2)• Lack of a home state. – Kurds.• Redrawing of borders by force.• Outside states worry about the fate of “their people.” – Albania.• Genocide: – Systematic extermination of ethnic or religious groups in whole or in part. – Sudan. – Rwanda.
ETHNIC CONFLICT (3)• Causes of ethnic hostility – Longstanding historical conflicts over specific territories or natural resources, or exploitation or political domination of another – Ethnocentrism – Dehumanization – Global identity in the future?
RELIGIOUS CONFLICT (1)• Because religion is the core of a community’s value system in much of the world, people whose religious practices differ are easily disdained and treated as unworthy or even inhuman. – Fundamentalist movements – Secular political organizations
RELIGIOUS CONFLICT (2)•Islamist movements•Armed Islamist groups•Afghanistan•Pakistan•Saudi Arabia•Palestine•Sudan•Algeria•Chechnya
IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT• Ideology symbolizes and intensifies conflicts between groups and states more than it causes them. – Because they have a somewhat weaker hold on core values and absolute truth than religions do, they pose somewhat fewer problems for the international system. – China Maoist communism in 1949; Russia’s Leninist communism in 1917, U.S. democracy in 1776. – Angola.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (1)• Territorial disputes: – Means of controlling territory – primarily military. – Secession – province or region leaving an existing state. – Ethnic cleansing - driving out or massacre of designated ethnic population. – Interstate borders: • Role of the norm of territorial integrity. – Lingering disputes – Israeli borders; Kashmir; Peru & Ecuador; Spratly Islands. – Territorial waters – part of national territory. – Airspace.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (2)As Brazil continues to develop, moreand more of the rainforest is cleared tomake room for new farms, producingcattle and soybeans for world markets.This economic expansion threatensthe very existence of the EnaweneNawe, as their traditional lifestyle andculture is destroyed. At the same time,deforestation in the Brazilian Amazonalso releases greenhouse gassessequestered in the trees of therainforest, increasing the threat ofglobal warming.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (3)Nigeria’s experience with oil has not beena positive one. While the oil industry hasprovided significant export earnings, oilproduction has been accompanied byrising ethnic inequality, environmentaldegradation, rapid urbanization, and—from1966-1970—even civil war. In addition,declining oil prices in the early 1980s led toa collapse in export earnings, fuelingNigeria’s debt crisis and forcing thecountry to undergo structural adjustment. Afurther decline in global oil prices in 1986pushed Nigeria into a recession fromwhich it has yet to recover. Yet,multinational oil companies continue toinvest in Nigerian production.
CONTROL OF GOVERNMENTS• Most struggles to control territory do not involve changing borders.• They are conflicts over which governments will control entire states.• International conflicts over the control of governments – along with territorial disputes – are likely to lead to the use of violence.
ECONOMIC CONFLICT (1)• Economic competition is the most pervasive form of conflict in international relations because economic transactions are pervasive.• Such transactions contain a strong element of mutual economic gain. – Usually do not lead to military force and war. – But this was not always the case historically.
ECONOMIC CONFLICT (2)• Economic conflict seldom leads to violence today because military forms of leverage are no longer very effective in economic conflicts. – Mercantilism. – Lateral pressure.• Drug trafficking.
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.