Introduction to International Relations

WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS MEAN?

International Relations International Relations (IR) is the

interaction among countries. IR depends a lot on power, the ability of

one country to get another to do (or sometimes not do) something.

The United States and sometimes Russia are two of the major superpowers that use power to get other countries to do something.

Cold War Era

Using Power in IRCountries acquire international power

through wealth and bullying smaller countries through military intimidation.

Using Power in IRSome order grows out of relative power

amongst nations. During the 19th Century, the British

Empire arranged much of the globe to its liking, and small, weak lands largely obeyed.

Such power relationships create international systems, the way power is distributed around the globe.

IR systems always change

If one country has overwhelming power, enough to supervise the globe (unlikely), it might be a unipolar system.Unipolar system: World led by one sovereign

country

The world during the 20th century has witnessed four IR systems.

1. Pre-World War I Dominance of the Great European empires

in the 19th century until 1914. In system theory, this period represents a balance-of-power system, but by 1910 it has decayed.

2. World War I through World War 2 The empires destroy themselves from

1914-1945. With the major countries not willing to respond to threats, this period is termed “antibalance-of-power” system. These systems are stable and temporary.

3. Cold War The collapse of the traditional European

powers leaves the U.S. and the USSR facing each other in a bipolar system (two country system).

The superpowers block and exhaust themselves from 1945 through the 1980s, and the bipolar system falls apart.

4. Post-Cold War The collapse of the Soviet Union end

bipolarity, which leaves the world in a disputed era.

Current theories range from multipolar (several power centers) to zones of chaos and from globalization (interlocked world) to clash of civilizations.

Remember…. We do not live in a perfect neat world

where we could put every world issue in a neat pile. Same thing goes with IR.

Systems can overlap. Treating Iraq and Afghanistan as Cold War

battles, has made new generations of enemies (ISIS).

What kind of New System Will We See?

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has raised the question of what system theory are we living in. There are seven possible theories.

Multipolar? The most accepted model sees the world as

multipolar.A system of several centers of power, some of

them trading blocs and all of them engaged in tough economic competition.

Multipolar would somewhat resemble the old balance-of-power system, but the blocs and major nations do not form new alliances. Instead, they focus on their economies, and

economic growth becomes their main task in order to gain power and respect.

Multipolar? This model does not fit reality perfectly. The blocs (the European Union, the Pacific

Rim, and others), cannot look after their own security; all need U.S. help. Western Europe asked for U.S. help during the

Yugoslavian uprising.South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan are powerful

trade competitors with the U.S. but all want free security from America.

Multipolar? Many theorist believe that the United

States controls the world because of its military. Without U.S. leadership in the world, little gets done.

If trade disputes become too great, a multipolar system would break down into something else, perhaps a “resource war” system.

Unipolar? The world dominated by one power center. In this picture, the United States would lead

in constructing what President Bush senior called a “new world order”.

The U.S. leads the United Nations and the middle-sized powers to stop an aggressor.

New World Order Highlights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MADYzQstpsU

Unipolar? Would the world unite and fight back

against the unipolar power? Bush administration adopted the unipolar

view of the world and tried to implement it in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003.

Counterweight? As Bush 43 pursued a unipolar model, many

European lands, Russia, China, and others countries spoke of a “counterweight” to U.S. powers.

They saw the U.S. as dominating and too eager for war.

Here, instead of following the U.S., many other nations agree among themselves to ignore or oppose the U.S.

In reaction to U.S. policy on Iraq, the world tend to form a counterweight, such as Russia and China.

Stratified? A stratified model combines the unipolar

and multipolar models may fit reality better. Power distributed by layers.

1st layer: The rich high-tech countries. 2nd layer: Rapidly industrializing lands such as

China, India, and Brazil. 3rd layer: “Zone of chaos” dominated by

crime, warlords, and instability. (Middle East, Africa, Central America, Southern Asia)

Stratified? Many of the world’s natural resources

(particularly oil) are in these chaotic zones, so the first layer is inevitably drawn into their difficulties.

Rich countries will like to keep these countries chaotic in order to have an excuse to intervene.

U.S.-China Duopoly? Two big powers dominate. The G-2 (Group of 2) indicating they are the

only two that really count now. In UN and in G8 and G20 meetings.

This theory is being proven wrong.China concentrates on its own economic growth

and avoids global problems such as nuclear proliferation, peacekeeping, currency parties, and climate change. (Isolationism)

Globalized? The world turning into one big capitalist

market. Most countries become economic players in

the world market, a capitalist competition where goods, money, and ideas flow easily to wherever there are costumers.

The motto of a globalized system: “Make money, not war.”

Globalized? Problems with a globalized system:

If one of the major countries falls into a recession or a depression, it will disrupt the world’s economy.

Rich will take advantage of poor countries.War could lead to blockades and the

cancelation of business between countries.

Resource Wars? Some researchers warn we are moving into an “age of scarcity”

marked by a scramble for natural resources, especially petroleum.

We might already be engaged in resources wars: the 1991 and 2003 wars in Iraq.

War over oil? War over water? War over land if seas rise?

Clash of Civilizations? The biggest threat: Islamic extremist vs.

the West, Slavic/Orthodox, and Hindu Civilizations.

Saudi Arabia and Iran, which both detested Saddam’s dictatorship in Iraq, opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion. Pakistan felt the same way about the Afghanistan invasion. One should not invade a brother Muslim

country.

Question:

Which, if any, of these models matches and explains international relations today? Could a combination provide a better fit? Explain your answer. (2 paragraphs)

Is Sovereignty Slipping? The authority of a state to govern itself.

Being the boss on your own turf. Sovereignty has always partly fictional. Big,

rich, and powerful countries routinely influence and even dominate small, poor, and weak countries. (Become their puppets)

Is Sovereignty Slipping? The United Nations has told Iran that they

can’t develop nuclear weapons (Iran not the boss on their own turf).

But the world didn’t interfere in the massacre of 800,000 Rwandans in 1994.

Why interfere in Iran and not Rwanda? Did a major power have something to gain in Rwanda?

Is Sovereignty Slipping? The European Union (EU) is now one giant

economic market, and many important decisions are made in Brussels headquarters, not in it members’ capitals. EU members have surrendered some of their

sovereignty to a higher body. Many have given up control of their own

currency to the Euro.EU is trying to build common foreign and

defense policies.

Blue Gold: World Water Wars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWqLrMI_iI