Essentials of World Politics

7/21/2019 Essentials of World Politics

1/65

ESSENTIALS OF WORLD POLITICS

Chapter 1

Approaches to International Relations

Chapter Summary

I. Thinking Theoretically

Historically, international activities were the results of actions taken by central

governments, but this is changing in the world of today. Increasingly, these activities

involve different actors.

International relations is the study of the interactions among the various actors that

participate in international politics, including states, international organizations,

nongovernmental organizations, subnational entities, and individuals. Political scientists develop theories or frameworks, both to understand the causes of

events that occur in international relations and to answer the foundational questions in the

field.

Realism posits that states exist in an anarchic international system.

o Each state bases its policies on an interpretation of national interest defined in

terms of power.

o The structure of the international system is determined by the distribution of

power.

Liberalism argues that humans form states that generally cooperate and follow

international norms and procedures.

Radical theory is rooted in economics: actions of individuals are determined by theirsocial class.

Constructivists argue that the key structures are intersubjective and social.

II. Developing the Answers

Answers are often found in history.

o History invites students to acquire detailed knowledge of specific events, but also

to use these events to test generalizations.

We can also deduce answers from classical and modern philosophy.

o The philosopher Plato explored ideas about the perfect state.

o

Thomas Hobbes imagined a state of nature when men ruled by passions, living inconstant uncertainty.

o Kant envisioned a federation of states as a means to universal peace.

History and philosophy permit us to delve into the foundational questions and tospeculate on normative elements in political life.

Behavioralism proposes that individuals act in patterned ways and seek to empirically test

plausible hypotheses about individual behavior.


2/65

o The methods of behavioralism are not an end unto themselves, only a means to

improve explanation.

Some international relations scholars are dissatisfied with these approaches.

o Postmodernists seek to deconstruct the basic concepts of the field such as state,

nation, rationality, and so on.

o

Constructivists have used discourse analysis to answer the questions that areposed.

No question can be answered with reliance on only one method

III. In Sum: Making Sense of International Relations

International relations is a pluralistic discipline, turning to disciplines such as history,

philosophy, behavioral psychology, and so on.

Chapter 2

The Historical Context of ContemporaryInternational Relations

Chapter Summary

I. Introduction

The purpose of this historical overview is to trace important trends over timethe

emergence of the state and the notion of sovereignty, the development of the internationalstate system, and the changes in the distribution of power among states

Contemporary international relations, in both theory and practice, is rooted in the

European experience, for better or worse.

II. The Pre-Westphalian World

Many international relations theorists date the contemporary system from 1648, the year

of the Treaty of Westphalia, ending the Thirty Years War. This treaty marks the end of

rule by religious authority in Europe. The Greek city-state system, the Roman Empire,

and the Middle Ages are each key developments leading to the Westphalian order

The Middle Ages: Centralization and Decentralization

o

When the Roman empire disintegrated in the fifth century A.D., power and

authority became decentralized in Europe.

o By 1000 A.D. three civilizations had emerged from the rubble of Rome:1. Arabic civilization: under the religious and political domination of the

Islamic caliphate, advanced mathematical and technical accomplishments

made it a potent force.


3/65

2. Byzantine Empire: located near the core of the old Roman Empire in

Constantinople and united by Christianity.

3. The rest of Europe, where languages and cultures proliferated, and thenetworks of communication developed by the Romans were beginning to

disintegrate.

Much of Western Europe reverted to feudal principalities, controlled by lords and tied tofiefdoms that had the authority to raise taxes and exert legal authority. Feudalism was theresponse to the prevailing disorder

The preeminent institution in the medieval period was the church; virtually all other

institutions were local in origin and practice.

Carolus Magnus, or Charlemagne, the leader of the Franks (in what is today France),

challenged the churchs monopoly on power in the late eighth century.

Similar trends of centralization and decentralization, political integration and

disintegration, were also occurring in Ghana, Mali, Latin America, and Japan.

The Late Middle Ages: Developing Transnational Networks in Europe and Beyond

o After 1000 A.D. secular trends began to undermine both the decentralization of

feudalism and the universalization of Christianity in Europe. Commercial activityexpanded into larger geographic areas. All forms of communication improved and

new technologies made daily life easier.

o Economic and technological changes led to fundamental changes in social

relations.1. A transnational business community emerged, whose interests and

livelihoods extended beyond its immediate locale

2. Writers and other individuals rediscovered classical literature and history,finding intellectual sustenance in Greek and Roman thought

3. Niccol Machiavelli, in The Prince, elucidated the qualities that a leader

needs to maintain the strength and security of the state. Realizing that the

dream of unity in Christianity was unattainable, Machiavelli called onleaders to articulate their own political interests. Leaders must act in the

states interest, answerable to no moral rules.

4. In the 1500s and 1600s, as European explorers and even settlers movedinto the New World, the old Europe remained in flux. Feudalism was

being replaced by an increasingly centralized monarchy.

5. The masses, angered by taxes imposed by the newly emerging states,rebelled and rioted.

III. The Emergence of the Westphalian System

The formulation of sovereignty was one of the most important intellectual developmentsleading to the Westphalian revolution.

Much of the development of sovereignty is found in the writings of French philosopher

Jean Bodin. To Bodin, sovereignty was the absolute and perpetual power vested in acommonwealth. Absolute sovereignty, according to Bodin, is not without limits. Leaders

are limited by natural law, laws of God, the type of regime, and by covenants and treaties.


4/65

The Thirty Years War (1618-48) devastated Europe. But the treaty that ended the

conflict, the Treaty of Westphalia, had a profound impact on the practice of

international relations in three ways:

o It embraced the notion of sovereigntythat the sovereign enjoyed exclusive

rights within a given territory. It also established that states could determine their

own domestic policies in their own geographic space.o Leaders sought to establish their own permanent national militaries. The state thus

became more powerful since the state had to collect taxes to pay for these

militaries and the leaders assumed absolute control over the troops.

o It established a core group of states that dominated the world until the beginningof the nineteenth century: Austria, Russia, England, France, and the United

Provinces of the Netherlands and Belgium.

The most important theorist at the time was Scottish economist Adam Smith. In An

Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Smith argued that the notionof a market should apply to all social orders

o Individuals should be permitted to pursue their own interests and will act

rationally to maximize his or her own interestso With groups of individuals pursuing self-interests, economic efficiency is

enhanced as well as the wealth of the state and that of the international system.

This theory has had a profound effect on states economic policies.

IV. Europe in the Nineteenth Century

The American Revolution (1776) and the French Revolution (1789) were the products ofEnlightenment thinking as well as social contract theorists.

The Aftermath of Revolution: Core Principles

o Legitimacy: absolutist rule is subject to limits and imposed by man. In Two

Treatises on Government, John Locke attacked absolute power and the divineright of kings. Lockes main argument is that political power ultimately rests with

the people rather than with the leader or the monarch.

o Nationalism: the masses identify with their common past, their language,customs, and practices. Individuals who share such characteristics are motivated

to participate actively in the political process as a group.

The Napoleonic Wars

o The political impact of these twin principles was far from benign in Europe. The

nineteenth century opened with war in Europe on an unprecedented scale.

1. Technological change allowed larger armies.

French weakness and its status as a revolutionary power made it ripe for intervention and

the stamping out of the idea of popular consent The same nationalist fervor that brought about the success of Napoleon Bonaparte also

led to his downfall.

1. In Spain and Russia, nationalist guerillas fought against French invaders.2. Napoleons invasion of Russia ended in disaster, leading to French defeat at

Waterloo three years later.

Peace at the Core of the European System


5/65

o Following the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 and the establishment of peace by the

Congress of Vienna, the Concert of EuropeAustria, Britain, France, Prussia,

and Russiaushered in a period of relative peace.

o The fact that general peace prevailed during this time is surprising, since major

economic, technological, and political changes were radically altering the

landscape.o At least three factors explain the peace:

1. European elites were united in their fear of revolution from the masses.

Elites envisioned grand alliances that would bring European leaders

together to fight revolution from below. Leaders ensured that massrevolutions did not love from state to state.

2. Two of the major issues confronting the core European states were

internal ones: the unifications of Germany and Italy. Although the

unification of both was finally solidified, through small local wars, ageneral war was averted since Germany and Italy were preoccupied with

territorial unification.

3.

Imperialism and colonialismImperialism and Colonialism in the European System before 1870

o The discovery of the New World by Europeans in 1492 led to rap idly

expanding communication between the Americas and Europe.

1. Explorers sought discovery, riches, and personal glory.2. Clerics sought to convert the savages to Christianity

o European powers sought to annex distant territories. The term imperialism came

to mean the annexation of distant territory, usually by force, and its inhabitantsinto an empire.

o Colonialism, which often followed imperialism, refers to the settling for people

from the home country among indigenous peoples whose territories have been

annexed.

o This process also led to the establishment of a European identity.

1. European, Christian, civilized, and white were contrasted with the other

peoples of the world.

o The industrial revolution provided the European states with the military and

economic capacity to engage in territorial expansion.

o During the Congress of Berlin (1885), the major powers divided up Africa.

o Only Japan and Siam were not under European control in Asia.

o The struggle for economic power led to the heedless exploitation of the colonial

areas, particularly Africa and Asia.

o As the nineteenth century drew to a close the control of the colonial system wasbeing challenged with increasing frequency.

o

During this period, much of the competition, rivalry, and tension traditionally

marking relations among Europes states could be acted out far beyond Europe.

o By the end of the nineteenth century, the roll of political rivalry and economiccompetition had become destabilizing.

Balance of Power

o The period of peace in Europe was managed and preserved for so long because ofthe concept of balance of power.


6/65

o The balance of power emerged because the independent European states feared

the emergence of any predominant state (hegemon) among them. Thus, they

formed alliances to counteract any potentially more powerful factionThe Breakdown: Solidification of Alliances

o The balance-of-power system weakened during the waning years of the nineteenth

century. Whereas previous alliances had been fluid and flexible, now allianceshad solidified.

o Two camps emerged: the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria, and Italy) in 1882

and the Dual Alliance (France and Russia) in 1893.

o In 1902 Britain broke from the balancer role by joining in a naval alliance withJapan to prevent a Russo-Japanese rapprochement in China. For the first time, a

European state turned to an Asian one in order to thwart a European ally.

1. Russian defeat in the Russo-Japanese war in 1902 was a sign of the

weakening of the balance-of-power system

o The end of the balance-of-power system came with World War I.

o Germany had not been satisfied with the solutions meted out at the Congress of

Berlin. Being a latecomer to the core of European power, Germany did notreceive the diplomatic recognition and status its leaders desired.

o With the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, Germany encouraged Austria to

crush Serbia. Under the system of alliances, states honored their commitments to

their allies, sinking the whole continent in warfare.

o Between 1914 and 1918, more than 8.5 million and 1.5 million civilians lost their

lives.

V. The Interwar Years and World War II

The end of World War I saw critical changes in international relations:

o

First, three European empires (Russia, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman) werestrained and finally broke up during the war. With those empires went the

conservative social order of Europe; in its place emerged a proliferation of

nationalisms.

o Second, Germany emerged out of World War I an even more dissatisfied power.

The Treaty of Versailles, which formally ended the war, made Germany pay the

cost of the war through reparations. This dissatisfaction provided the climate forthe emergence of Adolf Hitler, who was dedicated to right the wrongs imposed

by the treaty.

o Third, enforcement of the Versailles Treaty was given to the ultimately

unsuccessful League of Nations, the intergovernmental organization designed to

prevent all future wars. The League did not have the political weight to carry outits task because the United States refused to join.

o Fourth, a vision of the post-World War I order had clearly been expounded, but it

was a vision stillborn from the start. The world economy was in collapse andGerman fascism wreaked havoc on the plan for post-war peace.

World War II

o World War II was started by Germany, Italy, and Japan.


7/65

Japan had attacked China in a series of incidents beginning in 1931

eventually leading to war.

Italy attacked Ethiopia in 1935, using yperite (a form of mustard gasbanned by the Geneva Protocol).

Nazi Germany was the biggest challenge, as it set to right what Hitler saw

as the wrongs of the Treaty of Versailles.o The power of fascismGerman, Italian, and Japanese versionsled to the

uneasy alliance between the communist Soviet Union and the liberal United

States, Britain, and France. When World War II broke out, this alliance (the

Allies) fought against the Axis powers in unison.

o The Allies at the end of the war were successful. Both the German Reich and

imperial Japan lay in ruins at the end of the war.

o Two other features of World War II demand attention as well.

The German invasion of Poland, the Baltic States, and the Soviet Unionwas followed by the organized murder of human beings, including Jews,

Gypsies, communists, and Germans who showed signs of genetic defects.

While Germany surrendered in May 1945, the war did not end until thesurrender of Japan in August.

In order to avoid a costly invasion, the United States dropped

atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The new weapon, combined with the Soviet declaration of waragainst Japan led to the surrender of Japan to the Allies.

o The end of World War II resulted in a major redistribution of power and changed

political borders.

VI. The Cold War

Origins of the Cold Waro The most important outcome of World War II was the emergence of two

superpowersthe United States and the Soviet Unionas the primary actors in

the international system and the decline of Europe as the epicenter of internationalpolitics.

o The second outcome of the war was the recognition of fundamental

incompatibilities between these two superpowers in both national interests andideology.

1. Russia used its newfound power to solidify its sphere of influence in the

buffer states of Eastern Europe.

2. U.S. interests lay in containing the Soviet Union. The United States put

the notion of containment into action in the Truman Doctrine of 1947.After the Soviets blocked western transportation corridors to Berlin,

containment became the fundamental doctrine of U.S. foreign policy

during the Cold War.3. The U.S. economic system was based on capitalism, which provided

opportunities to individuals to pursue what was economically rational with

little or no government interference.


8/65

4. The Soviet state embraced Marxist ideology, which holds that under

capitalism one class (the bourgeoisie) controls the ownership of

production. The solution to the problem of class rule is revolution whereinthe exploited proletariat takes control by using the state to seize the means

of production. Thus, capitalism is replaced by socialism.

5.

Differences between the two superpowers were exacerbated by mutualmisperceptions. The Marshall Plan and establishment of the North AtlanticTreaty Organization (NATO) were taken as a campaign to deprive the

Soviet Union of its influence in Germany. Likewise, the Berlin Blockade

was interpreted by the West as a hostile offensive action.

o The third outcome of the end of World War II was the beginning of the end of the

colonial system. European colonialists. Beginning with Britains granting of

independence to India in 1947, Indochina and African states became independent

in the 1950s and 1960s

o The fourth outcome was the realization that the differences between the two

superpowers would be played out indirectly, on third-party stages, rather than

through direct confrontation between the two protagonists. The superpowers viedfor influence in these states as a way to project power.

The Cold War as a Series of Confrontations

o The Cold War itself (1945-89) can be characterized as forty-five years of high-

level tension and competition between the superpowers but with no direct militaryconflict.

o More often than not, the allies of each became involved, so the confrontations

comprised two blocs of states: those in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) in Western Europe and the United States, and the Warsaw Pact in

Eastern Europe.

o One of those high-level, direct confrontations between the superpowers took place

in Germany.1.

Germany had been divided after World War II into zones of occupation. In

the 1949 Berlin blockade, the Soviet Union blocked land access to Berlin,

prompting the United States to airlift supplies for a year.2. In 1949, the separate states of West and East Germany were declared.

3. East Germany erected the Berlin Wall in 1961 in order to stem the tide of

East Germans trying to leave the troubled state.

The Cold War in Asia and Latin America

o China, Indochina, and especially Korea became symbols of the Cold War in Asia.

1. By 1949 the Kuomintang was defeated in China and its leaders fled to the

island of Formosa (not Taiwan).2. In French Indochina communist forces fought against the French colonial

forces leading to the eventual French defeat in 1954.

3. In 1950 North Korea attempted to reunify the Korean peninsula under

communist rule, launching at attack against the South.

U.S. forces, fighting under the auspices of the United Nations,

counterattacked and nearly defeated North Korea.


9/65

As UN troops approached the Chinese border, the Chinese

attacked, driving the UN forces South and leading to an eventual

three-year stalemate ending in a armistice in 1953.

o The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was another direct confrontation in yet another

part of the world. The Soviet Unions installation of missiles in Cuba was viewed

by the United States as a direct threat to its territory.o In Vietnam, the Cold War played out in an extended civil war, in which

communist North Vietnam were pitted against South Vietnam.

o U.S. policy makers argued that communist influence must be stopped before it

spread like a chain of falling dominoes throughout the rest of Southeast Asia(hence the term domino theory).

The Cold in Cold War

o It was not always the case that when once of the superpowers acted the other side

responded.1. When the Soviet Union invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in

1968, the United States verbally condemned such actions but the actions

themselves went unchecked.2.

The Soviets kept quiet when the United States invaded Granada in 1983

and Panama in 1989.

o The Middle East was a region of vital importance to both the United States and

Soviet Union, and thus the region served as a proxy for many of the events of theCold War.

1. Following the establishment of Israel in 1948, the region was the scene of

a superpower confrontation by proxy: between a U.S.-supported Israel andthe Soviet-backed Arab states of Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. Proxy hot wars,

such as the Six-Day War in 1967, and the Yom Kippur War in 1973 were

fought.

2. Confrontation through proxy also occurred in parts of the world of lessstrategic importance, such as the Congo, Angola, and the Horn of Africa.

o The Cold War was also fought and moderated in words, at summits (meetings

between the leaders) and in treaties.1. Some of these summits were successful, such as the 1967 Glassboro

Summit that began the loosening of tensions known as dtente.

2. Treaties placed self-imposed limitations on nuclear arms.

The Cold War as a Long Peace

o John Lewis Gaddis has referred to the Cold War as a long peace to dramatize

the absence of war between the great powers. Why?

1. Nuclear deterrence: Once both the United States and Soviet Union hadacquired nuclear weapons, neither was willing to use them.

2.

Division of power: the parity of power led to stability in the international

system

3. The stability imposed by the hegemonic economic power of the UnitedStates: being in a superior economic position for much of the Cold War,

the United States willingly paid the price of maintaining stability

throughout the world.


10/65

4. Economic liberalism: the liberal economic order solidified and became a

dominant factor in international relations. Politics became transnational

under liberalismbased on interests and coalitions across stateboundariesand thus great powers became obsolete.

5. The long peace was predetermined: it is just one phase in a long historical

cycle of peace and war.

VII. The Post-Cold War Era

The fall of the Berlin Wall symbolized the end of the Cold War, but actually its end wasgradual. Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev had set in motions two domestic processes

glasnost (political openness) and perestroika (economic restructuring)as early as the

mid-1980s.

Gorbachevs domestic reforms also led to changes in the orientation of Soviet foreignpolicy. He suggested that members of the UN Security Council become guarantors of

regional security.

The first post-Cold War test of the new so-called new world order came in response toIraqs invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990.

A few have labeled the end of the Cold War era the age of globalization. This era appears

to be marked by U.S. primacy in international affairs to a degree not even matched by theRomans.

However, U.S. primacy is still not able to prevent ethnic conflict, civil wars, and human

rights abuses from occurring.

The 1990s was a decade marked by dual realities (and sometimes converged anddiverged), the first being U.S. primacy and the second being civil and ethnic strife.

o Yugoslavias violent disintegration played itself over the entire decade despite

Western attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully.

o

At the same time, the world witnessed ethnic tension and violence as genocide inRwanda and Burundi went unchallenged by the international community.

On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed deadly, and economically destructive

terrorist attacks against two important cities in the United States. These attacks set intomotion a U.S.-led global war on terrorism.

o The United States fought a war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime, which

was providing safe haven to Osama bin Ladens Al-Qaeda organization and abase from which it freely planned and carried out a global terror campaign against

the United States.

o Following the initially successful war in Afghanistan, the United States,

convinced that Iraq maintained weapons of mass destruction and supported

terrorist organizations, attempted to build support in the United Nations forauthorization to remove Saddam Hussein from power. When the United Nations

failed to back the U.S. request, the United State built its own coalition and

overthrew the Iraqi government. The fight continues today.

o Despite its primacy, the United States does not feel it is secure from attack. The

issue of whether U.S. power will be balanced by an emerging power is also far

from resolved.


11/65

VIII. In Sum: Learning from History

Whether the world develops into a multipolar, unipolar, or bipolarsystem depends in

part on by looking to the trends of the past and how they influence contemporarythinking. Or is the entire concept of polarity an anachronism?

Chapter 3

Contending Perspectives: How to Think about International

Relations Theoretically

Chapter Summary

I. Thinking Theoretically

A theory is a set of propositions and concepts that seeks to explain phenomena byspecifying the relationships among the concepts; theorys ultimate purpose is to predict

phenomena.

Good theory generates groups of testable hypotheses: specific statements positing aparticular relationship between two or more variables.

As more and more data are collected, one must be tolerant of ambiguity, concerned about

probabilities, and distrustful of absolutes.

International relations theories come in a variety of forms, and this chapter will introducethree general theories and one newer perspective.

II. Theory and the Levels of Analysis

In a categorization first used by Kenneth Waltz, three different sources of explanations

are offered.

o If the individual level is the focus, then the personality, perceptions, choices, and

activities of individual decision makers and individual participants provide the

explanation.

o If the state-level, or domestic, factors are the focus, then the explanation isderived from characteristics of the state: the type of government, the type of

economic system, or interest groups.

o If the international system level is the focus, then the explanation rests with the

anarchic characteristics of that system or with international and regionalorganizations and their strengths and weaknesses.

The purpose of theory is to guide us toward an understanding of which of these various

explanations are the necessary and sufficient explanations for the invasion.

Good theory should be able to explain phenomena at a particular level of analysis; better

theory should also offer explanations across different levels of analysis.

III. Realism and Neorealism


12/65

Realismis based on a view of the individual as primarily selfish and power seeking. Individuals

are organized in states, each of which acts in a unitary way in pursuit of its own national

interest, defined in terms of power.

Power is primarily thought of in terms of material resources necessary to physically harm

or coerce other states. States exist in an anarchic international system, characterized by the absence of an

authoritative hierarchy.

States most important concern is to manage their insecurity, and they rely primarily onbalancing the power of other states and deterrence to keep the international system intact.

Four of the essential assumptions of realism are found in Thucydides History of the

Peloponnesian War.

1. The state is theprincipal actorin war and politics in general.2. The state is assumed to be a unitary actor: once a decision is made to go to war

or capitulate, the state speaks and acts with one voice.

3. Decision makers acting in the name of the state are assumed to be rational

actors. Rational decision making leads to the advance of the national interest.4. A states need to protect itself from enemies both foreign and domestic. A state

augments its security by building up its economic prowess and forming allianceswith other states.

St. Augustine (354-430) added an assumption, arguing that humanity is flawed, egoistic,

and selfish, although not predetermined to be so. He blames war on this basic

characteristic of humanity.

Niccol Machiavelli (1469-1527) argued that a leader needs to be ever mindful of threats

to his personal security and the security of the state

The central tenet accepted by virtually all realists is that states exist in an anarchic

international system. Thomas Hobbes originally articulated this tenet, and maintained thateach state has the right to preserve themselves.

Hans Morgenthau (1904-80), whose textbook,Politics among Nations, became the realist

bible following World War II, argued that international politics is a struggle for power

that can be explained at three levels of analysis:1. The flawed individual in the state of nature struggles for self-preservation.

2. The autonomous and unitary state is constantly involved in power struggles,

balancing power with power and preserving the national interest.3. Because the international system is anarchicthere is no higher power to put the

competition to an endthe struggle is continuous.

Not all realists agree on the correct policy. Defensive realists argue that all states should

pursue policies of restraint. Offensive realists argue that under conditions of internationalanarchy, all states should seek opportunities to improve their relative positions and that

states should strive for power.

Neorealism, as delineated by Kenneth Waltzs theory of international politics, givesprecedence to the structure of the international system as an explanatory factor, over

states.

o The most important unit to study is the structure of the international system, andthat structure is determined by the ordering principle (the distribution of

capabilities among states)


13/65

o The international structure is a force in itself; it constrains state behavior and

states may not be able to control it. This structure determines outcomes.

o Like classical realism, balance of power is a core principle of neorealism.However, neorealists believe that the balance of power is largely determined by

the structure of the system.

o

In a neorealists balance-of-power world, a states survival depends on havingmore power than other states, thus all power are viewed in relative terms.

o Neorealists are also concerned with cheating. The awareness that such

possibilities exist, combined with states rational desire to protect their own

interests, tends to preclude cooperation among statesRobert Gilpin offers another interpretation of realism. Gilpin adds the notion of

dynamism: history as a series of cyclescycles of birth, expansion, and demise of dominant

powers.

0. Whereas classical realism offers no satisfactory rationale for the decline ofpowers, Gilpin does, on the basis of the importance of economic power.

1. Hegemonsdecline because of three processes:

The increasingly marginal returns of controlling an empire, a state-levelphenomenon

The tendency for economic hegemons to consume over time and invest

less, also a state-level phenomenon

The diffusion of technology, a system-level phenomenon through whichnew powers challenge the hegemon.

Ann Tickner adds gender to realism. She argues that human nature is not fixed and

inalterable, but multidimensional and contextual.0. Power cannot be equated exclusively with control and domination, but must be

reoriented toward a more inclusive notion of power, where power is the ability to

act in concert (not just conflict) or to be in a symbiotic relationship (instead of

outright competition).

IV. Liberalism and Neoliberal Institutionalism

Liberalism holds that human nature is basically good and that people can improve their

moral and material conditions, making societal progress possible. Bad or evil behavior is

the product of inadequate social institutions and misunderstandings among leaders.

o One origin of liberal theory is found in Enlightenment optimism:

1. French philosopher Montesquieu argued that it is not human nature that is

defective, but problems arise as man enters civil society. War is a product

of society. To overcome defects in society, education is imperative.

2.

According to Immanuel Kant, international anarchy can be overcomethrough some kind of collective actiona federation of states in which

sovereignties would be left intact.

o Another origin, nineteenth-century liberalism, reformulated the Enlightenment byadding a preference for democracy over aristocracy and for free trade over

national economic self-sufficiency:

1. This liberalism saw man as capable of satisfying his natural needs andwants in rational ways.


14/65

2. Individual freedom and autonomy can best be realized in a democratic

states unfettered by excessive governmental restrictions

3. Free markets must be allowed to flourish and governments must permitthe free flow of trade and commerce. This will create interdependencies

between states, thus raising the cost of war.

o

Twentieth-century idealism is also termed Wilsonian idealism (its greatestadherent was Woodrow Wilson, author of the League of Nations).1. War is preventable; more than half of the League covenants provisions

focused on preventing war.

2. The covenant also included a provision legitimizing the notion ofcollective security, wherein aggression by one state would be countered

by collective action, embodied in a league of nations.

3. Liberals also place faith in international law and legal instruments -

mediation, arbitration, and international courts.

o The basis of liberalism remains firmly embedded in the belief of the rationality of

humans and in the unbridled optimism that through learning and education,

humans can develop institutions to bring out their best characteristics.o Neoliberal institutionalismasks why states choose to cooperate most of the time

even in the anarchic condition of the international system.

1. One answer is the story of the prisoners dilemma, developed by Robert

Axelrod and Robert Keohane. Two prisoners are interrogated separatelyfor a crime. Each prisoner is faced with a onetime choice. Neither prisoner

knows how the other will respond; the cost of not confessing if the other

does is high. So both sides will confess.

Similarly, states are not faced with a onetime situation; confront

each other over and over again.

The prisoners dilemma provides neoliberal institutionalists with a

rationale for mutual cooperation in an environment where there isno international authority mandating such cooperation.

2. Cooperation emerges because for actors having continuous interactions

with each other, it is in the self-interest of each to cooperate.3. With the end of the Cold War, liberalism has achieved new credibility.

4. Shared democratic norms and culture inhibit aggression and international

institutions that bind democracies together act to constrain behavior.5. Large-scale conflict is less frequent than in earlier eras. Thus, as Francis

Fukuyama argues, there is an absence of any viable theoretical

alternatives.

V. The Radical Perspective

Radicalism assumes the primacy of economics for explaining virtually all other

phenomena.

o The writings of Karl Marx (1818-83) are fundamental to all radical thought.

According to Marx, private interests control labor and market exchanges. A clash

inevitably arises between the controlling, capitalist bourgeois class and thecontrolled proletariat workers.


15/65

o During the evolution of the economic production process from feudalism to

capitalism, new patterns of social relations were developed. Radicals are

concerned with explaining the relationship between the means of production,social relations, and power.

o Another group of radical beliefs centers on the structure of the global system.

That structure is the by-product of imperialism, or the expansion of certaineconomic forms into other areas of the world.

o John A. Hobson theorized that expansion occurs because of three conditions:

1. Overproduction of goods and services in developed countries

2. Underconsumption by workers and the lower classes in developed nationsbecause of low wages

3. Oversavings by the upper classes and the bourgeoisie in the dominant

developed countries

To solve these problems, developed states have expanded abroad,and radicals argue that developing countries are increasingly

constrained and dependent on the actions of the developed world.

Theorists emphasize the techniques of domination andsuppression that arises from uneven economic development is

inherent in the capitalist system, enabling the dominant states to

exploit the underdogs.

Contemporary radicals, such as dependency theorists, attributeprimary importance to the role of multinational corporations

(MNCs) and international banks based in developed countries in

exerting fundamental controls over the developing countries.Dependency theorists are pessimistic about the possibility of

change.

Virtually all radical theorists are uniformly normative in their

orientation. They evaluate the hierarchical capitalist structure asbad and its methods as exploitive.

Some have discredited radicalism as an international relations

theory because it cannot explain the cooperation between capitalistand socialist states at the end of the Cold War, why and how some

developing countries have escaped dependency, and did not

foresee or predict the demise of the Soviet Union.

VI. Constructivism

The major theoretical proposition that all constructivists subscribe to is that neither

individual, state, nor international community interests are predetermined or fixed. Individuals in collectivities forge, shape, and change culture through ideas and practices.

State and national interests are the result of the social identities of these actors.

Constructivists eschew the concept of material structures. Constructivist theoristAlexander Wendt argues that political structure explains nothing and tells us little about

state behavior.

Many constructivists emphasize normative structures. What we need to know its identity,and identities change as a result of cooperative behavior and learning.


16/65

Constructivists see power in discursive termsthe power of ideas, culture, and language.

Power exists in every exchange among actors, and the goal of constructivists is to find the

sources of power and how it shapes identity.

Constructivists claim there is no objective reality, if the world is in the eye of the

beholder, then there can be no right or wrong answers, only individual perspectives.

Thus, they see sovereignty not as an absolute, but as a contested concept.

VII. Theory in Action: Analyzing the 2003 Iraq War

The Realist Interpretation

1. Realists would focus on state-level and international-level factors. Realists see the

international systemas anarchic and few states other than the United States would be able

and willing to rid the world of the Iraq threat.2. Iraq posed a security threat to the United States and the only way to eliminate this threat

was to oust the Baathist regime from power.

3.

Not all realists agree that the policy the United States pursued was the right one: bothJohn Mearsheimer, an offensive realist, and Stephen Walt, a defensive realist, have

jointly argued that the war was not necessary.

4. George W. Bush and other realist theorists believe that Saddam was not being effectivelydeterred. Bush argued that Saddams use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in the

past meant that it was probable he would use them to threaten the United States.

The Liberal Interpretation

Liberals would utilize all three levels of analysis.1. Individual: Saddam was clearly an abusive leader and committed atrocities

against his own population2. State: The Iraqi state had an authoritarian nature, and replacement by a

democracy would lessen the coercive threat of the state and enhance stability inthe Middle East

3. International level:Iraq was not confronting to its obligations under various UN

Security Council resolutions; thus, there was an obligation for the internationalcommunity to take collective action.

The international community did not respond as some liberals would have predicted

because the UN Security Council did not endorse the action, and there was insufficient

evidence for the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

Radical Interpretation

Radicals would focus mainly on the international system structure

Political colonialism spawned an imperialist system in which the economic needs of the

capitalist states were paramount. In the Middle East, that meant imperialism by the Westto secure oil resources.


17/65

The instability of the oil supply coming from Iraq explains the U.S. invasion. Many

radicals believe the United States wants to control Iraqs oil, pointing to the fact that U.S.

troops protected oil fields all over the country.

World-system and dependency theorists would not be surprised at all that the core states

of the capitalist systemthe United States and its alliesresponded with force with Iraq

threatened their critical interests in oil. A constructivist view of the war would focus on the social construction of the threat.

1. How the threat of Saddam Hussein was portrayed is a key part of the analysis.

2. The concept of legitimacy was also key. The United States recognized the need

for legitimacy of its actions, though in the long run, the efforts to gain legitimacythrough the United Nations failed.

VIII. In Sum: Seeing the World through Theoretical Lenses

How each of us sees international relations depends on his or her own theoretical lens.

These perspectives hold different views about the possibility and desirability of change in

the international system.

Chapter 4

The International System

Chapter Summary

I. The Notion of a System

A system is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts united by some form of regularinteraction.

In the 1950s, the behavioral revolution in the social sciences and growing acceptance of

political realism in international relations led scholars to conceptualize international

politics as a system, using the language of systems theory.

II. The International System According to Realists

All realists characterize the international system as anarchic. No authority exists above

the state, which is sovereign. Each state must therefore look out for its own interests

above all.

Polarity: system polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in theinternational system. There are three types of polarity:

1. Multipolarity: if there are a number of influential actors in the international

system, a balance-of-power or multipolar system is formed.

In a balance-of-power system, the essential norms of the system are clear

to each of the state actors. In classical balance of power, the actors are

exclusively states and there should be at least five of them.


18/65

If an actor does not follow these norms, the balance-of-power system may

become unstable. When alliances are formed, they are formed for a

specific purpose, have a short duration, and shift according to advantagerather than ideology.

2. Bipolarity: in the bipolar system of the Cold War, each of the blocs (the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and the Warsaw Pact) sought tonegotiate rather than fight, to fight minor wars rather than major ones, and to fightmajor wars rather than fail to eliminate the rival bloc.

Alliances tend to be long term, based on relatively permanent, not shifting,

interests.

In a tight bipolar system, international organizations either do not develop

or are ineffective. In a looser system, international organizations may

develop primarily to mediate between the two blocs.

3. Hegemony:one state that commands influence in the international system.

Immediately after the Gulf War in 1991, many states grew concerned that

the international system had become unipolar, with no effective

counterweight to the power of the United States. System Management and Stability: Realists do not agree among themselves on how

polarity matters.

o Bipolar systems are very difficult to regulate formally, since neither uncommitted

states nor international organizations are able to direct the behavior of either ofthe two blocs. Informal regulation may be easier.

o Kenneth Waltz argues that the bipolar system is the most stable structure in the

long run because there is a clear difference in the amount of power held by thetwo poles as compared to that held by the rest of the state actors.

o John Mearsheimer suggests that the world will miss the stability and predictability

that the Cold War forged. He argues that more conflict pairs would develop and

hence more possibilities for war.

o Theoretically, in multipolar systems, the regulation of system stability ought to be

easier than in bipolar systems. Under multipolarity, numerous interactions take

place among all the various parties, and thus there is less opportunity to dwell ona specific relationship or respond to an arms buildup by just one party in the

system.

o Advocates of unipolarity, known as hegemonic stability theorists, claim thatunipolarity leads to the most stable system. Paul Kennedy argues that it was the

hegemony of Britain in the nineteenth century and that of the United States after

World War II that led to the greatest stability. When the hegemon loses power and

declines, then system stability is jeopardized.

o The international system of the twenty-first century is confronted by a unique

problem: the United States dominates both militarily and economically. What are

the implications of such a world? Will it lead to international peace?

Realists and International System Change

o Changes in either the number of major actors or the relative power relationship

among the actors may result in a change in the international system. Wars are

usually responsible for changes in power relationships.


19/65

o An example of a system change occurred at the end of World War II. The war

brought the demise of Great Britain and France, and signaled an end to

Germanys and Japans imperial aspirations. The United States and Soviet Unionemerged into dominant positions; the multipolar world had been replaced by a

bipolar one.

o

Robert Gilpin sees another form of change, where states act to preserve their owninterests and thereby change the system. Such changes occur because statesrespond at different rates to political, economic, and technological developments.

o Exogenous changes may also lead to a shift in the system. Advances in

technology not only have expanded the boundaries of accessible geographicspace, but also brought about changes in the boundaries of the international

system. With these changes came an explosion of new actors.

o Nuclear warfare has had more of an impact of on the international system more

than any other technological change. Although these weapons have not been usedsince 1945, the weapons remain much feared, and efforts by nonnuclear states to

develop such weapons, or threat to do so, has met sharp resistance. The nuclear

states do not want a change in the status quo and do not want them in the hands ofrogue states.

o In the view of realists, international systems can change, yet the inherent bias

among realist interpretations is for continuity.

III. The International System According to Liberals

The international system is not central to the view of liberals. Thus, there are threedifferent conceptions of the international system:

o Not as a structure but as a process, in which multiple interactions occur among

different parties and where various actors learn from the interaction.

1.

Actors include, not only states, but also international governmentalorganizations, nongovernmental organizations, multinational corporations,

and substate actors.

2. Each actor has interactions with all of the other ones. Thus, a great manynational interests define the system, including economic and social issues

and not just security.

3. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye describe the international system asinterdependent. There are multiple channels connecting states, and

multiple issues and agendas arise in the interdependent system.

o An English tradition of international society: in an international society, the

various actors communicate and consent to common rules and institutions and

recognize common interests.1.

Actors share a common identity, a sense of we-ness; without such an

identity, a society cannot exist.

2. This conception has normative implications: the international system is anarena and process for positive interactions

o An anarchic one in which each individual state acts in its self-interest: This is also

called neoliberal institutionalism, a view that comes closer to realist thinking.


20/65

1. But, unlike many realists, they see the product of the interaction among

actors as a potentially positive one, where institutions created out of self-

interest serve to moderate state behavior.

Liberals and International System Change

o Changes come from several sources:

1.

Changes occur as the result of exogenous technological developmentsthat is, progress occurring independently. Examples are communicationand transportation systems.

2. Change may occur because of changes in the relative importance of

different issues areas. In the last decades of the twentieth century,economic issues replaced national security issues. Globalizing issues such

as human rights may assume primacy in the twenty-first century.

3. Change may occur as new actors, including multinational corporations

and nongovernmental organizations, augment or replace state actors .

IV. The International System According to Radicals

Radicals seek to describe and explain the structure of the system in terms of

stratification: the uneven division of resources among different groups of states. The

system is stratified according to which states have vital resources.

From the stratification of power and resources comes the division between the haves,

characterized by the North, and have-nots, positioned in the South. Economic disparities

are built into the structure and all actions are constrained by this structure.

The Implications for Stratificationo When the dominant powers are challenged by those states just beneath them in

terms of access to resources, the system may become highly unstable. The rising

powers seek first-tier status and are willing to fight wars to get it. Top powers

may begin a war to quell the threat.o For Marxists, crippling stratification in the system is caused by capitalists.

Capitalism dominates international institutions whose rules are structured by

capitalist states to facilitate capitalist processes, and MNCs whose headquartersare in capitalist states but whose loci of activity are in dependent states.

o Radicals believe that the greatest amount of resentment will be felt in systems

where stratification is most extreme. The call for the New International EconomicOrder (NIEO) in the 1970s was voiced by radicals and liberal reformers in most

developing countries. They sought changes such as debt forgiveness, how

commodities were priced, and controls on multinational corporations (MNCs).

V. Constructivism and International System Change

Constructivists argue that the whole concept of an international system is a Europeanidea. Nothing can be explained by material structures alone

o Martha Finnemore suggests that there have been different international orders

with changing purposes.

Constructivists believe that what does change are social norms.


21/65

o Social norms change through both actions of the collective and through

individuals

o Norms may change through coercion, but most likely they will change throughinternational institutions, law, and social movements

VI. Advantages and Disadvantages of the International System as a Level ofAnalysis

Advantages:

1. Allows comparison and contrasts between systems2. Comprehensiveness: it enables scholars to organize the seemingly disjointed parts into a

whole.

3. Systems theory is a holistic approach. Although it cannot provide descriptions of events

at the micro level, it does allow plausible explanations at the more general level. Forrealists, generalizations provide fodder for prediction. For liberals and radicals, these

generalizations have normative implications.

Disadvantages

1. The emphasis at the international system level means that the stuff of politics is oftenneglected, while the generalizations are broad and obvious.

2. The testing of systems theories is very difficult. Most theorists are constrained by a lack

of historical information and thus the ability to test specific hypotheses over a long timeperiod is restricted.

3. The problem of boundaries: does the notion of the international system mean the political

system? What factors lie outside the system? What shapes the system?

4.

The idea of a single international system is largely a creation of European thought. It maybe better to think of multiple international systems over time

1. Imperial China

2. The umma as a community of Muslims

VII. In Sum: From the International System to the State

Of all theoretical approaches, realists and radicals pay the most attention to the

international system of analysis. For realists, the defining characteristic is polarity; for

radicals, it is stratification. Constructivists emphasize how changes in norms and ideas

shape the system, seeing little differentiation between the international and domestic

system and eschewing the importance attached to international system structure. Constraints are viewed by realists as positive, by radicals as negative, and by liberals as

neutral (as an arena and process for interaction).

Chapter 5

The State


22/65

Chapter Summary

I. The State and the Nation

For an entity to be considered a state, four fundamental conditions must be met (although

these legal criteria are not absolute):o A state must have a territorial base.

o A stable population must reside within its borders,.

o There should be a government to which this population owes allegiance.

o A state has to be recognized diplomatically by other states.

A nation is a group of people who share a set of characteristics. At the core of theconcept of a nation is the notion that people having commonalities owe their allegiance to

the nation and to its legal representative, the state.

o The recognition of commonalities among people spread with new technologies

and education. With improved methods of transportation and invention of theprinting press, people could travel, witnessing firsthand similarities and

differences among peoples. Some nations, liked Denmark and Italy, formed their own states.

This coincidence between state and nation, the nation-state, is the foundation for

national self-determination, the idea that peoples sharing nationhood have a right to

determine how and under what conditions they should live.

Other nations are spread among several states; in these cases, the state and the nation donot coincide.

o It may be a state with several nations, like South Africa and India.

o In the case of the United States and Canada, the state and nation do not coincide,yet a common identity and nationality is forged over time, even in the absence of

religious, ethnic, or cultural similarity.

o

In the United States, national values reflecting commonly held ideas are expressedin public rituals.

Not all ethnonationalists aspire to the same goals.

o Some want recognition of unique status

o Some seek solutions in federal arrangements

o A few prefer irredentism: joining with fellow ethnonationalists in other states to

create a new state

Disputes over state territories and the desires of nations to form their own states havebeen major sources of instability and even conflict.

o Of these territorial conflicts, none has been more intractable as the conflict

between the Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, who each claim the same

territory.o Five interstate wars have been fought and two uprisings by the Palestinian people

within the territory occupied by Israel have occurred since the formation of the

state of Israel in 1948.

o Should Israel and Palestinian territories be divided into two separate, independentstates?

II. Contending Conceptualizations of the State


23/65

The RealistView of the State

o Realists hold a state-centric view: the state is an autonomous actor constrained

only by the structural anarchy of the international system.

o As a sovereign entity, the state has a consistent set of goalsthat is, a national

interestdefined in terms of power. Once the state acts, it does so as an

autonomous, unitary actor. The LiberalView of the State

o The state enjoys sovereignty but is not an autonomous actor. The state is a

pluralist arena whose function is to maintain the basic rules of the game.

o There is no explicit or consistent national interest; there are many. These interestsoften change and compete against each other within a pluralistic framework.

The RadicalView of the State

o The instrumental Marxist view sees the state as the executing agent of the

bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie reacts to direct societal pressures, especially topressures from the capitalist class.

o ThestructuralMarxist view sees the state as operating within the structure of the

capitalist system. Within that system, the state is driven to expand, because of theimperatives of the capitalist system.

o In neither view is there a national interest or real sovereignty, as the state is

continually reacting to external capitalist pressures.

The ConstructivistView of the State

o National interests are neither material nor given. They are ideational and

continually changing and evolving, both in response to domestic factors and in

response to international norms and ideas.

o States have multiple identities, including a shared understanding of national

identity, which also changes, altering state preferences and hence state behavior.

Contrasting the Various Views of the State: The Example of Oil

o A realist interpretation posits a uniform national interest that is articulated by thestate. Oil is vital for national security; thus, the state desires stability in oils

availability and price.

o Liberals believe that multiple national interests influence state actions: consumergroups, manufacturers, and producers. The state itself has no consistent viewpoint

about the oil; its task is to ensure that the playing field is level and the rules are

the same for all players. There is also no single or consistent national interest.

o In the radical perspective, oil policy reflects the interests of the owner capitalist

class aligned with the bourgeoisie and reflects the structure of the international

capitalist system. The negotiating process is exploitative for the advancement of

capitalist states.

o Constructivists may try to tease out how the identities of states are constructed

around having a valuable resource.

III. The Nature of State Power

States are critical actors because they have power, which is the ability not only to

influence others but to control outcomes so as to produce results that would not haveoccurred naturally.


24/65

Power itself is multi-dimensional; there are different kinds of power.

Natural Sources of Power

o Whether power is effective at influencing outcomes depends on the powerpotentialof each party. A states power potential depends on its natural sources

of power. The three most important natural sources of power are:

1.

Geographic size and position: a large geographic expanse gives a stateautomatic power, although long borders must be defended and may be aweakness.

Alfred Mahan (1840-1914) argued that the state that controls the

ocean routes controls the world.

Sir Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) argued that the state that had

the most power was the one that controlled the heartland.

2. Natural resources: Petroleum-exporting states like Kuwait and Qatar,

which are geographically small but have greater power than their sizeswould suggest.

Having a sought-after resource may prove a liability making states

targets for aggressive actions. The absence of natural resources does not mean that a state has no

power potential; Japan is not rich in resources but is still an

economic powerhouse.

3. Population: sizable populations give power potential and great powerstatus to a state. However, states with small, highly educated, skilled

populations such as Switzerland can fill large political and economic

niches.

Tangible Sources of Power

o Industrial development:with advanced industrial capacity (such as air travel), the

advantages and disadvantages of geography diminish.

o With industrialization, the importance of population is modified: large but poorlyequipped armies are no match for small armies with advanced equipment.

o Radicals believe that differences in who has access to the source of tangible

power lead to the creation of different classes, some more powerful than others.

Intangible Sources of Power

o National image: people within states have images of their states power

potentialimages that translate into an intangible power ingredient.

o Public support: a states power is magnified when there appears to be

unprecedented public support. For example, Chinas power was magnified under

Mao Zedong because there was unprecedented public support for the communist

leadership.

o Leadership: visionaries and charismatic leaders such as Mohandas Gandhi and

Franklin Roosevelt were able to augment the power potential of their states by

taking bold initiatives. Likewise, poor leaders diminish the states power capacity.

o Joseph S. Nye has labeled intangible power soft power: the ability to attractothers because of the legitimacy of the states values or policies.

o Liberals would more than likely place greater importance on these intangible

ingredients, since several are characteristics of domestic processes.


25/65

o Constructivists argue that power includes not only the tangible and intangible

sources but also the power of ideas and language. It is through the power of ideas

and norms that state identities and nationalism are forged and changed.

IV. The Exercise of State Power

The Art of Diplomacy

o Traditional diplomacy entails states trying to influence the behavior of other

actors by negotiating.

o Diplomacy usually begins with bargaining through direct and indirectcommunication in an attempt to reach agreement on an issue.

o For bargaining to be successful, each party needs to be credible. Well-intentioned

parties have a higher probability of successful negotiations. Although states

seldom enter diplomatic bargaining as equals, each has information and goals ofits own. The outcome is almost always mutually beneficial, but the outcome may

not please each of the parties equally.

o

Bargaining and negotiations are complicated by at least two factors:1. Most states carry out two levels of bargaining simultaneously: bargaining

between and among states and the bargaining that must occur between the

states negotiators and its various domestic constituencies, both tonegotiate and to ratify the agreement. Robert Putnam refers to this as a

two-level game. Trade negotiations with the World Trade Organization

are often conducted as two-level games.

2. Bargaining and negotiating are a culture-bound activity. Approaches tobargaining vary across cultures. Two styles of negotiations have been

identified:

Deductive style: from general principles to particular applications.

The South argued in this style during the New InternationalEconomic Order (NIEO) negotiations,

Pragmatic style: addressing concrete problems and resolving

specific issues before broader principles. The North argued in thisstyle during NIEO negotiations, leading to a stalemate between

North and South.

o The use of public diplomacy is an increasingly popular technique. It involvestargeting both foreign publics and elites, attempting to create an overall image

that enhances a countrys ability to achieve its objectives. It was used before and

during the 2003 Iraq war.

o Diplomacy may need to include more than negotiations, making other forms of

diplomacy necessary.o Some states may choose niche diplomacy, concentrating their efforts on in a few

areas.

Economic Statecraft

o States may use both positive and negative economic sanctionsto try to influence

other states.

o Positive sanctions involve offering a carrot, enticing the target state to act in thedesired way by rewarding moves made in the desired direction.


26/65

o Negative sanctions may be more the norm: threatening to act or actually taking

actions that punish the target state for moves made in the direction not desired.

o A states ability to use these instruments of economic statecraft depends on itspower potential.

o While radicals deny it, liberals argue that developing states do have some

leverage in economic statecraft if they control a key resource of which there islimited production.

o In general, economic sanctions have not been very successful. They appear to

work in the short term, but in the long term, it is difficult to maintain international

cohesion because states imposing the sanctions find it more advantageous to bustthe sanctions to gain economically.

o Since the mid-1990s, states have imposed so-called smart sanctions, including

freezing assets of governments and/or individuals and imposing commodities

sanctions. The international community has tried to affect specific individuals andavoid the high humanitarian costs of general sanctions.

The Use of Force

o

Force may be used either to get a target state to do something or to undosomething it has donecalled compellenceor to keep an adversary from doing

somethingcalled deterrence.

o Compellence was used in the prelude to the 1991 Gulf War as the international

community tried to get Saddam Hussein to change his actions. During each stepof the compellent strategy of escalation, one message was communicated to Iraq:

withdraw from Kuwait or more coercive actions will follow.

o Compellence was also used when the Western alliance sought to get Serbia tostop abusing the human rights of Kosovar Albanians, and before the 2003 Iraq

war.

o With deterrence, states commit themselves to punishing a target state if the target

state takes an undesired action. Threats of actual war are used to dissuade a statefrom pursuing certain courses of action.

o Deterrence has taken on a special meaning since the advent of nuclear weapons in

1945. States that recognize the destructive capability of nuclear weapons andknow that others have a second-strike capabilitythe ability to retaliate even

after an attack has been launched by an opponentwill refrain from taking

aggressive action, using its first-strike capability. Deterrence is then successful.

o For either compellence or deterrence to be effective, states must clearly and

openly communicate their objectives and capabilities, be willing to make good on

the threats, and have the credibility to follow through with their commitments.

o Compellence and deterrence can fail. Even if states go to war, they have choices.They choose the type of weaponry, the kind of targets, the geographic locus, and

to respond in kind, to escalate, or de-escalate.

Democracy and Foreign Policy

o Is the foreign policy behavior of democratic states any different from the behaviorof nondemocratic or authoritarian states?

o In Perpetual Peace (1795), Immanuel Kant argued that the spread of democracy

would change international politics by eliminating war. The public would be very


27/65

cautious in supporting war since they are apt to suffer the most devastating

effects.

o Other explanations have been added to the democratic peace hypothesis.Perhaps some are more satisfied with the status quo or more likely to be allies of

each other since they share similar values.

o

Despite a plethora of studies by political scientists, the evidence is not that clear-cut and explanations are partial. Even within a single research program, there maybe serious differences in conclusions based on the assumptions made and methods

used.

o Yet the basic finding is that democracies do not engage in militarized disputesagainst each other. Democracies are not more pacific than nondemocracies;

democracies just do not fight each other.

V. Models of Foreign Policy Decision Making

The Rational Model

o

Foreign policy is conceived of as actions chosen by the national government thatmaximize its strategic goals and objectives.

o In times of crisis, when decision makers are confronted by a threatening event and

have only a short time to make a decision about how to respond, then using therational model as a way to assess the other sides behavior is an appropriate

choice.

o Most U.S. assessments of decisions taken by the Soviet Union during the Cold

War were based on a rational model. The Bureaucratic/Organizational Model

o Organizational politics emphasizes the standard operating procedures and

processes of an organization. Decisions depend heavily on precedents; major

changes in policy are unlikely.o Bureaucratic politics occurs among members of the bureaucracy representing

different interests. Decisions flow from the tug-of-war among these departments

and individuals.

o Noncrisis situations, such as trade policy, provide a ripe area to see this model of

decision making at work. When time is no real constraint, informal groups and

departments have time to mobilize.

o The decisions arrived at are not always the most rational ones; rather they are the

decisions that satisficesatisfy the most different constituents without

ostracizing any.

o Liberals especially turn to this model of decision-making behavior in their

analyses. The model is relevant in large, democratic countries, whereresponsibility it divided among a number of different units.

The Pluralist Model

o The pluralist model attributes decisions to bargaining conducted among domesticsourcesthe public, interest groups, and multinational corporations (MNCs).

o In noncrisis situations, especially economic ones, societal groups may play very

important roles. Societal groups have a variety of ways of forcing decisions in


28/65

their favor or constraining decisions. The movement to ban land mines in the

1990s is an example of a pluralist foreign policy decision.

VI. Challenges to the State

Globalizationo Externally, the state is buffeted by globalization, growing integration of the

world in terms of politics, economics, communications, and culture. It is a process

that undermines traditional state sovereignty.

o Politically, the state is confronted by globalizing issuesenvironmentaldegradation and diseasewhich governments cannot manage alone and that

which requires cooperative action.

o Economically, states and financial markets are tied inextricably together. The

internationalization of production and consumption make it ever more difficult forstates to regulate their own economic policies.

o Culturally, new and intrusive technologiese-mail, fax machines, worldwide TV

networksincreasingly undermine the states control over information and henceits control over its citizenry.

Transnational Crime

o Transnational crime has led to the accelerating movement of illegal drugs,counterfeit goods, smuggled weapons, laundered money, and trafficking in poor

and exploited people.

o It has created new businesses while distorting national and regional economies.

States and government are incapable of responding because of rigid bureaucraciesand corrupt officials undermine the states efforts.

Transnational Movements

o Transnational movements, particularly religious and ideological movements, are

now political forces that have challenged the state.o In Christendom, these movements reject secularism and attempt to turn political,

social, and individual loyalties away from the state and toward religious ideas.

o Believers in Islamic fundamentalismare united by wanting to change states andsocieties by basing them on the ideas contained in the texts of Islam. They see a

long-standing discrepancy between the political and economic aspirations of

states and the actual conditions of corrupt rule and economic inequality.

o Not all transnational movements pose a threat to the state; many develop around

progressive goals such as the environment, human rights, and development.

Ethnonational Movements

o Ethnonational movements identify more with a particular culture than with a

state. Having experienced discrimination or persecution, many of these groups arenow taking collective action in support of national self-determination.

o Kashmir is one of the more complex ethnonational movement; Kashmiris are

overwhelmingly Muslim but have been ruled by Hindus. It is also tied to thelarger conflict between India and Pakistan.

o Some ethnonational challenges lead to civil conflict and war, as the Kashmir case

illustrates.


29/65

o Ethnonationalist movements can pose a challenge even to the strongest of states.

For example, China has been confronted by Uighur uprisings.

Chapter 6

The Individual

Chapter Summary

I. Foreign-Policy Elites: Individuals Who Matter

Liberals are adamant that leaders do make a difference. Whenever there is a leadership

change in a major power, speculation always arises about possible changes in the

countrys foreign policy.o Ample empirical proof has been offered that individual leadership matters. From

Nicolae Ceauescu to Mikhail Gorbachev, leadership made a difference in starting

and sustaining foreign policy reforms in their respective countries.

Constructivists attribute policy shifts in the Soviet Union only to Gorbachev, but also tothe networks of reformists and international affairs specialists who promoted new ideas.

For realists, individuals are of little importance. States are not differentiated by their

government type or personalities of leaders, but by the relative power they hold in the

international system.

The Impact of Elites: External Conditions

o When political institutions are unstable, young, in crisis, or collapsed, leaders are

able to provide powerful influences.o When they have few institutional constraints. In dictatorial regimes, top leaders

are free from constraints such as societal inputs and political opposition and thus

can change policy unfettered.

o The specifics of a situation. Decision makers personal characteristics have more

influence on outcomes when the issue is peripheral rather than central, when the

issue is not routine, or when the situation is ambiguous and information usunclear.

The Impact of Elites: The Personality Factor

o Political psychologist Margaret Hermann has found a number of personality

characteristics that affect foreign-policy behaviors.1.

Leaders with high levels of nationalism, a strong need for power, and a

high level of distrust of others, tend to develop an independent orientation

to foreign affairs.

2. Leaders with low levels of nationalism, a high need for evaluation, andlow levels of distrust of others, tended toward a participatory orientation in

foreign affairs.


30/65

o Personality characteristics affect the leadership of dictators more than that of

democratic leaders because leaders because of the absence of effective

institutional checks.

o Betty Glad analyzed the personalities of tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam

Hussein and labeled them as having malignant narcissism syndrome-those who

rule without attention to law, capitalize on self-presentations, and utilize crueltactics.

Individual Decision Making

o Individuals are not perfectly rational decision makers. The individual selects,

organizes, and evaluates incoming information about the surrounding world.

o In perceiving and interpreting new and oftentimes contradictory information,

individuals rely on existing perceptions. If those perceptions form a relatively

integrated set of images, then they are called a belief system.

o Political scientists have conducted a number of empirical elite mindset studies ofthose individuals who left behind extensive written records. Since few leaders

leave such as record, our ability to reconstruct elite images and perceptions is

limited, as is our ability to state their influence on a specific decision. Information-Processing Mechanisms

o Individual elites utilize, usually unconsciously, a number of psychological

mechanisms to process the information that forms their general perceptions of the

world:1. Individuals strive to be cognitively consistent, ensuring that images hang

together consistently within their belief systems.

2. Elites in power look for those details of a present episode that look like apast one, perhaps ignoring the important differences. This is referred to as

the evoked set.

3. Perceptions are often shaped in terms of mirror images: while

considering ones own action good, moral, and just, the enemy isautomatically found to be evil, immoral, and unjust.

o Small groups also have psychologically based dynamics that undermine the

rational model. The psychologist Irving Janis called this dynamic groupthink.The dynamics of the group include:

1. The illusion of invulnerability and unanimity

2. Excessive optimism3. Belief in their own morality and the enemys evil

4. Pressure placed on dissenters to change their views

o Small groups have additional distorting tendencies than individuals, such as the

pressure for group conformity and searching for a good-enough solution ratherthan an optimal one.

o

Top leaders do influence foreign policy, which is made, not just by tyrants, but

also by visionaries (like Julius Nyerere and Nelson Mandela) and by political

pragmatists (like Vladimir Putin and Margaret Thatcher).

II. Private Individuals


31/65

Less bound by the rules of the game or the rules of the game or by institutional norms,

private individuals engage in activities in which official representatives are either unable

or unwilling to participate.

o The donations by Bill and Melinda Gates to global vaccination and AIDS

programs are an example.

Private individuals increasingly play a role in track-two diplomacy. Track-twodiplomacy utilizes individuals outside governments to carry out the task of conflictresolution.

o Jimmy Carter, acting through the Carter Center, has negotiated several disputes,

such as Eritreas independence from Ethiopia and reconciliation between Israeland the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

o Track-two diplomatic efforts are not always well received. Jimmy Carters

eleventh-hour dash to meet North Koreas Kim Il Sing in 1994 to discuss the

latters nuclear buildup was met by questions such as: Was the U.S. governmentbeing preempted? For whom did Carter speak?

o Private individuals have played linkage roles between different countries. Armand

Hammer, a U.S. corporate executive, was a successful go-between for the SovietUnion and the United States.

o Individuals may be propelled into the international arena by virtue of their

actions: Jane Fonda illegally visited North Vietnam during the 1960s, Olympic

athletes who defect from their countries, Kenyas Wangari Maathai, whopromoted that countrys Green Belt Movement, and countless Nobel Prize-

winners who have significantly influenced international relations.

o Alternative critical and postmodern approaches are attempting to drawmainstream theorists attention to these other stories. Feminist writers have sought

to bring attention to the role of private individuals and especially women.

A. Q. Khan and Aung San Suu Kyi

o A. Q. Khan confessed to selling nuclear technology and components to Libya,Iran, and North Korea; this made the world a less secure place

o Aung San Suu Kyi became the face of the opposition movement in Myanmar

(Burma). Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, she is an international symbolof her movement.

III. Mass Publics

Mass publics have the same psychological tendencies as elite individuals and small

groups. They think in terms of perceptions and images, they see mirror images, and they

use similar information-processing strategies.

The influence that mass publics do have on foreign policy can be explained in threeways:

1. Elites and masses act the same because they share common psychological and

biological characteristics.2. The masses have opinions and attitudes about foreign policy and international

relations that are different from those of the elites.


32/65

3. The masses, uncontrolled by institutions, may occasionally act in ways that have a

profound impact on international relations, rega

Documents

Essentials of World Politics