×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to BRANDEIS - Study Guide - Final
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to BRANDEIS - Study Guide - Final

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

BRANDEIS / OTHER / POL 15A / Classical realism is a theory of what?

Classical realism is a theory of what?

Classical realism is a theory of what?

Description

FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE


Classical realism is a theory of what?



Monday, December 3, 2018 4:57 PM

Final Exam Essay Tips

Make an argument using Part 1 theory, back it up with Part 2 history and 1 Part 3 global trend/issue Know the people, terms, theory associated with the topic(s) of the essay question

Address counterarguments/alternative opinions

Underline thesis

ANSWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTION, don’t just throw everything you know into the essay

PRACTICE writing an outline to answer potential questions

Questions will most likely require you to COMPARE/CONTRAST/RELATE historical events, WHY they happened using  THEORY

PART 1: THEORY

Realism  

Importance of POWER

Less optimistic/ambitious about what can be achieved b/c of constraints of reality

Classical realism 

Looks at nature of human nature to explain what humans can achieve, severe limits to what can be  achieved b/c of human nature 


what is the absence of government called?



Points out difficulties of applying morality to politics

Key classical realists:

Morgenthau  

Inherent evilness of politics  

Founded American school of realism

Wrote "scientific man vs. power politics"

6 principles of political realism

Neorealism, structural realism 

Structure of international system is ANARCHIC

Anarchy: absence of govt (political body w/ legitimacy and power to resolve disputes)

Say there is fundamental difference between domestic politics - where there is a higher power - and  international politics - where there isn't 

All political systems use coercion and need legitimacy

For international politics, there tends to be less legitimacy and more coercion

Neorealists say anarchic system is tragic b/c states are forced to do things, even if they are not  "inherently bad" 


balance of power refers to what?



Self-help

States as primary actor - most important actors, but not ONLY actors

i.e. international organizations, terrorist groups are other actors

Importance of relative position 

b/c no bigger protector, states must get power themselves and check against others We also discuss several other topics like university of delaware philosophy

i.e. arms races don't make sense economically, but politically it is to increase political power Operation of balance of power 

Always going to have anarchy, b/c each state will continually try to get more power, so no state will  dominate 

Offensive realism

Mearsheimer - power is GOAL of states

Defensive realism

Jervis - power as means to achieve security

 Intrnl Relations Page 1 We also discuss several other topics like which of the following is the largest and most complex diarthrosis in the body

Jervis - power as means to achieve security

Morgenthau's Six Principles of Political Realism  

1. Human nature is fixed, so we can learn from history, b/c human nature is a constant variable a. View of history is cyclical, like a sine curve - no net progress

2. Statespeople act on basis of their and state's interest defined in terms of power a. concerned w/ relative power compared to others

3. Concept of interest defined as power does not have a meaning fixed once and for all  4. tension b/n moral command and requirements of political action

5. Realism refuses to identify moral aspirations of a particular nation w/ moral laws that govern universe

a.

i.e. case of U.S., where Americans sometimes feel that U.S. gets involved in too many foreign affairs under  idea that U.S. has best political system, morals etc. 

6. Realism maintains autonomy of political sphere

a. Politics exists independently from economics

Liberalism 

accept anarchic world, but lessen conflicts by creating institutions (rules of the game), cooperation b/n states -more ambitious about what can be achieved

Anarchy makes it hard for states to cooperate BUT We also discuss several other topics like chthonic monsters
If you want to learn more check out Who developed Anaconda Plan?

-human-created institutions can change and better human political condition, solutions Classical liberalism 

Can better human condition and achieve more, even though there are international limitations Institution of free trade

Make states rich, less likely to fight

Key classical liberals:

Free traders 

Woodrow Wilson 

National self-determination

Non-zero sum 

Both parties can win

Contrast to realist zero-sum view

Integrationalism  

Economies are integrated w/ one another

Country A's economy does well, country B's economy does well Don't forget about the age old question of csci2100

Economic integration "spills over" into political integration

Neoliberal institutionalism, institutionalism

Regime - stable set of expectations, norms, (believed to be legitimate)  

Reciprocity - state is willing to some short-term interests, expecting other states will do the same Short term risk, hoping can induce other state to do same --> cooperative outcome We also discuss several other topics like time spent ensuring that the product is not defective is referred to as

Collective action problem - cooperation of all actors is required to obtain solution

Or "commons problem" - problem involves everyone, requires everyone to cooperate i.e. global warming

Collective action failure 

Type 1 

Failure to cooperate; states involved don't cooperate for long-term --> no solution

Paris Accords of 2016 - U.S. and China agreed to cooperate

Type 2 

Free-riding

 Intrnl Relations Page 2

Free-riding

Weighty actors aren't prepared to pay cost of solving problem, while other actors free-ride (pay none  or not all of their share) 

i.e. NATO alliance - U.S. spends more on military than other countries, in order to also protect  those countries 

Stag hung analogy 

20 people are closing in on a stag in a circle, but everyone has to do their part for it to work Capturing stag will provide food for each person for 1 month

Suppose 2 people see a hare and break off from the circle

Hare provides food for 5 days

Because of the deserters, the circle is broken, and the stag escapes

*people tend to forgo long term benefits for short term benefits - same applies to states

Functions of institutions

1. Regulative functions

a. Facilitate info flow

b. Monitoring and compliance

2. Constitutive

a. Alter state strategies and change state interactive outcomes

b. Alter state def of self-interest

Constructivism 

Structure is socially constructed

Humans made it they so can change it

Wendt - "anarchy is what states make of it"

Roles, interests, identities are changeable

Applicable in civil war, where each side believes the other has a different identity

"if we think differently, we can change" - role of ideas

I.e. nuclear taboo

Conventional idea that nuclear weapons are different than regular ones

This idea deters nuclear war  

Gendered approach 

Most of international relations writings have been authored by white males

Limited view on international politics, because only offers male views  

Need a different approach -->feminist view

Feminist view 

Dynamic objectivity (feminist) vs. unchangeable objectivity (masculine)

Power/domination is masculine  

Fukuyama  

There are distinct biological differences between men and women - difference in nature due to genetics Hunters (men) vs gatherers (women)

These roles have extended into human nature today

To deny the differences between men and women is foolhardy

Have to note the differences between men and women to design institutions to work around male human nature Tickner 

Nothing is objective, everything is result of nature+nature

Don't have to accept Morgenthau's principles of political realism

TOPIC 2: The National Interest and Levels of Analysis

Level 3 - State System 

Competitive pressures of state system and the outcome

 Intrnl Relations Page 3

Competitive pressures of state system and the outcome

Neorealism

Neoliberal institutionalism

Balance of power

i.e. Great Britain's foreign policy for 300 yrs was to be the power balancer in the world

It fortified its navy

Reinforced good relationships with Belgium and the Netherlands because those were easy points to  invade Britain from 

International institutions

Economic interdependence

Level 2 - Type of Government, Regime in Power 

If a state has a democratic government…

Democratic peace theory (*see notes further in the study guide for more details)

States that are democracies are not likely to go to war with each other

Doesn't really apply to war between democracy and non-democracy

Bureaucratic politics (BPP)

Interest of various bureaucratic parties interact

i.e. national treasury, intelligence agency

Do political forces (i.e. government party) control foreign policy?

i.e. Germany - Alliance of Iron and Rye

Aristocratic class vs younger generation  

Made Germany much more aggressive  

Level 3 - Individual Decision Maker 

Constructivism

What is the view/ideas of one state's leader? What's inside his/her head?

i.e. Appeasement - due to leader's background/beliefs?

Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) 

Fellow democracies don't go to war w/ each other

Not that democracies don't go to war at all

*illiberal democracy: state that is officially a democracy, but is not really

Dyad: 2 states interacting w/ each other

DD (democratic dyad) - democracy vs. democracy

DND (democracy-non-democracy) - democracy vs. non-democracy

NDND (non-democracy-non-democracy) -non-democracy vs. non-democracy

Why don't DD go to war?

Structural argument

Doyle revived Kant's ideas

If you have a monarchy, the nobility decides if war happens or not

If you have a liberal republic, where ppl elect officials (representative govt) who want peace, ppl will vote  for peace 

b/c ppl bear the brunt of taxes and cost of war

Normative argument

Democracies share a liberal sympathy

One democracy says, "this democracy looks like me, they govern and follow the rule of law" More likely to trust one another b/c they operate thru same system

So the democracies can negotiate (b/c they have similar interests) w/out war

Proponents of DPT say there hasn't been war b/n 2 democracies since 1815 - strong claim

Weaker claim says 2 democracies are historically less likely to engage in war

How to evaluate DPT?

 Intrnl Relations Page 4

How to evaluate DPT?

Critique of structural argument  

Democracies are NOT less warlike

Democracies set on war are ruthless - don't care about civilian casualties, systematic killing - not "nice" "structural record can't be right" b/c historical record shows the contrary

Examples of DD going to war

War of 1812: US vs. Great Britain

1861-65 U.S. Civil War

Ruhr Crisis 1923 (Weimar Germany)

1914: Germany vs. U.S. and France

Largest party in Germany was a social democratic

Represented interests of working class, had large budget

Germany underwent rapid industrialization --> formation of social democratic party

England in 1914 didn't look much different than Germany in 1914, w/ regard to "democracy - like  characteristics" 

Elite control in both countries looked similar

U.S. during Cold War

Went around overthrowing democratically elected leaders, especially in Latin America

Critique of normative argument

Before 1945, there were few democracies and they were largely removed from each other So no wonder there were few wars b/n democracies

During Cold War, most democratic states were in alliance w/ U.S. b/c they didn't want to fight one another or U.S. "sat  on them" not to go to war w/ one another 

There have been "near misses" w/ 2 democracies

Venezuelan war - 1894

Brits were threatening to wage war in area

U.S. said to get out b/c this was "U.S. hemisphere"

Reason didn't get war…

b/c Brit admiral told prime minister that he wasn't sure Britain could win

Not b/c of "liberal democratic sympathy" but b/c of military advantage

Arguments for DPT

COW data - correlator of war project

War: 2 parties using military force against one another -->more than 1000 battle deaths (civilian or military) 0-999 battle deaths --> not a war

=militarized interstate dispute (MID)

MID are 30 times more numerous

DD experience less MID

Categories of Interests  

What motivates a state to make the decisions it does?

Security interests 

protect homeland from attack, invasion, destruction, and protect its own political sovereignty (lev3&2) sphere of influence: a country in another country's "sphere of influence" has given up some of its political  sovereignty 

Political leaders often use term "security interest" to gain support, b/c general population thinks political leaders  know better and defer if policies look like they will succeed 

Term's definition is often stretched to fit agenda of political leaders

Economic interests  

welfare, material well-being, national advantage, competitiveness in economy (levels 2&3)  Intrnl Relations Page 5

welfare, material well-being, national advantage, competitiveness in economy (levels 2&3) i.e. technology (China 2025)

i.e. Trade War - which state is going to command the world economy?

Economic power directly related to military power

i.e. Soviet Union had weak economy, couldn't supply the military

Economic interdependence can trigger competition and conflict b/n states

Globalization produces "winners" and "losers"

Different states will benefit different amounts --> changing relative positions

Domestic interests  

re-election, political support (levels 2A&B)

Degree of political support leaders can get from the population

The public likes style, flashy actions of leaders

Individual decision makers  

ideological, psychological, individual motivation (levels 2 and 2A&B)

Important when leader's ideas weigh very heavily on actions and worldview

Public generally defers to political leaders, so leaders could push their own agenda very heavily Psychology of actor

Misperception: incorrectly inferring intensions of an actor from his/her actions

i.e. in week before German attack, Brits were telling Stalin that Soviet needed to prepare itself from  attack from the Germans 

Stalin didn't listen, b/c was convinced of strength of Hitler-Stalin pact made earlier

Stalin dismissed evidence provided b/c he didn't believe Germans would act the way they did i.e. during Korean War

Chinese told U.S. not to go over the latitude b/n North and South Korea, b/c Chinese didn't want a  unified Korea 

U.S. misperceived Chinese's intentions - thought it was a bluff

But Mao was serious, crossing the latitude would mean war b/n U.S. and China

Why do misperceptions happen?  

States perceive what they expect

If have a fixed image of a different state, will not register new information about that state -->  mistakes 

We are reluctant to give up fixed images of the world - images are slow to change

Wishful thinking: try to pick the least worst alternative, tend to convert something infeasible  into something feasible 

German chancellor needed Brits to stay out of WWI, so could crush Serbia  

German chancellor used wishful thinking

Based on 300 yrs of history prior, Brits would not stand by while another rising power  

tried to conquer more of Europe 

Rear-imaging: think other side will not do something, based on what you wouldn't do in their  situation 

i.e. Israelis thought Arabs wouldn't attack w/out air superiority, b/c the Israelis wouldn't  

attack w/out air superiority 

Bureaucratic Politics Paradigm

How much power do individual leaders (i.e. chancellor, prime minister, president) have over their own  house/government, to get what he/she wants? 

Leaders can't get what they want all the time, they have to rely on the bureaucracy to carry out the policy i.e. JFK wanted missiles in Turkey

JFK wanted bureaucracy to do X, but bureaucracy didn't want to

b/c presidents can't command, have to persuade - have to compete for bureaucracy  

Professor thinks prez can get what he/she wants if the issues are seen as the main legacy of the  president 

 Intrnl Relations Page 6

*Security interests tend to dominate when faced against economic, domestic, and individual decision interests i.e. Soviet Union and U.S. acted on the same side during WWI

Trade Wars don't make sense from an economic standpoint - so why do they still happen? For political power

If consumption > production = trade deficit

i.e. Trump's economic policy, tax cuts

Leaders tend to define security interests very broadly

TOPIC 3 - Anarchy: Conflict and Cooperation

Tenets of neorealism  

International relations is anarchic

States are most important actors

States seek to survive

Offensive neorealists

Waltz, Meashimer 

States seek to maximize economic and military power -->maximize relative position

b/c the stronger you are, the more secure you are - other states are less likely to attack you Difference b/n maximize and suffice

Suffice: get just enough

Maximize: look at every possible outcome and choose the best one - more exhausting b/c then state would send everyone to work on producing military resources

Individuals, and so states, tend to seek sufficiency

Defensive neorealists

States seek to survive, but also want other things, i.e. wealth

Waltz and Structural Approach (Neorealist) 

Structure looks at the underlying features of a situation

For Waltz, underlying features are:

1. Ordering principle

a. How power influence is organized

2. Functions of units

a. Waltz says can drop this principle in comparing b/n international states

3. Distribution of capabilities

a. How power is concentrated

1. Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar 

International Politics

1. Anarchic

1) No central govt - no formal subordinate/superior relationship w/ one another

2. Incomplete specialization of units

1) All states have to do some of the same things - some of the same interests

a) Common defense, economic growth

2) Self-help world - nobody to call for help w/ certain areas

Domestic politics

1. Hierarchy

1)

Have a government - political unit that has a legitimate monopoly in a defined area, has  coercive power 

2. Extensive specialization

1) Units have some kind of security, so are free to specialize

a)

i.e. Prof Art doesn't have to worry about security (like needing to carry a gun) so he can  specialize and focus on teaching 

b) b/c security is provided by govt

 Intrnl Relations Page 7

The Rules of the Game in Anarchy (Neorealist View) 

1. Self-help characterizes behavior

2. Strategic interaction characterizes state behavior

a. Oligopolistic world vs. pure competition

i. Oligopolistic - a few large sellers (i.e. 4-6) have a large share of the market

1) Strategy of one actor depends on strategy of another actor

ii. Pure competition: no individual buyer/seller can affect equilibrium price

b. IR looks kind of like an oligopolistic world - a few great powers

3. States confront the security dilemma (dilemma: both choices are bad)

a. Success of one state's strategy depends on other states' strategy

b. Security dilemma is due to offense-defense balance and differentiation (see below) c. Reason 1 for security dilemma: Steps one state takes to increase its security adversely affects other states i. State A takes action against state B, which overall affects state C

ii. States who are initiating security measures say it's for defensive measures

1) But is the weapon really just for defensive use? Could be used for offensive use

a)

i.e. if U.S. can disarm missiles, maybe nuclear ones -->shakes MAD (mutual assured  destruction) 

d. Reason 2 for security dilemma: Difference b/n intentions and capabilities 

i. Leaders and their ideas will change - impossible to know intentions of future leaders ii. You can't afford to neglect the actions of others in a self-help world - you have to take action 1) Arms races

a) i.e. State A and state B were at same relative position

b) But then state A increases military

i)

Should state B increase military power, spending $, to be at same relative position  w/ state A it was before? 

ii) If state B doesn't want to spend money, state A will have higher relative position One. Doesn't make sense from economic POV, bc high cost for not much benefit 2) Trade wars

a) If state A can sell to a market but another state can't, state A has advt

i)

State A protects industries and sells to a market state B doesn't have the industries  for 

b) Tariffs on my goods in your market

i) If not, allowing you to increase your economy  

3) Security wars

a) All the parties are presented w/ a choice - not happy choice

i) i.e. Britain - enter WWI to prevent rising Germany?  

One. Would be costly, battle casualties

ii) If not enter, would have to possibly face Germany later

e.

Best way to avoid security dilemma is for first state not to take the initial action to increase its relative  power 

4. States focus on short term relative position, not long term absolute gain 

a. States that are insecure will focus on how gain is distributed - who will gain more?

b. Gaps in gain

i. Where are states placed on the ally-adversary continuum?

1) Less sensitive to allies gaining than adversary gaining

ii. The domain in which competition occurs

1) Security - survival

2) Economic - wealth

a) "defense is more important than opulence"

3) Depends on state's power projectory  

a) Is the state's power rising or decreasing?

i) If state's power is increasing, will be less sensitive to changes in other states' power

 Intrnl Relations Page 8

i) If state's power is increasing, will be less sensitive to changes in other states' power

ii)

If state's power is decreasing or constant, will be more sensitive to other states'  change in power 

4) Power resources across domains

a) i.e. Trump said steel and aluminum is not just for economic interests, but also for military 5. Moral behavior is difficult

6. Anarchy socializes and homogenizes behavior 

a. APE what is successful (economic success)

i. Other states tend to adopt what made other state economically successful

ii. If everyone adopts the same policies, nobody will have an advt anymore

1) Prussians analyzed source of their defeat  

Decided they needed a central planning staff

a)

When other states saw Prussians using a successful general staff system to increase its  military output, 

b) Other states adopted the general staff system too

2) Japanese inventory system - "just in time" inventory

a) Didn't stockpile all the car parts like the Americans

b) Brought the parts to the factory "just in time" to produce cars

i) Which cut car costs

7. There is no automatic harmony in anarchy

8. Anarchy is functional (self-perpetuating) 

a. Two ways to get out of anarchy - two ways to form a world govt i. Conquest - one state conquers all the others

1) i.e. "Roman option"

2) World is too big now for the Roman option

a) U.S. is not a hegemon, is a superpower

ii. Consent

1) States voluntarily yield to their sovereignty to a higher authority a) U.S. created a supranatural govt

b)

Based on the states' fear that confederation (system of individual states) would be  stronger than federal govt - i.e. 13 small countries would be strong than 1 big country i) i.e. turn out like Europe (small countries squabbling and fighting wars) ii) Or be taken advt of by Europe

b. If both conquest and consent options are not going to happen…

i. Anarchy is the only option

Offense-defense balance

Does the offense or defense have the advantage?

If offense has advt, its easier to defeat someone else's army and take their territory than to defend Increased reaction to international tension

"reciprocal fear of surprise attack" --> countries will want to attack first instead of sitting around and waiting for  others to attack them first 

Wars are believed to be quick, decisive victories

Incentives for increases in arms, quick and strong reactions to those increases in arms

States have to find allies in advance

States will arm themselves against other states, mistakenly believing that others are hostile

Ex. Germany in WWI

Germany perceived offense as advt, "war was seen as best route to expand and avoid losing influence"

If defense has advt, easier to defend territory than to destroy other's army and take territory  Increasing security of one state only slightly decreases security of others --> stability, possible cooperation Wars are likely to be stalemate

Aggression could be next to impossible --> making intl anarchy not that important

 Intrnl Relations Page 9

Aggression could be next to impossible --> making intl anarchy not that important

Geographical barriers favor the defense

"if one side increases its arms, the other can bring its security back up to its previous level by adding a smaller amount ot its forces…stable equilibrium will be reached" 

*what's important: can states distinguish if the world is more offensively or defensively dominated? If not, problems happen

When defense was believed to be advt but was not the case

Brits + French thought defense would continue to be advt after trench warfare of WWI

So they relaxed their military position

And were not prepared to face Hitler in WWII

Offense-defense differentiation

Can defensive weapons/policies be distinguished from offensive ones?

If can be distinguished, possible for a state to increase its security w/out making others less secure Security dilemma no longer applies

Conflict due to misperceptions about other states' intentions won't happen as much

But it can be hard to distinguish

b/c can depend on perception influenced by culture, background of leaders

But even when differentiation is possible, states will still want offensive weapons sometimes If offensive advt over defensive is too large

To regain territory  

State may feel its necessary to attack of other side won't make peace unless it loses territory Some weapons that are seen as only defensive: one that takes a long time to mobilize, can keep the other side out of  your territory without going onto enemy's land 

Balance of Power 

Balance of power: a system where the inferior or disadvantaged (at the moment) combines to prevent an  opposing/coalition on ascending 

Power = influence over others, but influence doesn't equal power

A exerts power over B if A gets B to something they wouldn't otherwise do

Who's affecting whose behavior MORE?

If balance of power works, no state/coalition becomes a hegemon

Requires states to be willing to challenging rising powers

Hegemonic stability theory: system is most stable when one side has overwhelming power, so other states won't attack  it 

Hegemonic transition theory: when the strongest power begins to lose power, someone else who wants to be #1 will  arise--> war is likely 

*changes in distribution of power among great powers may be one factor to explain war and instability, but doesn't  explain everything 

policy of no permanent friends/enemies, merely permanent interests

People who like balance-of-power policy are usually realists

Alliance: agreement that sovereign states enter into w/ each other to ensure mutual security Military, economic, ideological, cultural

Bandwagoning: joining the stronger side, side more likely to win

Can be dangerous in IR b/c risks losing independence

Balance of power theory says to "join the weaker side" to prevent other side from getting too powerful Sometimes, weaker states may join stronger side b/c it sees no alternatives or thinks balance can't be affected Perceptions of threat often influenced by proximity to aggressor

 Intrnl Relations Page 10

Perceptions of threat often influenced by proximity to aggressor

Describe historical cases of multipolarity

"the nineteenth-century balance of power+ - European system b/n Napoleonic Wars and WWI

Collective Security

Collective defense: 2 states ally against another state for defense

Anarchy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->World Government Unallied states collective defense collective security

 collective enforcement

Under collective security, if collective deterrence fails, then collective enforcement should happen Where the states implement collective security pledge - gang up on aggressor and defeat them If collective enforcement doesn’t work, collective security system falls apart

Collective enforcement system either works all or none of the time 

Doesn’t work b/c states don’t see issues the same way - diff views on what's dangerous

SEE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AS EXAMPLE IN PART 2 OF STUDY GUIDE 

Collective security requires for all states to prioritize world peace over own sovereignty BUT States aren't willing to delegate to UN the decision to use their military forces  

Want to keep right to decide if their military forces should be used or not  

States have not provided an army for UN to use

So military forces from diff states have to be put together for every issue

TOPIC 4 - The Uses of Force: Nuclear and Conventional

The Use of Force in IR 

Military power and IR Anarchy

Need military power to back up diplomacy

Three Functions of Force

Defensive use of force 

Advert an attack

Pose a defense that looks so formidable that you look undefeatable or that it would be very high cost to  attack you 

Minimize damage in the event of an attack

Deterrent use of force 

To deter means to threaten retaliation  

"I'm threatening you so you keep your behavior and don't change it (i.e. attack me)"

Have to have the will and the capability --> credible threat

Counter value 

"if you attack, I will attack your cities and civilians"

Counterforce 

"if you attack, I will attack your military forces"

Compellent use of force 

State B is engaging in annoying behavior, state A wants B to stop

State A does something state B doesn't like to achieve a bargain

"I will stop if you will stop"

State A wants state B to change their behavior

i.e. in 1965, US didn't like that North Vietnam was attacking South Vietnam

US started bombing North Vietnam  

Coercion: getting someone to do something they don't want to do

Fungibility of Force

 Intrnl Relations Page 11

Fungibility of Force

"peaceful" use of force 

Military force doesn't need to be used physically to be useful politically

i.e. have a baseball bat, threaten to hit person A if they don't need

Don't need to physically use the bat, if the threat is effective

Sometimes don't even need to use threats, because everyone knows your capability and that you  have the will to carry out damage 

Military force can be more useful when it is used politically

If people believe you are powerful, then you will be seen as powerful

You will be able to exercise influence over them

Threat to use force may be the best way to keep peace

Example 

In 1980, oil prices increased

U.S. put more pressure on Saudi Arabia to produce more oil

U.S. gave Saudis AUACS (a radar system) so Saudis could see incoming threats from Iran

In return, Saudis pumped more oil

Military power produced economic results

The Use of Force

Offensive use of force 

Striking first 

Taking the initiative to attack  

Why?

Want to aggress  

There are things you want from the adversary

i.e. territory

To prevent war 

Two conditions for preventive war:

1. State believes that long-term power trends are changing - state's relative position is decreasing 2. Believe war is inevitable - it WILL happen, but not just about to happen

i.e.Germans thought they had peaked in military power in 1914

General told German kaiser to attack now

i.e. if you see Sally sharpening the knife every day, you attack against concentration of power - stop a state  from gaining too much power based on long term trends 

To preempt war 

Two conditions for preemptive war:

1. War is imminent - inevitable and about to happen RIGHT NOW

2. Believe there are advantages in striking first  

You don't necessarily strike first, but will go first if needed

i.e. you see Sally coming at you with a knife, so you attack first

Sometimes may absorb a state's attack, then go on the attack

i.e. Germans mobilized (prepared troops, transportation) as they attacked (sent troops into Belgium)

Offensive-Defense Ratio

Van Evera 

Ratio that assesses if it's easier to conquer, or easier to defend - a kill ratio

Which way can you kill more of adversary's troops, and minimize your battle casualties?

If you believe conquest is easy, war is more likely

Van Evera points to WWI, that everyone thought it'd be a short war, not bloody

Captures beliefs about the nature, intensity, and cost of war

For WWII, great Western powers feared that it would look like long, bloody WWI

So they were less willing to challenge Hitler

Chain ganging 

 Intrnl Relations Page 12

Chain ganging 

You are tied to someone else, not free to move the way you want

i.e. before WWI, states wanted tighter alliances - b/c offensive was believed to be dominant After, states (i.e. Britain) didn't give any guarantees of defense of other states - b/c defensive was believed  to be dominant 

Buck passing 

"I'm going to let someone else do the dirty work"

i.e. let some other state balance this rising power - "I will free-ride on their efforts"

Nuclear Revolution

Fundamental revolution in how force is used  

Brute force  

military force vs. military force

i.e. Ludendorft launches offensive attack designed to defeat the Allies

But it failed, b/c Germans not strong enough to defeat Brits, French, Americans

Ludendorft says "our military effort has failed, it's only a matter of time before the Allies defeat us" --> "you  should try for peace to keep the Allies from taking our territory"  

Coercive power 

Hurt the adversary - hurt civilians in cities

In conventional warfare

Use brute force to defeat the adversary's military, then threaten or use coercive power  

The threat of coercive power is what ends war

With nuclear warfare

Balancing terror 

In theory, balancing the coercive power to hurt should be easier than balancing brute force weapons Coercive power, then brute force

Reverses sequence of conventional power

"I can defeat you w/out conventional military, but you can also defeat me the same way"

How to defend against nuclear attacks?

Engage in deterrence

Fear of nuclear weapons can cause fear of losing control in state leaders

Stability-instability paradox

If nuclear weapons work, war should be less likely, due to fear of escalation

Where both states can't control escalation

2 states, neither wants to take a chance of going to nuclear war, or conventional war that slips into nuclear  war 

Escalation ladder  

One opinion: Fear of losing control produces less crises 

i.e. If 2 nuclear powers are facing possibility of war, if nuclear deterrence works, then conventional AND nuclear war  should NOT happen 

Game of chicken: two teenage drivers are heading towards each other

The one that swerves is a "chicken", the one that keeps going is "macho"

If both swerve, both are OK

If neither swerve, both are not OK

i.e. in Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviets swerved, U.S. was prepared to swerve - essentially both swerved Alternate opinion: If two nuclear powers believe that they can control escalation, the stability at a higher level produces  instability (war, crises) at lower levels 

States will play games of chicken at lower levels

Nuclear Revolution

 Intrnl Relations Page 13

Nuclear Revolution

Nuclear strategic logic - MAD world

Multiplier effect

MAD

strikeback

Defender - 3

multiipler Attacker - 5

multiplier

25

50

2

50

4

100

2

200

3

 

200

.66

600

2

300

1200

-large diffs b/n # of missiles can be tolerated from defender's side; defender can have less missiles than attacker ICBM - inter-continental ballistic missile

probability of kill - probability that going to destroy a city that the missile lands on?

If = 0.5, have to fire more than 1 missile at city

MAD  

Mutual assured destruction  

logic behind finite deterrence  

argument for small nuclear force, b/c if an acceptable number of defender's missiles survive and population  survive, can strike back unacceptable damage to adversary 

Can be STABLE 

Both sides need SECOND STRIKE CAPABILITY 

-don't need to match number of missiles as adversary, just make sure you can strike back unacceptable damage to  them

U.S. and Soviet Union didn't follow this logic

Both were worried about political appearance - if have less warheads, might not look as strong U.S. thinks if have more nuclear weapons, then will look more credible

BAD world

BAD - both assured defense - professor Art says is bad

Both sides think they have a good enough defense if they were to engage in nuclear war But both don't in reality…-->high risk of nuclear war

-can't reliably have a completely effective anti-nuclear missile system against an adversary If adversary has large number of missiles

b/c if adversary has 500 nukes, and 10% get thru, still 50 nukes that get thru = very bad

i.e. U.S. has been working on nuke defense system, but it still only works 50% of the time under special  circumstances 

Cheaper to produce offensive weapons in an arms race than defensive weapons

ABM - anti-ballistic missile, used to counter ballistic missiles  

ABM - defensive missile ICBM - attacking missile

Case A

5000

1000

Case B

5000

1200

Case C

10,000

500

Under case A, no incentive to strike first if it takes 5 ABM to get rid of 1 ICBM, b/c defensive has enough missiles to   Intrnl Relations Page 14

Under case A, no incentive to strike first if it takes 5 ABM to get rid of 1 ICBM, b/c defensive has enough missiles to  knock out ICBMs…unless ICBM cheats and produces even one more ICBM, then offensive will have advt 

Under case B, stability depends on MAD

Under case C, defensive is stronger, b/c overwhelming # of ABMs

Do I believe MAD? Is it possible to undo nuclear revolution? If could build effective ABM system, do I want to? -->  could destabilize system 

Three Perspectives on Political Economy

Mercantilism  

Politics should and does determine economic factors 

Economic power-->monarchy and aristocrats 

Wealth = money - gold or silver

Amount of gold and silver in world is fixed

My gain of gold/silver is my win and your loss

Basically zero-sum

More wealthy = more powerful

Stresses relative>absolute gain, economic factors needed to wage war, interest of state>groups, autonomy, self sufficiency, raw materials

COMPETITVE  

Colonies were important, sources of strength and wealth

i.e. France wanted an alliance w/ U.S. colonies, b/c France wanted to lead away British colonies due to Britain France rivalry

Justified state conquest

Who's going to gain more economically?

Neo-Mercantilism

Role of state to form competitive industries in the global market

Stresses relative>absolute gains

Autonomy, power over resources

State intervention in the economy

Marxism and Class Analysis

Economics base determines political structure 

Social relations - who owns the factors of production?

i.e. feudal system, farmers owned what they grew and went to sell it

Under capitalism, means of production were socialized, but private owners of those means More productive capability -->created factories, but only the owners of those factories benefitted  Under Marxism, everyone should own means of production - no private property 

Owners of production determine political relations 

Marxist Laws

Law of disproportionality  

Productive capacity of capitalism >consumption ability

Workers are too poor to buy what they produce

Law of concentration of capital

Large firms, fewer firms

Large firms swallow up smaller firms

THE BANK owns productive society

Periodic crises in capitalism

 Intrnl Relations Page 15

Periodic crises in capitalism

Law of the falling rate of profit

Produce more goods, and people can't sell these goods --> have abundance -->prices fall

Marx believed only labor creates value, not machinery  

Dismisses role of capital in machinery

Marx believed capitalists take value of labor away from laborers b/c using machines  

Law of uneven development

Dialectal materialism

Predicts increasing concentration of wealth in a shrinking number of people

Rest of the world is miserable

Working class will band together to overthrow capitalism and input socialism

Didn't work in Europe

Nationalism feelings were stronger than class solidarity

Why did workers of world not unite?

Lenin said b/c of imperialism - imperialism is only prolonging capitalism, worker revolution will happen soon WWI was about redivision of spoils b/n colonial powers - "the last gasp of capitalism"

Neo-Marxism  

Today, in economies of rich countries, gap b/n skilled and unskilled labor is growing  

Stresses inequality

i.e. when many African countries gained independence, they were still economically dependent on the former  masters

The former masters controlled the African countries economically - they put forth terms of trade that were very  disadvantageous to African countries

Liberalism

Economic considerations should determine political factors/arrangements --> FREE TRADE Adam Smith: everyone pursues self-interest w/ specialization, yet everyone will benefit

Want to limit effect of politics on trade

Will lead to more economic interdependence --> more peace

Comparative advantage: individuals should specialize, so can trade specialized goods --> wealth of nations will increase

U.S.: produces wheat

England: produces cloth

With trade

Without trade

U.S.

4 bushels wheat, 6 yards cloth

4 bushels wheat, 3.3 yards cloth

England 4 yards cloth, 1.2 bushels wheat 4 yards cloth, .67 bushels wheat

Both countries get more of both goods w/ trade

But U.S. is more efficient at production in this case, so ends up with more of both goods

U.S. is more efficient at producing wheat

Countries don't benefit equally

If U.S. cost ratio is same as England, then no reason to trade or specialize in production of goods

Why doesn't free trade and specialization always work in real life? 

Low cost producer has interest in free trade

High cost producer don't have interest in free trade

High cost producers want to become low cost producers, first grow their industries then go into trade Politics affects industry growth

"do we want to be dependent on another country for this good?"

"free trade is the ideology of the dominant power"

Critiques of Free Trade

 Intrnl Relations Page 16

Critiques of Free Trade

Winners and losers in free trade 

Free trade can hinder countries who are industrializing  

If want an industry to grow strong, and there's a low-cost producer who's a competitor…=not good for you i.e. List argued for protection for infant German industries before they could compete w/ British industries i.e. Japan, China fostered competition domestically to pick out the strongest firms, then those firms went into the  competitive global market

Declining wages for unskilled labor

Interdependence and Peace

2 periods of high econ interdependence

20-30 yrs before WWI - "The First Modern Era of Economic Interdependence"

Angell's predictions

"The Great Illusion" - 1914 = war

War is useless from econ view; increase in military power doesn't correspond to increase in wealth States of Europe are too econ interdependent to go to war, b/c move of capital and finance is based on trust; war  doesn't pay 

He was wrong  

What was his logic?  

Necessity of defense arises from probability of aggression  

Probability of aggression arises from belief that there is some advt in aggression

Constructivist view: "if we get rid of belief that war pays, we can end war"

Problem: before WWI, countries believed that war pays

Transnational  

Economic interdependence

Germany was Britain's best customer for German exports

Vice versa, with Britain as Germany's second best customer

Proletarian institution

Vs.

National forces

Patriotism, nationalism, security  

PART 2: HISTORY (FROM 2ND PART OF COURSE)

League of Nations

Failure of collective security 

*see WWII causes for more detail 

i.e. League of Nations only did collective enforcement 3 times (out of 33 wars during the time period), which were  largely ineffective 

League of nation sanctions against Italy (1935)

Sanctions were ineffective b/c they were not applied to resources that would make an impact 1950 Korean War

U.S. took action against North Korea when North Korea invaded South Korea

Only worked b/c soviet officials were protesting during the League of Nations meeting

And U.S. used military power to pass actions

Driven by U.S., not collective security

1990-91 U.N. authorized U.S. and some other states to go after Sadaam Hussein  

Driven by U.S. military force, not collective security

WORLD WAR I

Causes

WWI is beginning of end of Europe as the global power

Why did it occur? 

 Intrnl Relations Page 17

Why did it occur? 

Why did it occur when it did? 

Because each of great powers viewed war as necessary to get peace later, insecurity of European great powers Preventive war thinking in Germany

Germans decided 1914 was the best time  

20-30 yrs before WWI

Highly competitive era - "no growth = lose"

2 highly rambunctious states - France, Germany

War was viewed as legit instrument of statecraft

2 major alliances

Triple Alliance - leader = Germany 

Triple Entente - leader = Britain 

=bipolar world 

100 yrs before WWI-1914 = era of relative peace

Too many wars in 17th century --> less wars in 18th century  

Concert of Europe

Kissinger

Best way to prevent war is to concert actions?

Consult, avoid taking unilateral action, to prevent crises from getting out of hand

-could mitigate some of ills of anarchy

Responsible for ~30 yrs of peace during 100 years of peace from 1814-1914

Bismarck was leader of Germany for ~20 yrs

Created a Prussia big enough, great enough to be secure  

Bismarck declared Germany a satiated power - "satisfied" 

Worked to create alliance system to make it difficult for other great powers to do anything w/out Germany's support Alliances can be used to control other states  

Bismarck = "keeper of peace"

Germany allied w/ Russia and Austria-Hungary to back defensive wars, not offensive wars But…only Bismarck could understand and control alliance system

Once Bismarck was out of power, other leaders decided Germany wanted more power, no longer a satiated state Germany became more aggressive on continent  

German pushed Brits to ally w/ French and Russians, who were Britain's biggest competitors Entente doesn't equal alliance, means "relaxing of tensions"

Brits refused to be in alliance w/ French until WWI

1890: French-Russian alliance 

Germans alienate Brits through engaging in a naval arms race

European imperialism  

"scramble for Africa"

Outlet for European aggression/competition

Europeans focused on conquest overseas, not conquest of European continent

France became aggressive in Africa, b/c wasn't that strong in Europe

European powers ignored power of defense, focused on offense 

"first to mobilize" = winner 

Decade before WWI

Immediate Causes

Historians agree Germany kick-started everything 

 Intrnl Relations Page 18

Historians agree Germany kick-started everything 

Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand 

Serbians wanted to unite Southern Slavs under Serbia, take Southern Slavs out of Austria-Hungary  If southern slavs united under serbia, Serbia gets stronger, Austria-Hungary gets weaker

b/c might encourage Hungarians to secede from Austria-Hungary

If Austria-Hungary breaks up, Germany has no ally

Germans pushed Austria-Hungary to go to war w/ Serbia  

Austria-Hungary's Ultimatum to, and Mobilization against, Serbia 

Austria-Hungary prepared to go to war

Russia's general mobilization and alliance interactions 

Russia takes 6 weeks to mobilize  

Caused other great powers to mobilize - France

Germany's launching of a two-front war via the Schlieffen plan 

Called for converting a two-front war to a one-front war

Everyone knew it would take 6 weeks for Russia to mobilize

Plan was for Germany to knock France out in under 6 weeks, then move troops towards Russia Germany mobilized as it invaded Belgium, b/c needed speed

Usually countries mobilized, then went on offense

Germany did both at once

Germany would loop its forces thru Belgium and loop around in France, to come up behind French  forces who would be trying to march headfirst into Germany

Problem with the plan: force to space ratio

There were too many German troops in a small space, forced the troops to break out of formation  and spread out  

The plan ultimately failed

Germany violated international law by moving in on Belgium, a neutral state

Wanted to seize Liege (railroad site)

England declares war on Germany 

Germany is fighting to protect its security - eggs Austria-Hungary to fight 

Austria-Hungary is fighting to defeat Serbia 

Russia is fighting to preserve rep of tsar 

France is fighting so Germans won't come after them after they defeat the Russians 

Britain is fighting so Germany won't conquer the continent 

Underlying Causes

Balkan national self-determination

Many people groups w/in Ottoman empire and Austro-Hungarian empire wanted empires to break up, so they  could have their own ethnic states

Division of Europe into Two Hostile Blocs

Triple Alliance and Triple Entente

Chainganging into war 

If you don't help your ally when they're fighting with the enemy, the ally will be defeated, and the enemy will  attack you

Belief that the war would be over quickly b/c the offense had the advantage 

Imperialism and arms racing 

Imperialism served as an outlet for European clashes - like a competition  

European "Race for Africa"

WORLD WAR II

Causes

Peace Settlements in Versailles

France wanted France and England to be much stronger than Germany, militarily and economically  Intrnl Relations Page 19

France wanted France and England to be much stronger than Germany, militarily and economically Britain wanted to restore balance of power on continent - restore balance b/n France and Germany Return of peace, return to trade

U.S. didn't care about European balance of power 

b/c many believed U.S. wasted time w/ WWI

Woodrow Wilson's idea that WWI was a "war to save democracy" was skeptical

Congress proposed neutrality policy  

Can't sell arms/give loans to one side or the other  

U.S. wasn't really neutral economically before it entered WWI

Ruhr 1924

French are unhappy w/ rate of reparations payments from Germany, so attack a region called Ruhr German govt inflates its currency to make it essentially worthless

231 Versailles claim - Germany is blamed for the whole war 

Americans and Brits wanted reparations

French wanted indemnity - Germans pay for the whole cost of the war

Many Germans felt Versailles treaty provision was unjust 

revoltuous sentiment  

Strategies of the Great Powers

Look at slides

Great Depression

Prolonged by Beggar-thy-neighbor

Competitive evaluations

Countries devalued its currency

Trying to make their goods cheaper

But if everyone does it, net loss in trade

IMF - currency was fixed according to dollar

High protective tariffs

If everyone does it, trade dries up

General Agreement on Trade Tariffs

Brought hard economic times to Nazis and extreme Japanese militarists

Destruction of the League

Due to lack of cooperation, becomes less and less important

Manchuria 1933?

Intense war in China 1912?-1928

Chiang Kai Shek unified China behind Great Wall

1921 Japanese given economic power?

U.s., Britain, France recognized Manchuria as Japan's special economic zone, not formal territory Japan concerned about Chinese moving across Great Wall into Manchuria

Looks like Japan might lose Manchuria, so…

Japan annexes Manchuria with military presence 

This is not allowed, seizing territory through force

French don't really care about anything beyond the continent of Europe

League of Nations concluded that Japan's aggression hadn't occurred, Manchuria = special zone, so they  wouldn't have to do anything militarily 

The great powers didn't cooperate, so collective security isn't working 

Mussolini 1935

Mussolini decides he wants to invade Ethiopia 

League of Nations declares arms embargo to Italy and Ethiopia  

Ineffective, b/c Italy is more self-sufficient w/ arms 

This policy helped the aggressor (Italy) and punished the one being attacked (Ethiopia) If imposed oil sanctions on Italy, could stop the conflict

But French and Britain wouldn't do it w/out U.S., also wanted to keep Mussolini around to fight against Hitler Major U.S. oil companies complied, but smaller ones didn't…

 Intrnl Relations Page 20

Major U.S. oil companies complied, but smaller ones didn't…

In the end, Mussolini gets oil, continues the conflict

Britain and France's interest to keep Italy around was greater than interest of collective security Appeasement at Munich

Reoccupation of the Rhineland (1936)

France wanted to annex the Rhineland

No German troops in the Rhineland, Allies wanted it this way

Hitler sends troops to occupy the Rhineland b/c he believes French and Brits won't act Brits and French don't want to go to war at this time

So end up doing nothing

Once Germany "closes back door" through the Rhineland, Brits and French can't easily access Germany anymore - Germany is on the strategic offense

France created many alliances w/ small countries to encircle Germany, b/c couldn't get an alliance w/ U.S. or Brits  against Germany

But b/c "back door" is closed, the small countries get uneasy at France's ability to actually help if Germany  attacks them, b/c French troops can't reach them 

Dramatically changes the potential outcome

Military Weakness

Brits perceived themselves to be too weak militarily in 1937-38 

The military thought their military wasn't strong enough to meet continental, Mediterranean, Far East commitments Thought couldn't maintain commitments in all 3 areas

Didn't know when they would have enough defensive forces

Wanted to reduce potential enemies, and get more allies

Military advised the civilian govt to appease, resolve conflict w/ Germany 

The treasury said "you have to balance the resources for war"

Sustainability of British economy

Need to continue to export

If mobilize too fast -->inflation-->currency drops-->can't fund war

"you need to buy time" - Brits can't afford to go to war w/ Germany right now, need time to grow economy 

Fear of Strategic Bombing

Douhet (Italian war strategist)

Said if bomb enemy's cities, will shatter morale, can destroy enemy's war industries

To avoid trench warfare

Prime minister of England said "the bomber will always get through"

Build bombers, not air fighters

London and Paris were big targets, b/c big population and large amounts of manufacturing Brit leaders wanted to avoid Germany bombing major cities, b/c bombers would get through Luftwaffe  

Close air support

Protection of Empire

Brits refused to make a continental commitment, that would ally w/ France against Germany until very late Brit chamberlain believed in appeasement b/c it was the type of diplomacy he had practiced

Chamberlain's Belief in Appeasement  

In past, appeasement is wise, tried and true strategy for the Brits

British chamberlain mistakenly tried to appease a dictator, Hitler 

"no democratic state should declare war without being prepared to do so"

Europe on the Eve (1939)

 Intrnl Relations Page 21

Europe on the Eve (1939)

Prague, March 1939: The Reversal

Britain issues a universal guarantee to Poland independence (March 1939)- "if you Germans attack Poland, you're at war  with the British empire"

Leads to a phony war (sept 1939-march 1940)

Brits have no plan to do anything if Germans do attack Poland, nor do the French

Germans don't have a plan to attack French

Brits and French are technically at war with Germans, but no fighting occurs

Indicates turning point for Brits - Brits no longer are appeasing Germany, leads to a war of deterrence

Germany didn't want a war w/ Britain, and vice versa, so did war break out?

After Prague, it was clear Hitler wasn't just bringing Germans living in other territory back to Germany, but non Germans into Germany 

After Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia (non-Germans), Allies could see Hitler wanted more, couldn't be  appeased

Hitler maintains that Brits won't go to war over Poland

Is convinced Brits won't fight until July, then begins to think Brits may fight

Hitler's tactics of legality  

Hitler's actions until Prague had an air of legitimacy  

Of addressing grievances of Versailles treaty

b/c other powers pledged to disarm, but they didn't

So no obligation for Germans to disarm

Instead, Germany secretly rearmed and re-annexed territory of Germans living in other countries Three Power Posturing

The Game of Chicken

British chamberlain said, "If you Germans go to war with us and France, we will prevail in the long run, even though we  will suffer damage, you will suffer more"

Tried to discourage Germany from going to war

Appeasement -->deterrence

Hitler makes a deal with Stalin - Russian-German pact 

Hitler gives up most of conquest goals in Eastern Europe to buy off Stalin

Demonstrates that Britain and France won't get an ally w/ the Soviet Union

Game of chicken becomes a game of deadlock

Germany didn't back down b/c Hitler believed the opportunity was now 

British chamberlain can't back down b/c he'll be thrown out of office 

Both don’t want war

Both are bluffing the other  

Hitler attacks Poland on Sept 1

Brits, even though they have the guarantee to defend Poland, don't have the plan/capability to defend Poland or attack  Germany

France had an alliance w/ Britain after WWI, followed Britain's lead  

France developed a defensive stance

France didn't want Germans to attack head-on, so developed defensive line along the Germany-France border Wanted Germany to pass though Belgium, so Belgium would suffer the extent of the damage Left border forest undefended, b/c thought Germany wouldn't attack through there

Germany indeed went through the forest, took over France in 6 weeks

Britain, France, Soviet Union all learned from WWI that defense had the advantage, not the offense

Blitzkrieg strategy - "lightning war"

Punch through enemy lines in a few concentrated areas, or go around enemy lines

 Intrnl Relations Page 22

Punch through enemy lines in a few concentrated areas, or go around enemy lines

b/c in those concentrated areas, you will have more forces than the spread out forces of the enemy Get to commanding control, make it disorganized

Hitler didn't gear up German economy for total war

Didn't plan on full-out war

Wanted to attack quickly and gain territory, thought Britain and France were spineless

COLD WAR

Causes

Realists vs. Revisionists

Realists

Realists blamed the Soviet Union 

George Kennan?

Said internal dynamics of Soviet society --> Hostile foreign policy 

Soviet Union needed to justify a hostile outside world 

If believe Soviet behavior was based on internal structures, outside powers' policy wouldn't affect Soviet  policy

Argument for U.S. to take a hardline foreign policy 

Appeasement of dictators is a no

Thought if U.S. continued pursuing hardline policy w/ Soviet Union, Soviet Union might eventually melt and break  up into smaller states 

U.S. choices:

Go isolationist  

Pursue containment

Pursue rollback

Pushing the Soviet Union back into Eastern Europe

Revisionists

Revisionists blamed the U.S.

Soviet Union and American Designs on Europe

U.S. has western Europe, Middle East, Japan as sphere of influence 

U.S. didn't want any Soviet interference in its spheres of influence

Soviet Union has eastern Europe has sphere of influence 

U.S. allowed Soviet Union to maintain Eastern Europe sphere of influence

In return, U.S. wanted Soviet Union:

To hold free elections

Stalin says "in time" at Yalta

Because he understood that free elections would cause Eastern Europe states to vote to break out of Soviet  Union

Stalin wanted personal loyalty of everyone in Eastern Europe; paranoid that his sphere of influence would  slip away from him 

Minimum clash b/n U.S. and Soviet Union, because both concerned about what the other was doing in their sphere of  influence, b/c could potentially affect their sphere; both take actions to sure up their sphere of influence Secretary of State Byrnes tries to cooperate w/ Stalin, but eventually says it's too difficult

"you'll do your thing in your sphere, we'll do our thing in our sphere" and go our separate ways Except, Stalin was unsatisfied w/ just Eastern Europe as his sphere 

Domino theory

Applied to Southeast Asia, Mediterranean  

Idea that if one country "fell to communism" the rest would follow 

U.S. saw Soviet army not leaving from Iran, trying to turn Turkey into a vassal state = Stalin not satisfied w/ his  sphere of influence

U.S. steps in with Truman Doctrine  

 Intrnl Relations Page 23

U.S. steps in with Truman Doctrine  

U.S. goes from wanting to have a cooperative relationship w/ Soviet Union (FDR) to not 

Soviets were allowed to have reparations in Germany b/c Soviet Union suffered so badly

U.S. created West Germany to try to revive it economically, rearms West Germany

France wants security, an alliance w/ the U.S.

SAC|EUR

Supreme ally command of Europe

In peacetime, all countries in NATO except Germany have control over their own military forces

Korean War

U.S. after WWII is prepared to accept communism in Soviet Union and China, but not anywhere else Once Communists use military force in Korea, U.S. becomes worried about Communists using military force to turn other  nations 

U.S. begins to militarize its containment policy 

Ends up guaranteeing security of half the countries in the world, to deter Communist invasion U.S. triples its defense budget in 2-3 years

To bolster Western Europe defense

Cold War begins with Europe, is globalized by Korean War 

Course of the Cold War

Crises during the Cold War  

Heyday of Cold War (1948-1963)

Crisis: escalation of tensions such that war is a serious possibility

Berlin 1948

Western rights in West Germany?

Korea 1950

Korea is occupied by Soviet Union and U.S.

Quemoy/Matsu 1955, 1958

Who owns the region?

Berlin 1958-61

Fear of nuclearization by U.S.

Cuba 1962

Most serious

Strategic balance of power

Middle East 1973

Who is superpower w/ most influence?

Afghanistan 1979

First time since Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe that Soviet Union uses military force to occupy territory Not just military expansion policy, but outright occupation

Crises until Cuba, U.S. had clear nuclear superiority over Soviet Union

First set of crises (first Berlin, Korea, Quemoy/Matsu, Berlin)- unresolved conflicts from WWII About drawing lines

Second set of crises - Cuba to Afghanistan - not conflicts from WWII 

Who wields the global military power? Rules of the game?

Attributes of Crisis

1. 6 occur during period of US nuclear superiority

2. US prevails in all crises except last one

3. In case of Berlin, Quemoy, and Cuba, US prevails for 3 reasons

a. US had nuclear superiority - not single reason for prevailing though

b. US was defending status-quo

 Intrnl Relations Page 24

b. US was defending status-quo

i. Leaders will risk a lot to maintain what they have ii. Will risk less to get more  

c.

US escalated, but put choice and pressure on Soviet Union/Chinese communists to take the next step  towards armed conflict 

i. In Berlin, Soviets cut off road access

1) No longer use land convoy, US aircraft fly over the blockade  

ii. In Quemoy, China would have had to engage US air force to get small islands

4. US ultimately loses w/ Quemoy and Cuba

a. Quemoy 1953: USSR removes nuclear umbrella over Communist China

b. Cuba: China called USSR cowardly for taking weapons out of Cuba

i. Cuban missile crisis is short-term win for US…?

5. Cases of second Berlin and Cuba show restraining effects of nuclear weapons, harder to assess Middle East a. Why did USSR put missiles in Cuba

i. To address strategic missile inferiority  

1) Reverse Soviet inferiority

2) Protect Cuba

ii. Gaither  

b. US was developing first-strike capability

c. USSR has fewer ICBMs, but many intermediate missiles

i. Puts intermediate missiles in Cuba

1) Range is 90% of the US

d. Kennedy wants the USSR missiles out of Cuba

i. Told USSR would not tolerate offensive missiles in Cuba

ii. So…to maintain credibility and to get support for re-election, what is Kennedy going to do? e. How would Kennedy get the missiles out?

i. Decision to take missiles out is presidential, didn't consult Cabinet  

ii. Convenes w/ a selective committee to decide how to get them out

1) Instituted a blockade to prevent more missiles from coming in

iii. Khrushchev eventually backs down

1) Afraid might actually go to war

2)

2 letters sent from Moscow - Kennedy decided first one was legitimate and responded to that  one

iv. In game of chicken, Soviets swerved first, but US was also prepared to swerved f. US would take missiles out of Turkey if USSR would take missiles out of Cuba

i.

US willing to throw Turkey under the bus (remove nuclear umbrella) to remove immediate threat in  backyard (Cuba)

1) Wanted USSR to keep the deal quiet, b/c wanted to preserve relations w/ Turkey 2) Turks thought missiles were important symbols of political power, that US would protect Turkey

6. No serious crisis after 1973

End of Cold War

Destruction of Détente b/n US and Soviet Union

Military agreements

SALT I - offense

ABM treaty - defense

Lasted awhile, helped to stabilize nuclear arms race

US convinced USSR it was cheaper to pursue the offense  

MIRV (multiple independent retarget-able …)

Stabilization of arms race w/ ABM treaty

Political agreements

 Intrnl Relations Page 25

Political agreements

US and USSR had different goals, couldn't be compatible 

USSR wanted to continue expansion in third world 

US wanted containment 

BPA (basic political agreement)  

Peaceful coexistence (1972) (USSR)

Soviet Union can "compete peacefully" w/ US to expand its influence, especially in the third world Prevent dangerous exacerbation of relations (US)

Avoid military confrontation

No seeking unilateral advantage  

Neither one would take advt of a situation to better its position, have to communicate

Concert - acting together  

i.e. Concert of Europe - the European great powers acting together to solve issues

Principle of equality (USSR)

BPA represents contradictory goals - didn't work 

APNW (agreement on the prevention of nuclear war) 

If there's a chance of nuclear clash, USSR and US will immediately consult  

US and USSR can't use nuclear weapons on each other, only on each other's allies  

Didn't work either

1973 war w/ Afghanistan

USSR tried to take unilateral action

The last straw, destroys any remaining US support for the Détente

US president: Stalemate would mean USSR was weak, Arabs would favor the US

Make USSR look politically incompetent in Middle East

Egyptian leader thought the Détente would lead to negligence of Middle East

So wouldn't get Sinai back

Kissinger (US Secretary of State) tries to prevent Egyptians from winning war by helping Israelis, then tries to prevent  Israelis from winning the war against Egyptians

Israelis prepared nuclear weapons

Israelis wanted to wipe out third Egyptian army, Kissinger said no

USSR and US get to defcon2 (defense condition 2), condition just before war

US took advantage of situation to get unilateral advt, breaking BPA

Angola

USSR trying to expand influence in third world

US picks Roberto as the leader they want to get power

Uses CIA

Kissinger wanted to counter Soviet troops, sends more troops

Congress stops this, stops US support of Roberto

USSR's pick for leader, Netto, gets the power

USSR wanted to show China that it was "holier than Mao" at spreading Communist ideology  

Reagan's hard line

Year before Reagan, Carter says "USSR is actually bad, we need to take care of them"

Carter increases defense spending significantly

Carter Doctrine  

Any outside country that tries to assert military/political power in Persian Gulf/Middle East will have to answer to  the US

Extends sphere of influence to Middle East

F4DR

US tries to improve relations w/ China

Carter sets the tone for the "new Cold War"

 Intrnl Relations Page 26

Carter sets the tone for the "new Cold War"

Reagan wants to put a hard line on the USSR 

Rearm military 

Largest military buildup in peacetime since Korean War

Tripled defense budget: 150-->300 billion

Need strong military power to be able to negotiate well

Pursue tough arms control  

SS-20: USSR missile that could hit anywhere in Europe

Had 3 warheads

Persian-2 missile, GLCM (ground launch cruise missile) - US

Greatly scared European states

European states scared that a nuclear war might be fought on their soil

INF treaty- signed by Reagan and Gorbachev

Prohibited use of SS-20 and Persian-2 missiles

USSR has to get rid of their 300 SS-18 missiles, which have 10 warheads each

Designed for both countries not to have nuclear tech progress

Nuclear arms

Neither Reagan or Gorbachev set out to end Cold War 

Both motivated to reduce dangers of nuclear war, reduce defense buildup 

Gorbachev's new thinking

Gorbachev wanted to reform the Communist system, make it work at home

Feared falling behind in military tech to US, knew Soviet economy was in shambles

Domestic Politics

Glasnost - political opening in liberalization

Perestroika - restructure economy

Soviet Union does glasnost first, then perestroika 

Lifted the heavy hand of the Communist party from the economy

Reduces control Communist party has

Gets resistance from the party

Internal resistance undermines legitimacy of Communist party

Weakens Communist party 

Divides public opinion into those who want more political liberalization (the left), those who want less  (the right) 

Gorbachev doesn't use military force, not building support for moderation

His economic system wasn't free market, wasn't command-and-control - doesn't work 

Gorbachev sets out to reform, but can't maintain control over USSR or Eastern Europe satelites Foreign Policy

New Thinking - Gorbachev's "new political thinking" for international relations

-human interests>class interests, world is becoming interdependent, no victors in nuclear war, security is based on  political, not military factors, mutual security

Adopted to deal w/ domestic economic problems

Cynical explanation

New thinking was adopted b/c it was necessary, tactical

Lessen pressures of economic and political environment, so Gorbachev could focus on domestic affairs Gorbachev started out tactically, but as reforms became more radical and he got more trapped, he became a convert Gorbachev had a genuine belief in new thinking, wanted to reform USSR policy permanently

Why did the Cold War end peacefully?

Cold War formally ends in Nov, 1990 w/ Conference on Security and Cooperation 

 Intrnl Relations Page 27

Cold War formally ends in Nov, 1990 w/ Conference on Security and Cooperation 

OSCE

Cold War begins w/ division of Germany, ends w/ reunitifaction of Germany 

Once Germany reunites (b/c Gorbachev not willing to use military force to repress East Germany, after renouncing the  Brezhnev Doctrine and the use of force) 

Momentum causes rest of Soviet satellites to topple regimes 

US popular opinion: united Germany under NATO is better than a united Germany not tied down -end of cold war came about mostly due to USSR domestic affairs (Level 2 analysis) and level 3 analysis (international  structure)

PART 3: GLOBAL TRENDS

Futurology

Rise of China

Will they experience the same annual GDP growth it has experienced in the past 3 decades? China has about equal or slightly more purchasing power than US 

China 's nominal GDP is about 60% of that of US's

-hard to extrapolate to the future b/c predictions are based on current trends, which can change -US is afraid of losing its #1 position

Increase and Impact of Climate Change

Commons problem - all states are involved

CO2 concentration is b/n 400-410 ppm

To limit increase in global avg temp to 2°C, to maintain Earth's climate stability, have to keep CO2 concentration below  450 ppm

Already used up 3/4 of carbon budget

Even if all countries follow the Paris Accords and limit their carbon emissions, it's not enough to limit global avt temp  increase to 2°C

Paris Accords is voluntary

CO2 emissions have to reach 0% by 2070-2100

General Circulation Models (GCM's)

"wild card"  

Don't know how high Earth's avg global temp can go before a major climate change occurs

Last time it happened was during the end of the last Ice Age (10,000 yrs ago)

When earth's avg temp changed by 4-9°F during Ice Age-->massive change in Earth's climate Earth's avg temp is looking at a comparable temp increase now

Fear of destroying the world may induce cooperation 

Global competition for oil

Over next 20 yrs, energy consumption expected to increase by 50% - still coal-powered

China needs a lot of coal

Demographic issues

US vs. Other Great Powers

US's demographic pyramid is Δ - looks to be in better position w/ people paper, better for replenishing military and work  force

China's pyramid is inverted

Also happening w/ Japan and many European countries

Hard for China to achieve same economic growth rate due to shrinking young population

China has a huge debt-->harder for China to innovate

Developing states vs. rich white states

Developing:

 Intrnl Relations Page 28

Developing:

Rich white states

Workers will move from surplus of labor (developing states) to lack of labor (rich white states)

Terrorism/mass destruction

Estimated 230,000 extremists now, majority Islamic extremists

Terrorism is a tactic

Avg terrorist campaign lasts 10-15 yrs  

Exceptions: Al-Qaeda ~40 yrs already

ISIS

Both are larger and last longer than typical campaigns in history

US has Special Operation Forces (SOFs)

Each terrorist organization is different and should not be treated the same

Short term concern: spread of nuclear weapons

US and co. has tried to control availability of fissile material (i.e. uranium) needed to produce nuclear weapons Long term concern: biochemical weapons

Globalization

Globalization: movement of people, capital, goods, technology

We are in second period of globalization, first period was 3-4 decades before WWI

Before WWI, England was the financial powerhouse

1870s-1914: economic openness

1914-1970s: economic closure

High protective tariffs, world trade dries up

US becomes benevolent economic hegemon, also backed by military power

1970s-present: economic openness

GATT

WTO (world trade organization)

US pushes for no more quotas in industry, not agriculture

Open markets today are mostly result of US and its economic, military power

There are "winners" and "losers" in globalization 

Widening gap

Technological advancement also greatly influences the market

w/ manufacturing and farming

Less and less workers needed to produce more goods

So GDP has been increasing b/c more goods produced, but avg wage adjusted for inflation hasn't increased Forced transfer of technology 

If you're a US company that wants to use the Chinese market, have to share your tech secrets  Society as a whole benefits from globalization, but many individuals lose out due to factors in the market

 Intrnl Relations Page 29

Society as a whole benefits from globalization, but many individuals lose out due to factors in the market Worker retraining programs?

US doesn't have enough of these

Role/Position of the US

Rob Art thinks US will still be most powerful country in the world in 20 years, but the gap w/ other countries will be  smaller 

World is moving from uni-->bi-->multipolar 

1991-2000s: USSR breaks up, US is the unipolar power

Now: declining unipolarity, b/c China is catching up

World is multipolar in economic actors: US, China, EU, Japan

China's military power is increasing in Asia

Unipolarity is unstable…look at other countries and US today

"Messy" Global Governance-->UN

There are urgent commons problems beyond capacity of any one state

i.e. climate change

Great power governance

Great powers try to manage IR system to benefit themselves

Including in UN affairs

Spheres of influence

Hegemonic governance

One power able to dominate a region

UN governance

One state, one vote in general assembly

Other kinds of voting, where strong states have more votes

International institutions

World Trade Organization

Stronger or weaker depending on states' voting

International Law

Conflicts among international law

Right to sovereignty vs. right to protect

Private Actor Governance

Big firms

i.e. Apple

Has lots of value from the stock market -->power

Types of voting

One state, one vote

Larger states don't get a representative amount of votes

One person, one vote

Pure democracy, not representative democracy

Puts burden on everyone to be aware at all times

Big demands on individuals

Great powers get more votes

Puts weaker states at mercy of stronger votes

 Intrnl Relations Page 30

Puts weaker states at mercy of stronger votes

Creates more effective international institutions, b/c states with more capability will have largest influence Doesn't mean the international institutions are just

Qualified majority voting in EU

UN in world politics

Why was the UN founded?

b/c the victors of WWII thought it would be beneficial to form a "concert of the world" Contrary to League of Nations, which was more about military power and collective security To promote cooperation in peacetime

UN attributes

Universality in membership

With League of Nations, not everyone joined/stayed (i.e. US never joined)

Comprehensiveness in scope

More of a general organization

Not just dealing w/ political security

Decentralized in nature

Problems with League of Nations:

All members had an equal vote - one state, one vote

Unanimity was required for any action to be taken

For UN:

Could be a division in voting (2/3 for general assembly)

UN family

Loose confederation

State sovereignty the fundamental principle

Deal with relations AMONG not WITHIN states - respect state sovereignty  

But was violated after Declaration of Human Rights

Avoid unanimous voting of the league

Very few institutions that need unanimity are effective

Exception: NATO

b/c US dominates NATO and other countries are tactical in following US, b/c want US security

Effectiveness of UN during Cold War

Collective enforcement

ZIP

PKO (peace keeping operations)

Parties that are fighting seek a truce, use UN forces to keep armistice  

PKOs are meant to keep states off the battlefield and towards negotiations

Many uses of PKOs in Cold War

b/c US and USSR thought it would be in their interest

Problem: UN sometimes applied PKOs when there was no peace to keep, should have used PEO instead b/c sometimes it's clear who's the aggressor

PKOs try not to take sides in conflict

Dangerous b/c i.e. doctors from Doctors Without Borders go to the wrong side and will be killed PEO (peace enforcement operations)

UN is not always effective

Secretary of UN has to go around and ask countries to get involved in PKOs, PEOs and send troops So UN forces can't act as deterrence 

States don't want a "world military force" at the ready either 

European Union

 Intrnl Relations Page 31

European Union

Intergovermentalism vs. supranationalism  

(Europe of United States vs United States of Europe)

EU has moved from IG-->SN (confederation of states-->federation of states)

Intergovermentalism: states more powerful, central govt less powerful

Supranationalism: central govt more powerful, states less powerful

Phases of Integration of EU

Create European common market (1947-58)

US played a key role in fostering European integration

NATO alliance (promoted by the US) provided security framework for European countries Provided beneficial economic environment

b/c European countries didn't have to focus as much on political tensions and security, due to security  provided by NATO alliance

US sent 12 mil to Europe over 4 years

To try to rebuild Europe economically

US wanted European states to sit down and cooperate

Didn't exactly happen

European Coal and Steel (ECSC)  

Western European Union

Military alliance of 6 Western European powers against Germany

Falls into disuse after NATO alliance is signed, and Germany becomes a member of NATO later European Economic Community-->European Community -->European Union

Common market: countries which join the common market impose common tariff barriers against outside world Supranational elements

European Commission  

EP - European parliament

ECJ - judicial  

Intergovernmental elements

EC - European Council

Consists of heads of states

Very powerful

Joint-state : states sitting together decide how much power to give up to the larger EU

CM - council of ministers

Complete common market (81-86)

Internal market liberalization  

Get rid of internal barriers to economic activity 

Qualified majority voting: Moved from unanimity to a qualified majority

Parliamentary enhancement  

More and more trade among Europeans ->reduced European exports to other countries

EMS (European monetary stability) - used German currency, b/c low inflation, to get stable exchange rate Stability of European currency was achieved, but states besides Germany couldn't change value of their own  currency

Europeans needed to create strong firms that could compete globally w/ Japanese and US Create a European "champion", not a national Champion

Construction of economic and political union (86-92)

Maastricht Treaty - creates EMU and EPU -->EU

EMU (European Monetary Union) 

Creates single currency and central bank -->Euro

 Intrnl Relations Page 32

Creates single currency and central bank -->Euro

Europeans went along w/ European central bank so they wouldn't have to follow the Mundus bank(German  bank)

European central bank's board would consist of members from all the states

Kohl: "I will back German reunification if you use common currency"

To tie down German power, both political and economic factors 

American continued military presence in Germany

EMU to tie down Germany

EPU - European Political Union 

CFSP, constitution and social pillar

Lisbon Treaty of 2006, 2007?

Created 5 yr term for president of European Council

Created high representative foreign policy

Try to provide institutional jumpstart to create common security and defense policy

b/c states don't like to give up control of national military forces, has not been successful so far Save the EU (2015-)

EU Balance of power with it's states

EU level

Common currency

Court system/legislation

State level

Taxation = macroeconomic level

Policing

Court system/legislation

Defense/foreign affiars

States seem to appear stronger than EU

Brexit

Have interim agreement right now

If Brexit continues along its current trajectory, Prof Art believes it will be less wealthy in the name of trying to regain  sovereignty, b/c has to follow terms and conditions of EU, without having a say in EU legislation 

EU operates along "bike model" - have to keep moving forward (i.e. with common security, common defense),  otherwise EU system will fall apart

End goal of EU is more integration and interdependence  

EU is an experiment - trying to move beyond common market to common currency 

There have been common currency systems among states before

But they failed b/c need common govt to back up belief in common currency

Nationalism, Ethic Conflict, Intrastate War

2 kinds of civil wars: 

Wars over gaining control of the govt

Wars to secede and form a separate state

Greed vs. Grievance argument 

Greed: Groups want to capture power/economic power for own benefit

Grievance: groups feel political/cultural grievances, i.e. marginalization

State: political entity that has defined geographical borders, legitimate monopoly on the use of force within that area Nation: psychological bond that joins a group of people

Nation-state: state in which majority of population is actually of 1 nation

Most states have more than 1 nation in them

 Intrnl Relations Page 33

Most states have more than 1 nation in them

What Causes Nationalism?

Social interaction theory (SIT)

Psychological In-group-outgroup behavior

Membership in a group enhances self-esteem

In identifying with a group, believe your group is better than other groups 

The stronger the in-group identification, the greater the outgroup discrimination  Gellner and Industrial Literacy

Argument that industrial society requires common culture and language 

Standardized education and literacy

State controls education system, education promotes nationalism

State promotes nationalism to boost its industrial labor force

Posen and Modern Mass Armies

Nationalism produces cooperation in military forces 

Need common language and ideology to communicate in the military, boost morality State finds nationalism effective in motivating its army

In Europe, armies were small, made up of mercenaries - not that effective

Napoleon creates massive army infused with ideology

Seems to promote that nationalistic armies > mercenaries armies

Popular Sovereignty  

Ethnic groups existed before French Revolution

But the French Revolution popularized idea of self-determination

When does nationalism cause war?

Posen and Security Dilemma

"Ethnic cleansing" was way to make other ethnic groups feel secure

i.e. Yugoslavia  

Race for security for ethnic groups

Secure more territory for own group

Van Evera and War

Snyder and Democratization

New political groups try to ride wave of nationalism to get power

What do Civil Wars Look Like?

Licklider Data

Most civil wars end with military victory

Some end with negotiated settlement - doesn't force other side to give up arms

Unstable - war often restarts

But military victory is often linked to genocide

Walter Data

Inter vs. intrastate war

In interstate war, easier to negotiate settlement

b/c respective militaries have a known geographical location to return to

Militaries remain intact

In intrastate war, both sides asked to disarm military forces, demobilize -->harder to negotiate settlement Needs a lot of trust for disarmament and demobilization

Requires a neutral third party w/ credible military force to ameliorate war b/n 2 sides  Intrnl Relations Page 34

Page Expired
5off
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here