IR Final Gov 1817

Nau

"We fight about foreign politics because everyone sees the world differently" presents a few views of the world. Introduces 3 principle ways to view IR: realist, liberal and constructivist perspective. Introduces "state power". Realists: View world in terms of power struggle, alliances, threat and use of force. They seek to arm themselves and gain wealth to ensure their survival. (Balance of power and maintaining it is a CENTRAL idea). Liberals: look at world in terms of expanding cooperation, interdependence through trade, negotiations and international institutions. Pro modernization and hierarchical order (in terms of all players in liberal system obeying "rules" set forth". Liberal states want "perfect unions". Liberal idea "Democracies don't fight democracies". The actor are individuals (not states) although in terms of a pluralist view the actors are: democracies. -Commercial: trade centered// all about globalization & integration -Republican: story of democratization (of society) -Institutional: (post 20th c.) about international mechanism of global government // wants institutions to hold liberal views Constructivists: View world in terms of identities- ideas values and norms that are shared shape cultural identity. Constantly changing (This contrasts greatly with the ideologies of realism and liberalism which believed the "world just is"). Additionally, this perspective is not a paradigm, but views any relations in terms of "dialogue and dispute". How states view themselves and how they view other states determines their use of power and their behavior.

Chomsky - Intervention in Vietnam and Central America: Parallels and Differences

- Question: Is the level that Central America and Vietnam are similar a significant one? Also, the connection between US humanitarian aid, economic control, and US influence on the rest of the world - The level we consider them is US intervention was significant and decisive - The effects were horrifying - the roots of this intervention lie in a fixed geopolitical conception that has remained invariant over a long period and that is deeply rooted in U.S. institutions. - Argument: USA laid out plans for a "grand area," to feed the needs of the American economy - "strategically necessary for world control" as the US edged toward hegemony by controlling. Grand area included the western hemisphere, the Far East, and the former British empire. In order to have this kind of control, though, "we do have to consistently oppose democratization, the raising of living standards, and human rights". - Communists were people whose interests got in the way of ours. The primary threat of communism is the "economic transformation of the Communist powers which reduce their willingness and ability to compliment western economies". For the US, if they were against our interests and pursued policies like that then they were with the russians (Us vs them). - USA tries to create enemies if it cannot control its economy or political structure. If the USA pushes a country to cozy up to the Russians, then it justifies a violent American strike on that country. USSR does the same thing. A lot of the people the US pushes to become enemies aren't even all that cozy with the Soviets to begin with. We would create problems and then have an excuse to blame communists - Also, can't let small, economically-insignificant countries get away from US control bc then other, more economically-valuable countries would try to follow this open door - Control of smaller countries like Nicaragua, Cuba, Panama, Mexico, Honduras, Haiti by putting dictators in power, instituting slavery to get economic gains for the US, and keeping these places from becoming democratic. - "the more human rights climates deteriorates, the more American aid increases" - and therefore we control more of the government - Ho Chi Minh was the sole leader of Vietnamese nationalism but if he was successful he'd be a threat to the Grand Area. ○ USA mega bombed Laos because they wanted to stamp out a mild rebellion as a sign to the rest of the world. ○ Dichotomy between when US interns the inhabitants of a country and when another country does it. ○ Vietnam completely devastated, millions killed after US occupation. ○ In central America, the american military used proxies in order to kill hundreds of thousands of people, in order to "promote american interests." ● Responding To: Anyone who defends american actions during the cold war. ● Critique: Lewis, Fairbank and Karnow who were dovish and anti war.

Kennan: Article X

- Question: What is the best way to deal with the Communist threat based on the the ideology and traits inherent to their style of ruling? - Argument: The main element of policy towards the USSR should be long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansionist tendencies (the innate antagonism between capitalism and socialism [in the basic badness of communism, the inevitability of its destruction, and the obligation of the proletariat to assist in that destruction and take power into their own hands] that cannot facilitate trust or cooperation, the soviet belief in the infallibility of the Kremlin [Kremlin is the sole repository of truth, iron discipline required to sustain this belief, "unshakeable stubbornness and steadfastness in orientation"], and the fact that the Kremlin is under no ideological compulsion to accomplish its purposes in a hurry - can afford to be patient). At this moment, the Russian people are tired physically and spiritually, the economy is doomed to fail, and there is a growing disconnect between people and authority as the people are growing in age, outlook, and interest who could collapse into disunity. The US should pursue a cautious, persistent pressure towards the disruption and weakening of all rival-influence and rival power. - Against: Those in government considering other forms of action and policy against the USSR3 - Critique: Intervention could have ended the struggle much faster?

Ripsman and Blanchard

Commercial Liberalism: Weighs costs vs benefits before acting. Trade leads to interdependence, which leads to peace. War gets rid of trade which gets rid of interdependence. Domestic Politics: Empirical analysis of internal affairs explain actions of an actor.

Koslowski and Kratochwil: Understanding Change

Constructivist - Puzzle: Understanding change in international politics by analyzing the transformation of the international system caused by perestroika and the revolutions in Eastern Europe. - Argument: The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe hollowed the Warsaw Pact and led to its disintegration. Revolution spread from eastern europe to the soviet union which collapsed it and its demise confirmed the transformation of the international system. It takes a constructivist approach to argue that in all politics, domestic and international, actors reproduce or alter systems through their actions. Actors can change the system when their practices change the rules and norms that make up international interaction. Constructivism likes institutions. The revolutions in Eastern Europe proved the Cold War was over. - In response to: Refutes Realist claims. Says Realism doesn't understand gorbachev. Says realism can't explain the changes because it black boxes the state. says neorealists believed the world would remain bipolar by virtue of the respective capabilities of the SU and US, regardless of changes in domestic politics. SU behavior went against realist expectations. Mearsheimer was wrong that the present can be understood in terms of a trend back to the future. Also neorealists are wrong. Also argues against Waltz. - Critiques: You can't argue against the nature of realism because that is its strength.

Tannenwald - The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use

Constructivist - Question: Why haven't nuclear weapons had a more significant influence on global conflicts? Where does this taboo on nuclear weapons come from? - Argument: Nuclear weapons are stigmatized as unacceptable weapons of mass destruction. - 1) non-use of nuclear weapons in cases where no fear of nuclear retaliation (where adversary couldn't retaliate) - 2) Widespread normative opprobrium against nuclear use may have strengthened expectations of non-nuclear states that nuclear weapons wouldn't be used against them. - 3) non-nuclear states don't live daily in nuclear security dilemma - decreasing legitimacy of nuclear weapons reflected in public opinion and institutionalized by international agreements: nuclear weapons free zones, arms control agreements, etc. - taboo explanation: as taboo gains strength, nuclear weapons become increasingly stigmatized and delegitimized, utility diminish, leaders seek non-nuclear alternatives - Against: responding to Schelling, Russett, Quester — all note the nuclear taboo and suggests its role in nuclear non-use - Critique: the non-use of nuclear weapons can be explained solely on the basis of material factors (realist account). Norms are a function of power and interests. Taboo is negligible → rational deterrence is a competing explanation but it's an incomplete one.

Martha Finnemore: Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention

Constructivist ● Puzzle: Why do states intervene for humanitarian reasons in places that have little to no strategic importance? ● Answer: It can't be understood apart from the changing normative context in which it occurs. Normative context shapes conceptions of interest. Typical accounts don't define what these interests are, rather they just leave them vague. Therefore, you have to examine what these interests are in order to explain these seemingly altruistic humanitarian efforts. You cannot explain humanitarian efforts unless you look at the interests of the country offering the help. Shifts in intervention change in shifts in standards articulated by states concerning ends and means of intervention. ○ Five parts of analysis ○ 1: Realist and liberal views don't explain humanitarian intervention as a practice or the change in its practice over time because these two theories treat a state's interests as static. Constructivists can fix this by providing a way by which interests can change over time. ○ 2: looking at humanitarian intervention in the 19th century. In the 19th century, the west only intervened on behalf of Christians, as can be seen from examining the ottoman empire. ○ 3: The expansion of the definition of Humanity and efforts to abolish slavery, colonization and help non-white, non-christians. Britain honestly tried to do something to help but it was a limited effort. Tried to stop the slave trade on the high seas. ○ Realists don't investigate interests, they assume them. US refused to take over state building in Somalia, didn't overthrow Hussein in Iraq (the first time). ○ Constructivists dont deny the importance of power and interest. They investigate different questions of what those interests are and what the ends are and what the means that will be used are. These answers aren't simple. ○ Justification is not motivation. ○ Humanitarian justifications change over time. White Europeans began to view people who were different from them as being human. People in western states began to identify with non western people. ○ Political consequences became pronounced after this. ○ Europeans in the 19th century intervened when Christians were in harm's way but not non christians. ○ Later, when the slave trade was abolished, they began to act differently. Slavery was repugnant to the countries who had practiced it a century earlier. Despite this, abuses by Christians went with less outrage than those by muslim turks. ○ Colonized peoples become human in the eyes of europeans by adopting their practices. ○ Multilateralism is necessary to generate support. ● Responding To: Realist ideals that countries are intervening outside their interests or that they don't intervene when they don't have interests. ● Critique:

Jutta Weldes: Constructing National Interests

Constructivist ● Question: How do countries form national interest or make decisions based off of national interest? ● Argument: National interest is reactionary to domestic/international developments and changes based on the contexts ○ ex. missile "crisis": "crisis", "aggresive" missiles in Cuba kind of unnecessary bc USSR could kill us with long range missiles from home - just the interpretation of this action ○ ex. cuba's view: act of defense, US had been trying to kill Castro for ages - "Facts can be reinterpreted based on ideas and norms" (Natalie) - US went to defcon based on constructed perceptions ○ ex. USSR view: "missile gap" gain more power with less weapons, defensive, not offensive actions ● Responding to: Realists/liberals - "rational state people" - power/preservation not accounting for people's responses based on events that were perceived to need action ● Criticism: Constructivism makes sense - Cuba doesn't pose any significant threat to the US power, just a threat to our identity. However, realism (state security) can also play a large role - structural realism looking at military capabilities, threatening our security with Soviet weapons so we made a rational decision with a blockade yet it was still for our own safety

Graham T. Allison: Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis

Domestic Politics - Question: How did the US respond to missile crisis and why was the blockade was chosen? Does the decision-making process change the outcome of a choice? - Argument: Three different models can be used under domestic politics for different levels of analysis for this question. For this situation, Model I (realism) isn't enough, and needs to be supplemente by Model II and Model III (both domestic politics, but III focuses on bureaucracy more). - Model I: States are unitary actors with no individuals or groups. Countries pursue the most rational paths for self interests (self-interest)- the blockade was a rational decision for the US, based on the decision of a unified group all representing the United States that considered: - doing nothing (but ignores physical threat of USSR nukes and political threat challenging US's sphere of control) - diplomatic pressures (but UN security council bill could be vetoed by Russia, sending emissaries could be aggressive or interpreted as an ultimatum, middle of crisis was no time for concessions etc) - secret approach to castro (separate Cuba and USSR by offering him alternatives, but Soviet troop were the ones in control of weapons) - Invasion (remove missiles and Castro - troops were readied, but last resort bc such brinkmanship courted nuclear disaster, guaranteeing Soviet movement against Berlin) - Surgical Air Strike (but to succeed would have to be huge and destructive, plus would kill Russians and cause USSR to retaliate) - Blockade (indirect military action - if soviets crossed, US would have to retaliate, could cause USSR retaliation for the implementation, blockade would violate international freedom of the seas BUT advantages: would put the choice on USSR, a middle course between action and inaction, was the most amount of possible naval interaction, permitted US to exploit the threat of subsequent non-nuclear steps [we still had best military, and now we could use it if they didn't cooperate]) - Model II: multiple organizations within gov't and their processes/goals create the action that will ultimately be made - US intelligence groups and the CIA discovered the missiles, watched the construction, and monitored Soviet movement. Problems (intelligence failures during crisis) in communication and action because many jobs do not fall into neatly defined jurisdictions and vigorous organizations are not imperialistic - Model III: organization depends on who leads it - central player contributes to the decision - "the name of the game is bureaucratic politics: bargaining along regularized channels among players positioned hierarchically within the government", and these people are following personal and national goals - In the end, formulation of alternative frames of reference and demonstration that different analysts, relying predominantly on different models, produce quite different explanations - reader should pay attention to the "nets" the writer employs - Responding to: Realists - need to look at more than just the decisions of the state and identify the deciding factors of the domestic groups and leaders of the state - Critique: Eclecticism makes sense in this situation because it was a national security risk, but it was also domestic politics. You could also say some of it was constructivist because it was defending the political identities and conceptions of strength and willingness to take risks of each bipolar power

Cronin: ISIS is Not a Terrorist Group

Domestic Politics - Question: If ISIS isn't a terrorist group, what are they and how do we deal with them? - Answer: They're a pseudo state who uses terrorism as a tactic. The USA is mistaken in likening them to Al Qaeda. USA has been using the wrong tactic against them and has really only been helping them in doing so. - ISIS became a thing after the US 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was initially just a Sunni extremist group fighting US forces and attacking Shiite civilians in an attempt to form a sectarian civil war. - Goal was to create a united radical front. - At that time it was led by Al Zarqawi and was called Al qaeda in Iraq. - ISIS is attracting people from all over the world and winning tactical wins. Why? - Their goals are different From Al Qaeda's. That's why the way we're dealing with them is wrong because they're not al qaeda. - US system is good because attacks on american soil don't happen but it doesn't do much abroad, specifically where ISIS is - ISIS is found in cities, integrated into the population so our usual strategy of drone strikes doesn't work. Killing their leaders won't work either because of the structure of the bureaucracy. - US can't stop the funding that ISIS gets because they're self sustaining. Key oil is big for them. They sell black market oil really well. ISIS also loots everywhere it takes so things like jewelry and livestock go into the war effort. It also produces goods like cotton and wheat in Raqqa, Syria. - PR doesn't work for ISIS the way it did for Al Qaeda because ISIS is impervious to the same kind of public relations slander that the US was able to use effectively against Al Qaeda for killing muslims. The focus on ISIS' cruelty shows off their strength. - Deradicalization doesn't work the same way because for Al Qaeda, they were able to portray the religious fundamentalism as unsexy or unfun and dissuade new members. ISIS is exciting in a way that Al Qaeda isn't. ISIS' use of sex slaves as a recruiting tool is an example. It doesn't radicalize in the way that can be dealt with by logic. - US also unable to de radicalize the country and get tribes on their side in the way that they could with Al Qaeda because the Iraqi government did such an awful job of portraying its own legitimacy that it's too late. - It's also too late to try to de radicalize the people. They now have american training because of when we trained the Iraqi military and american arms taken from the Iraqi military. - The amount of attention that is being directed towards ISIS right now is increasing the perception of their power to other states around the world - We can't militarily overwhelm them so we should instead do so through diplomatic sanctions and limited strikes. The world needs a unified diplomatic response to ISIS. - containment is the answer for now :) - Responding To: Conventional tactics to fight ISIS used to fight Al Qaeda and the comparison between the two. - Critique- constructivism. also connect this article to kennan

Sagan: More Will be Worse

Domestic politics - Question: How will the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons affect international relations? - Argument: We should use organizational theory to study consequences of proliferation. Two themes in organization theory focus on 1) large organizations function within severely "bounded", or limited form of rationality. Organizations "satisfice"- rather than searching for policy that maximizes utility, they accept the option that is minimally satisfying 2) complex organizations have multiple conflicting goals and process by which objectives are chosen/pursued are intensely political→ ex: weapon system operators have different interests than their commanders - Bureaucratic politics and nuclear proliferation are a recipe for disaster. The prime motivating force behind international actions is domestic politics. Similar failures are seen in second-strike capability wherein bounded rationality in bureaucratic politics leads to a preference for spending on increased capability and weapons stockpiling rather than foolproof second-strike plans. Even the U.S. with its massive military budget took years to develop invulnerable second-strike capability, often against the wishes of the relevant military branches. Finally, because military officers are generally offensive-minded, military may pursue justifiable, but unnecessary/harmful military campaigns; would entail military victory, which armed forces are only concerned with. - Against: response to K. Waltz & others who believe nuclear weapons are stabilizing force because states are rational actors. Their arguments are similar to bipolarity in that they conclude states will pay heightened levels of attention to interactions to make sure threats are not accidentally made. They assume that states are rational and unilateral, which is clearly not the case with nuclear weapons. The development and use of such weapons entails a civilian/military divide, leading to competing bureaucratic objectives and bounded rationality as opposed to pure rationality assumed by realists. - Critique: Sagan rightly gets at the nature of domestic political regimes as being inherently unstable. He fails to account that U.S. was the earliest nuclear state - and thus went through growing pains as any state is apt to do with previously unused technology. What Sagan attributes to bureaucratic politics and its bounded rationality may instead be understood as bare lack of understanding of the magnitude of the situation. Were his predictions true, one would have expected to see increased aggression on the parts of Israel, Pakistan, India, or any of the other nascent nuclear states. Either the bounded rationality of those with nuclear control comes closer to real rationality than predicted by Sagan, or competing incentives for action not considered by Sagan are in play that make not striking, preventing unauthorized use, and having second-strike capabilities a boundedly rational choice for these states. His perspective ultimately has weak explanatory power with regards to the threat of nuclear proliferation.

Huntington Constructivism

In modern world differences in ideologies between civilizations causes conflicts. Western world and Islamic world conflict dominates global conflict. People define themselves by the civilization they belongs to. Americans react better to canadian or european investment than Japanese. Culture and religion form the basis of this. Kin syndrome: Countries with similar ideologies are more likely to intervene on behalf of each other. Institutional liberalism: Through multilateral institutions, we can promote world cooperation. Countries want to be more transparent in order to promote better deals with other countries.

Mead, Jacksonian tradition:

Jacksonians: Believe in strong military, suspicion of elites, strong local and state government. Not a political movement but an expression of cultural values. Anti immigrant to a degree. Jeffersonian is book ideology, jacksonian is folk ideology. Any infringement on equality is met with resistance. Rights and claims are to be respected. Believe in moral and political instincts of american people. Honorable enemies fight clean and get the same, dishonorable enemies fight dirty and get the same.

Katzenstein: Same war different views:

Japan, Germany and USA viewed 9/11 different. Germany only cared about terrorist events on German soil. Japan wasn't concerned abroad either. The same within its own borders philosophy doesn't work when Germany gives political asylum to religious extremist organizations. French crackdowns following terrorist attacks caused some cells to move to germany. Japan has inadequate laws for dealing with terror attacks. Japan deals with terrorists unlike the united states. Japan paid for the release of four geologists at the hands of an extremist group. Haggard: The east Asian NICS in comparative perspective. Why do world leaders compare the east asian NICS with countries that have pursued more inward policies like Brazil and Mexico. Third world modernization characterized by import substitution trajectory, industrialization, export led growth. Primary sector produces food for consumption and export. Pressures from international system, domestic political coalitions, domestic political institutions and influences of ideology impact growth. In east asia, local private sector was weak. In latin america, role of foreign investment had greater potential for conflict.

Barber: Jihad vs. McWorld

Liberalism - Argument: paradox: the planet is being torn apart by the vestiges of race and ideology which are reasserting themselves in areas such as Bosnia and Rwanda, while at the same time it is becoming unified by economic, technological, and ecological forces that mesmerize and homogenize: MTV, McDonald's, and movies. - Barber gives this tendency toward balkanization of nation-states the name "Jihad," a retribalization that attacks interdependence, social cooperation, and mutuality. He names "McWorld" the homogenous, global theme park being created by the mass media and mass culture fostered by worldwide communications, information, entertainment, and commerce. - Barber focuses on the relationship between Jihad (Arabic term for "struggle," here modified to mean tradition and traditional values, in the form of extreme nationalism or religious orthodoxy and theocracy) and McWorld (globalization and corporate control of political processes), and suggests that the world, as it is being squeezed between these opposing forces, is moving away from conscious and collective human control and toward anarchy. Jihad is driven by parochial hatreds and aims to re-create subnational and ethnic borders from within the nation-state. McWorld universalizes markets and effectively makes borders porous from without. Both, therefore, "make war on the sovereign nation-state and thus undermine the nation-state's democratic institutions." - He concludes that neither global corporations nor traditional cultures are supportive of democracy. He further posits that McWorld could ultimately win the "struggle." He also proposes a model for small, local democratic institutions and civic engagement as the hope for an alternative to these two forces. - The world is being reduced to a choice between the cosmopolitan market and the fractious tribe. But both options create war that undermines the politics and democracy in nations. - Against: - Critique: constructivism

Sil & PK: Beyond Paradigms

Liberalism - Question: What is the best way to interpret international relations? - Argument: Analytic eclecticism occurs when there is a convergence of paradigms. - realist assumption that state's material interests/resources are unproblematic is not inconsistent with neoliberal premise that states are self-interested rational actors motivated by material gains - neo-utilitarian = shared premise of the centrality of state interests and rational state behavior - realist-constructivism = diverge on whether actors are following logic of consequences or logic of appropriateness - constructivism & liberalism: interplay of ideas, shared knowledge, emergent legal principles and multilateral institutions can reshape actors' identities and preferences, and engender reciprocal understandings and levels of cooperation that can't be reduced to fixed state interests - eclecticism creates conditions for developing sharper, more refined analyses - boundaries between paradigms = compartmentalization, obscure conceptual/empirical points of connection between analyses - analytic eclecticism = effort to overcome limitations inherent in paradigm-bound research in IR, recombines elements of theories embedded in the three major paradigms (realism, liberalism, constructivism) - Against: people who analyze situations through only one specific paradigm/analytic perspective - Critique: most situations may adhere to one paradigm over the other, analytic eclecticism is just a .... jk ugh idk what i'm trying to say :( PK is always right, so...

Chalmers Johnson: Blowback

Liberalism ● Puzzle: What will happen as a result of the US doing things that are bad and of being an empire? ● Argument: Blowback happens. Basically, it is circular ramifications of US actions. The unintended consequences. They do a bad thing that screws up another country, causing bad effects in that country, or those countries to try to retaliate at the US. The US used to justify its empire by the cold war and the Soviet Union. SYMPTOM OF AN EMPIRE. Now it doesn't have that justification. The US is forcing economic integration on its own terms. Also, now the US is stuck as an empire. Now the US justifies pointless attacks as deterring terrorism. Blowback is avoidable if we don't use instant military retaliation for everything. US actions very hypocritical and not very democratic. For example, the US provokes terrorists so they reveal themselves but then they do bad things like attack people. Also most people don't know about the US activities that cause this because the CIA keeps it on the down low. Blowback is a consequence of being an empire. The US's policies are very similar to Soviet Russia's. But the US empire is imperialist while the Soviet empire was for defence. An example of blowback hurting a country besides the US is when the US backed dictators in many Asian countries. Stuff the US did during the cold war is causing problems now. The US needs to reanalyze its role in today's post cold war world because they can't use the cold war to justify their actions anymore. ● In response to: idk again ● Critique: I think offensive realism is good to analyze this reading because the US is making preventive actions. :)

Allison: The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50

Liberalism ● Question: The cuban missile crisis can help the US policy makers understand what to do about future crisis with Iran, North Korea, and China. The article said Kennedy's decision to blockade is what avoided nuclear war. What would kennedy do in current situations? ● Argument: Kennedy was able to find a middle ground that was an alternative deal to either attacking or accepting the nuclear missiles in cuba. He was successful because he was willing to confront, make demands, and risk US going to war. The situation with Iran is similar to the situation in Cuba. The tactic for Iran should be putting off allowing them to gain nuclear weapons for as long as possible. We can threaten them and even if they do not take it seriously, don't back down! Otherwise future threats mean nothing! :) ! We have to be prepared to risk war. This is applicable to security and economic issue. Compromise is good and necessary. Don't overreact but be prepared to make good on threats. Also, policymakers should take their time in making decisions so they don't make mistakes, because time is what saved the world from nuclear war during the missile crisis. They can give themselves time by controlling the flow of information. Don't rush even though the world is moving so much faster today. Overall, the way Kennedy dealt with the Cuban missile crisis should be a guide to future crisis. ● Against: It's just a bunch of recommendations for how to deal with new crisis. Looking for any solutions to avoid war and leaving war as a last resort makes Allison's recommendations align with liberalism. ● Critique: It seems like a gamble to assume that waiting and not striking back against the missiles would work out without war. Even Allison concedes that the Cuban missile crisis was a much closer call than most people think. the Soviet Union could have attacked in that time.

Liberal Internationalism 3.0 Ikenberry

Liberalism ● Question: What did the past and what will the future orders of liberalism look like? What will the US's role be in the future order? ● Argument: there have been different types of liberal internationalism (world order with US at top-- since WWI). The third era of liberal international order hinges in important ways on how the US can accommodate itself to diminished authority and sovereignty. Also, it needs to have new ways to be governed after the US steps back. Hierarchy is going to be prevalent in some versions, equality in others. 1.0 was wilson's order in which a global security body made of sovereign states would act together to uphold territorial peace. It had little institutional machinery to govern. inclusive! States were all supposed to be equal. They didn't all have to me democracies. laws were more guidelines. Failed because it operated on too many assumptions. 2.0 is western centric and very hierarchical. It has stronger institutions. It is in crisis today because it's no longer adequate. The US is less likely to help countries out because it no longer has an incentive to because the world isn't bipolar (no benefit from giving aid), developing countries are increasing in prominence. 3.0 many possibilities, either the order will be eroded. No more American domination. American hegemony will break into spheres/regions of influence. Stuff needs to get done internationally even without the US. ● In response to: idk ● Critique: this is institutional liberalism. Ikenberry is concerned with how world peace will be maintained and cooperation facilitated without the US, needs institutions. I think the world can function without the US and that it does. This is kind of a western centric interpretation of international relations the importance of the US globally.

Harrison: Trade in Human Body Parts

Liberalism ● Question: What is the role of the organ trade in the broader context of globalization? ● Argument: Organ trade has grown since 1980 when it went from being a risky and inexact procedure to being a more exact and less risky one. ○ trade in human body parts mirrors "normal" system of unequal exchanges that mark other forms of trade between the developed and undeveloped regions of the world → emerging market for human body parts result of globalization/capitalist mode of exchange ○ concern: human body parts coercively sourced from young, poor, illiterate, captive, infirm ○ economically, globalization involves est. of complex series of world-wide exchanges in labor, trade, technology, and capital between countries possessing diff econ, military and political powers ○ politically, globalization manifests itself in increased interconnectedness and interdependence ○ culturally/ideologically, entry of primarily neo-liberal (capitalist) values into previously unpenetrated cultural corners and ideological spaces ○ intro of cyclosporine (increase survival rate, immunosuppressive medication) → increase transplant survival, increase demand for organs, not an increase of suppliers though ⇒ excess of demand over supply = material basis for emergence of trade in HBP ○ South & Central America, Russia = unregulated market thrived ○ People's Republic of China = state currently most reputed to invasively engage in procuring HBP- executed prisoners = main source of organs → kidneys/corneas ○ NOTA (National Organ Transplant Act) = illegal for person to knowingly acquire/receive/transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if transfer affects interstate commerce ○ demand for transplant organs continue to outstrip supply, widen with further technological advances → demand is being pushed by gov facing rising medical expenses ○ HBP will likely continue to grow, even though changes may allow for synthetic or animal-based transplant substitutes ● Against: people who believe globalization is not behind the emerging HBP market and those who believe synthetic and animal-based transplant substitutes will decrease the demand in human organs. ● Critique: STRUCTURAL MARXISM (unequal developments of suppliers/manufacturers and consumers - first world countries can afford the high prices of the organs harvested from third world countries), commercial liberalism

US Strategy in a Unipolar World- Wohlforth

Liberalism ● Question: Why hasn't a counterbalance reaction taken place against US power? ● Argument: Because the forces for one are absent and won't exist anytime soon. To counterbalance, need a lot of military capability or a lot of alliances, but after the cold war most countries decreased their military capabilities. The US has so much capability militarily and materially that it would be too expensive for any country to match them. Rational states don't counterbalance because balancing would be inefficient. States are mostly concerned with local issues (for example, European states more concerned with each other than with the US) which take precedence over counterbalancing the US. Also, states would have to form alliances which decrease their security and autonomy. The US is the hegemon. How can it remain dominant but still promote equality? US capabilities are offshore, making counterbalancing even more difficult. Also, some think American power will eventually decline. However, even though the cold war ended, the US hasn't decreased its competitive/aggressive behavior. If US behavior is perceived as increasing risk of terrorist attacks, then it will change. If the US disengages from the world, it will lose power and then have to re-engage. ● In response to: idk ● Critique: A realist argument, about relative power and capabilities determining which country becomes the hegemon.

Gilpin - Politics of Transnational Economic Relations

Liberalism and Marxism - Question: Whether the multinational corporation has become or will become an important actor in the international affairs, supplanting, at least in part, the nation state? - Answer: There is a growing contradiction today between the economic and political organization of contemporary international society. There are two different schools of thought: primacy of economics and production of wealth (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, free trade, deviations from protectionism and mercantilism) or primacy of political determination of economic relations. - Marxism takes this contradiction the next step. Whereas classical liberalism says economic rationality ought to determine political relations, while Marxism says that the mode of production does determine the structure of political relations. Liberalism and marxism foresee the breakdown of boundaries that eventually lead to political unification. - The nation-state has enlarged the political realm of economic activity - each step forward for the economy necessitates the enlargement of political organization. - Hymer says it is the tendency of firms post industrial revolution to increase to the largest size they can, concluding at multi national corporation. Transnational actors have been to play an important role in world affairs because it has been in the interests of the predominant power for them to do so. Thus, multi national corporations exist today as a transnational political actor because it follows the interest of the USA (dominant actor) - Long peace after great wars exist because the hegemon has military and economic superiority that allows transnational economic agreements to form. Capital and loans are a big part of this. This happens until someone else (or multiple other countries) develops and challenges the status quo. - Multi national corporation has considerable influence over domestic and international relations. However, these will not really be independent actors that have significant international politics. Business corporations usually have influence over political developments where they are instruments of home governments rather than independent actors (corporations effects are largely confined to domestic situations). Where corporations have influenced relations, they have done so, like any interest group, by influencing the policies of their home country (responding to domestic laws) - no, because like any other interest group, can influence gov to get what they want, but can't make own decisions → act in nation's interest, gov "using" MNC's for their advantage - Responding to: people who assume that trans-national corporations run the world and will become independent actors from countries, supplanting the traditional nation state - Critique: Instrumental and Structural/Leninism Marxism and commercial liberalism

Bromley: Blood for Oil

Liberalism and Marxism ● Puzzle: Does the need to control world oil outside the USA now drive US foreign policy? ● Argument: Bush let it drive foreign policy. The US wants to create competition and supply. The US has the power to make others do things, is trying to assert its dominance. Wants to control oil but doesn't need it. Standard view is that the Mideast controls most oil. Developing countries are increasing demand for oil, so the world demands a huge expansion of OPEC. The USA is using its military power to fashion a geopolitical order that provides the political underpinning for its preferred model of the world economy: that is, an increasingly open liberal international order. This is to create an open international oil industry. It's a system designed to secure US interests and it could serve the interests of the other leading capitalist powers. It might also serve the interests of China, Brazil, India and others. The reading also argues that the US should find alternatives to conventional oil because the conventional oil controlled by OPEC always has questionable information available and access to it. Alternatives will be cheaper. ● US doesn't want direct control, but wants strong influence to create an open market for us and the rest of the world. If the US finds alternatives to oil, it will not only reduce OPEC's super secret control, will give US power and help the environment! ● In response to: People who think US went to war solely over oil. ● Critique: The bush administration's actions can be analyzed with instrumental marxism and institutional liberalism.

Kirshner: American Power after the Financial Crisis

Liberalism and Marxism ● Puzzle: Global financial crisis of 2008 was a huge event-- what were its effects on IR theory/applied IR? ● Argument: The crisis fundamentally changed international relations--look at three separate contentions. 1.) Ended up the second US postwar order (period of hegemony of US after Cold War and associated with its project of domestic and international financial dereg)--> collapsed international legitimacy. 2.) Accelerated 2 pre-existing underlying trends: 1.) relative erosion of US power and 2.) increase in power of other states, China. 3.) brought about the "new heterogeneity of thinking"-> consider new options for financial markets. ● In response to: Kagan's Not Fade away, against the myth of American Decline ● Critique: Constructivism (identity of American credibility), commercial liberalism, hegemonic transition, marxism

Irresistible Empire- Grazia

Liberalism and Marxism ● Puzzle: Globalizing consumer habits have established only the most tenuous foundation for a peaceful, egalitarian global society. Is that the fault of Wilson's vision? How was consumer culture converted into a great power and how did this promote similar democracies of consumption around the world? ● Argument: Conflict arises from differences in people's understandings of each other's lifestyles. In the process of challenging Europe's bourgeoisie commercial civilization and overturning its old regime, the United States established its legitimacy as the world's first regime of mass consumption. By speaking of a great multitude of trends and actors coalescing in the unique historical formation of the Market Empire, and by emphasizing the non military dimension of US rule, Grazia intends to clarify the legitimacy that the US acquired as the premier consumer society differed from the hegemony exercised by other imperial systems. The market empire. How could consumer society as we know it exist without the widespread acceptance that access to goods is based on income, not on status, special privileges, or hard fast class lines? America's high standard of living threatened to disrupt class based distinctions in living styles that were key to maintaining social hierarchies in europe. Europe couldn't resist because it wasn't united. The conflicts between US and Europe centered around contrasting lifestyles , material interests, and political ambitions rather than deeper lying clashes of civilizations. ● In response to: It argues against people who think clashes and conflict are caused by differences in political and social stuff. Clash of civilizations by huntington. ● Critique- Commercial Liberalism, structural Marxism

Katzenstein: A World of Regions

Liberalism and Marxism ● Puzzle: How to best think about world politics after the end of the Cold War and 9/11? ● Argument: Four part argument: 1.) American imperium extends through actions that mixes its territorial and non territorial powers (hard power and soft power). 2.) Regions differ in institutional form, type of identity, and internal structure. Some have core regional states (only Japan and Germany) others don't, core states extend American imperium into regions and sub-regions. 3.) Complementary processes of globalization and internationalization make the world full of porous regions-- spurred by American policies. 4.) Regional porousness enhanced politically by vertical relations that link core states to America, regions to sub-regions, and America to regions-- American imperium also re-shapes America. ● In response to: Any other IR model about the world ● Critiques: Uses constructivism and some forms of institutional liberalism and realism, refutes other elements of liberalism, realism, and marxism.

Christian Reus-Smit: The Misleading Mystique of America's Material Power

Liberalism and Marxism ● Puzzle: Many people view the US as all powerful with the size and scale of its army, the scale and dynamism of its economy, and its soft power, which has universal values and cultural magnetism. Is this real? ● Argument: It is worrying that the mystique of America's material power dominates the foreign policy consciousness of the Bush administration. They think Washington has the right to do whatever it wants because they're entitled ********. The US shouldn't have the right to embark on ambitious, unilateral projects of hegemonic renewal and global transformation. Material power alone is insufficient to deliver sustained and effective political influence in the contemporary global order. These points are lost on the Bush administration because they're dummies. Unless the US learns, there will be serious implications for America's identity and interests and for the political fabric of global order. ● Arguing against: the Bush Administration which follows a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad. They think US values should be global values ● Critique: I agree because the Bush administration was bad. Also, this reading can be interpreted with institutional liberalism be and constructivism. But also realism because the US is trying to be a hegemon.

Cohn: Sex and Death

Liberalism and Marxism ● Puzzle: Nuclear weapons and the language surrounding them. Why is it so filled with phallic stuff and masculinity stuff? ● Arguments: There is a gender imbalance in the people who are in charge of discussing nuclear weapons. It's mostly men. But the environment and language they use changes the way people involved actually think about nuclear weapons. the language hides the consequences of war and takes any emotion out of discussion. Nuclear strategy is male dominated, filled with phallic envy, sexual imagery, domestic imagery. Arms race connected with male sexuality. All the discussion about the nukes disregards human life. Humans are considered collateral damage to the loss of a nuke. Men wish to create life, want this power. The language also belittles women, insults motherhood and childbirth. Acronyms are common in the language to distance themselves from the horrible realities of nuclear weapons. The language makes men feel powerful, heightens their masculinity. The way a person speaks changes how they think and act. this way of speaking infiltrated the author's judgement because it restricted her thinking and made her conform. This language is necessary because it ensures its ok for the US to use nukes again in the future. All we need to do is change the words and language planners use and then their thinking will be changed as they are forced to face realities. Unfortunately this language right now is the only discussions about security. Language isn't the whole problem, but it cannot be discounted. ● In response to: ● Critique: Constructivism explains why these attitudes are around nuclear weapons. I like this reading a lot. I like Cohn. I dislike men. (disclaimer: please have your own critiques so that it is not my fault if you lose points since disliking men does not actually have anything to do with this class). Language is very restrictive. Careful not to conform!

Kirshner: American Power after the Financial Crisis

Liberalism and Marxism ● Puzzle: The global financial crisis in 2007-8 was a watershed event. How did it affect IR? ● Argument: The financial crisis created a new economy. It was the end of post cold war order of US hegemony. US power decreased, while the power of China and others increased. There are new ideas about how to manage the economy that were thought up outside the US. History doesn't repeat itself, it just echoes. So it was nothing like the great depression despite what people think. It did not spiral out of control like the great depression because of the lessons we learned from the Great Depression. Also, governments had no military threat in 2008, so they were more willing to reach for a policy lever. Ideas about money have the most influence on states' choices. The next most important influence on states' choices is power. There were 2 post war orders that are opposite of each other. the first order was the economic growth from 1948-1073 and was based on keynes. It was a very liberal order with lots of international institutions for stuff. The second order was anti keynes, from 1994-2007 and was characterized by US unipolarity. Finance was deregulated under clinton, it gained ● In response to: ● Critique: Institutional liberalism,

Blackwill and O'Sullivan: America's Energy Edge

Liberalism and Marxism ● Puzzle: What is going to happen with oil when the US gains more control over it? ● Argument: The greatest energy revolution is taking place in the US!!! because people are shifting away from conventional oil and taking advantage of fracking and drilling. US will become an energy superpower and will overtake Saudi Arabia as the top producer of crude oil. Not many other countries can do this because the US has the right environment for it. right rock and industrial environment. Increasing its control over oil will increase the US's leverage around the world. OPEC will have less control over oil prices, oil prices will decrease. Governments that depend on the revenues generated from oil will struggle (like Russia), while consuming countries will benefit. The middle east will lose influence. But all this doesn't mean the US will have full energy independence. the US will try to keep markets stable. US power and economy will increase. Its bonds with its allies will strengthen. ● In response to: predictions made in recent years that US will become dependent on costly natural gas imports. ● Critique: Commercial Liberalism??? maybe. Or realism bc of power stuff??

Johnson: The Quiet Coup

Liberalism and Marxism ● Puzzle: What really caused the Global financial crisis of 2008? ● Argument: Wasn't caused by poor economic policies or issues of circumstance, but rather political issues that overly favored the financial industry. Political system did not crack down hard enough on finance after it messed up, creating the Wall-Street to Washington corridor. The way out of this financial crisis is to reduce the political strength of financial industry/big banks. Instead of the path of complicated bank by bank deals and bailouts, US should LET SOME BANKS FAIL. ● In response to: Contrary to "new heterogeneity of thinking" in Kirshner's writing, need to take straightforward path of addressing domestic politics ● Critique: Domestic politics, instrumental marxism

Conclusion: Anti Americanism and the Polyvalence of America- PK and Keohane

Liberalism and Marxism ● Puzzle: Why is there such a rich variety of anti-american views? Why do the persistent and adaptable anti american views have so little direct impact on policy and political practice? ● Argument: American symbolism is polyvalent so creates a lot of different material to construct anti-americanism. The symbols the US spreads are just other's symbols that the US takes, appropriates, and spreads back to them. US society is open and interactive. Attitudes and beliefs matter greatly in world politics. This is a constructivist argument. PK's analysis of anti americanism assumes that different analytical traditions can be complementary and compatible. Rationalism emphasizes that anti american schemas often persist because they serve the political interests of elites as well as the psychological needs of mass publics. Constructivism highlights the importance of identities and the social and subjective processes by which they are created. Both rationalism and constructivism contribute to our understanding of norms. Anti-american beliefs are always contested or at least contestable. Although each of the three macro perspectives PK explains contributes some insight, anti-americanism is not well explained by any one of them. Because there is so much in America to like or dislike, polyvalence makes anti-americanism persistent. Also, people in the US dislike as much about the US as other people do. We can only understand anti-americanism if we shine a light to all corners of the world while also holding up a mirror to ourselves. ● In response to: the other explanations of anti americanism are power imbalances, a backlash against globalization, and conflicting identities. ● Critique: The reading is constructivist

Hymer- The multinational corporation and the law of uneven development

Marxism - Puzzle: How far will the tendency of firms to expand to their largest point go? The author examines how the complex hierarchy of MNCs developed and how the trends in business relate to trends in the international economy. - Answer: Say the country with the most multi national corporations is the USA, then the global economy will begin to resemble the USA. -Three levels of business administration, three horizons, three levels of task, three levels of decision making, and three levels of policies. Level III- lowest level is concerned with managing the day to day operations of the enterprise that is keeping it going within the established framework. Level II which made its first appearance with the separation of head office from field office, is responsible for coodrinating the managers at Level III. Level I- Top management is the place where goals are determined and planed. Sets the framework for how the lower levels operate. Power comes from their control over men and money. Level III spreads all over the globe to various points and places, over various manpower markets and raw materials. It will be more even than what is now the case. Level II activities because of their need for white collar workers, communications systems and information, concentrate in big cities Since their demands are similar they will be placed in the same cities as those of different industries. The best professionals will tend to congregate near the level I centers (on a world scale that's New York, Paris, Berlin etc.) They need to have their HQ in new york because of the need for face to face decision making. Those in the level I cities will be the first to try out new products in the cycle. It will then trickle down. The trickle down system has its advantage from the center's point of view. The interests of multinational corporations in underdeveloped countries are larger than one would think. Major and minor cities have an important relationship not because of technology but because of these levels. The advantage of a multinational corporation is its global perspective spans many countries and has a global reach. The advantage of doing it on a national scale is to remove oligopolic anarchy. Relationship between occupation and development for the global economy. Despite this, it's not fair for a developing country to take action against an american firm if they disagree with the actions of the US. Four problems for the multinational corporation in regards to underdeveloped countries: First they have to form the necessary capital with foreign goods then they have to finance an expanded program of government expenditure to train labor and provide support services for urbanization and industrialization. Third it has to solve the urban food problem created by this growth. Fourth it has to keep the excluded two thirds of the population under control Because the multi-national corporation can plan economic activity, it is a great step forward over previous methods of organizing international exchange. Multi national corporations are still private institutions with partial outlooks. It creates tensions with its successes. It leads organizations like the government and labor unions to take global outlooks as well. world will start looking like US economy which is already based on a specific business ● Multinational corporations erode the power of the state ● they create a hierarchy where the wealthy states benefit but the underdeveloped states are harmed ● to fix this we must go beyong MNC's, author suggests a system of regional planning since concentrating power in private hands has many shortcomings.

McFaul: Moscow's Choice, Sestanovich: How the West has Won

Realist - Question: 1) Who started the Ukraine Crisis? - Argument: Although Mearsheimer said Russia annexed Crimea/intervened in Ukraine in response to NATO expansion, fail to explain why Russia kept its troops out of Ukraine for the decade-plus between NATO's expansion. Also, Mearsheimer can't explain the reset of U.S.-Russian relations, an era of cooperation. To understand both cooperation and confrontation between Russia and Mearsheimer, look at Russian politics. - Russian foreign policy didn't grow more aggressive in response to U.S. policies, but Russian internal political dynamics (due to domestic politics, not realism) - Putin announced he would run for 3rd presidential term, government's wrongdoing exposed, Putin despised protesters for their ingratitude & recast U.S. as enemy → to sustain legitimacy at home, Putin continued to need U.S. as an adversary - U.S. gov played no role in sparking upheaval/protests in Ukraine (after Yanukovych declines to sign association agreement w/ EU), but Putin blamed U.S. for demonstrations, the failure of the February 21 agreement, and change of government - Putin's pragmatic & realist actions has only served to force stronger, more unified, more pro-Western identity among Ukrainians → crisis not about Russia, NATO and realism but Putin and his unconstrained, erratic adventurism - Against: Mearsheimer's piece on Ukraine. Mearsheimer's explanation is limited and only responds to 30 years of US-Russian relations, not to mention it fails to account for why Russia didn't intervene sooner. Mearsheimer also doesn't account for the era of cooperation between Obama and Medvedev between 2009 and 2012, 60% of Russians were favorable towards the USA in 2010. Two countries worked together to ratify the New Start Treaty, supported comprehensive sanctions on Iran, obtained Russian membership in the WTO and created a bilateral presidential commission to promote everything from nuclear energy to counterterrorism. - Critique: Obama administration showed weakness to the Kremlin which Putin exploited. Hazy argument, doesn't quite hold weight when looking at the spectrum of events. Sestanovich: How the West Has Won- the Russians were already aggressive before the U.S. started provoking them, therefore the US cannot take the blame for making Russians act aggressively sorry mearsheimer but hbd.

Jervis: American Foreign Policy in a New Era

Realist - Question: Explaining the new "security community" - where does this come from, why don't members even consider going to war anymore with each other? - Argument: Not constructivist - the shared relationship/identity causes the peace, or the peace creates the share relationship/identity? Don't know! Why does this community only exist now? Plus state/ethnic nationalism still exists! American hegemony dictates the security community - no one else can challenge US power, thus leads to peace/ties/trade - Responding to: Constructivist, liberals, realism - Critique

Waltz - Spread of Nuclear Weapons:

Realist - Question: How will increasing proliferation in previously non-nuclear states affect international relations? - Argument: Increased nuclear weapons will bring stability and security if three conditions are filled to ensure deterrence and security: - 1. Avoid war while countries develop weapons (incentivizes retaliation, will just cost more money and won't stop proliferation) - 2. Create a powerful force such that any strike will meet retaliation of such drastic degree as to destroy the aggressor (mutually assured destruction) - 3. Prevent accidents/unauthorized use (warheads are traceable, stops retaliation), and states will control/are responsible for controlling non-authorized use of weapons - Against: People who think nuclear proliferation will bring instability, radical states will take advantage of nuclear capabilities under ideologically-driven foreign policy directives, civilians cannot keep offensive military in check - Critique: Realism is big fish - simplifying big problems down to understanding the keys to survival. The problem is that realism ignores non-state actors (terrorists) - 9/11, non-state actors do pose a threat to national security and terrorist groups are developing more and more out of reach of state governments - Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa - they are not concerned with their own survival (no stability through mutually assured destruction), groups invite retaliation of other states for their non-state actions which would cause tension/war between state governments

Douglas J. Macdonald: Communist Bloc and Expansion in the Early Cold War

Realist - Question: Using different kinds of perspectives to examine the evidence of the cold war, did a relatively hierarchical and unified Communist bloc exist under the leadership of the Soviet Union? If so, were the perceptions of the western-decision makers accurate, that such a bloc was expansionist along coordinate lines largely directed from Moscow? - Argument: Soviet attempts to expand into the region were made, not in response to Western threats, as security dilemma critiques of containment suggest, but because of the lack of such a threat, that is, the lack of a unified Western containment policy. Soviets were able to secretly aid CCP without U.S. knowing. CCP requested, and received Soviet help in running economy in the "liberated" areas of China. 1949-50, Chinese spread the revolution to Korea and Vietnam. Soviets & China supplied N. Koreans in attempt to take over South, Philippines declared revolution and made common cause with communist victory in China, and Chinese directed & supplied Viet Minh military operations. **Soviet bloc expansion occurred in Asia not in reaction to Western provocations/fear of Western expansion, but because of combination of lack of Western actions and existence of ideologically driven opportunism.** - Against: realists and post-revisionists who portray communist alignment choices essentially as reactions to Western provocations (would make bloc members' policies predominantly reactive). By ignoring ideational factors, realists cause misunderstandings over why these entities acted as they did. Realist assumption of undifferentiated motivations among states obscures real differences in methods of perception and purposes of collective behavior. China's Marxist-Leninist leadership — blinded by revolutionary hubris caused by its very political success — was convinced that it was part of larger global social revolution and would expect hostility from world dominated by capitalist imperialism. Thus, realism and post-revisionism do not explain either formation/maintenance of Soviet bloc in early Cold War as well as traditionalist assumptions about the importance of ideology. - Critique: Domestic politics and constructivism traditionalists: Soviet's fault revisionists: Soviet's = defensive post revisionists: both at fault

Mearsheimer: Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault

Realist - Question: Who caused the crisis in Ukraine? - Argument: The West did by enlarging NATO to threaten Russia. Since the fall of the USSR, NATO has been encroaching more and more towards Russia. They bombed Bosnia and sought to westernize Ukraine, even ousting president Viktor Yanukovich. - Putin angry with illegal overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected/pro-Russian president, took Crimea (feared would host NATO naval base), worked to destabilize Ukraine until abandoned efforts to join West - West's triple package of policies: NATO enlargement, EU expansion, democracy promotion - Putin believed admitting Georgia & Ukraine into NATO = "direct threat" to Russia → if Ukraine became Western, Russia threatened (Ukraine buffer state between West and Russia) - Solution: rule out NATO's expansion into both Georgia & Ukraine, economic rescue plan for Ukraine funded jointly by EU, end W. support for another Orange Revolution ⇒ abandon plan to westernize Ukraine and aim to make it neutral buffer between NATO and Russia - Realist explanation - Against: Prevailing ideas that the crisis in Ukraine was because Putin was trying to expand the Russian empire and rebuild the USSR. - Critique: ugh

Waltz (reading 2)

Realist The international political Reductionist and Systemic theories explain events at all levels, whether international or subnational. Reductionist theories explain international outcomes through combinations of factors at a national or subnational level. However, it isn't possible to explain international politics by just looking at internal affairs of states. Reductionist Systemic Systems theories: Examine international politics in terms of how the states act not in terms of how they are versus each other. Mearshimer (reading 3): Great powers fear each other and always compete for power. Goal is always to maximize their respective shares of world power. Ultimate goal is to be the Hegemon, the only great power in the system. Since no state ever has world hegemony, the world is condemned to endless power struggles. Offensive Realism: Every great power is defined by the fact that it has a really strong military. It is therefore characteristic of great powers that they seek to use their military to achieve hegemony over their desired regions. Contradicted by Germany in 1905, who had Russia weakened by Japan leaving France all alone, which would have enabled Germany to crush France. Instead nothing happened. Mearsheimer believes this is a structural theory of international politics. Waltz is a defensive realist, believes that a strong army is necessary for maintaining sovereignty but not preemptive strikes. Liberalism: Liberals believe that states are the key actors in international politics. They believe in emphasizing internal politics. They also believe that some forms of government are inherently better than others (democracy vs dictatorship). They also believe that calculations of power matter less for determining the behavior of states Realism: Realists believe that it's impossible to shape the world without force and that great power is responsible for maintaining sovereignty. Don't discriminate between states. Defensive Realism: - The anarchical structure of international systems (ie no central/ unbiased ruler) encourages states to maintain moderate and reserved policies in order to attain security. - Anything too offensive/powerful will be seen as a threat and dismantled - Moderation as a means of security ß goal - Holds "Balance of Power Theory as cornerstone (thinking offensive nature upsets the balance of power) - Sees interstate conflict as more sporadic -states are not intrinsically aggressive -States will fight a state attempting to assert hemgony in favor of the status quo

Gilpin (reading 4): Theory of Hegemonic War:

Realist Thucydides' theory of Hegemonic War is one of the great organizing principles of international relations. Thucydides theory: fundamental changes in the international system are the basic determinants of such wars. A great Hegemonic war has symptoms: Stable international system with a hierarchy of states. Subordinate states grow in power until they challenge the top states. Can be determined by scale. Marxist wars are a subcategory. Modern Hegemonic wars are the thirty years war, the hundred years war, the world wars (I-II). Gilpin (reading 5) Political economy of international relations. Marxism: Social inequalities, capitalism as private ownership of production and wage labor. Capitalists strive for profits and capital accumulation in a competitive market economy. Labor is a commodity. No tendency towards equilibrium. This theory pertained to domestic economies. It was originally an ideology not meant for international relations. Marx believed capitalism was destined to fail and that the proletariat's would reject it in favor of a socialist economic system. There are evolutionary (Bernstein & Kautsky) and revolutionary (Lenin) Marxists. -Lenin's Marxism: Lenin evolved marxism into a theory of international political relations among capitalist states. Lenin argues that capitalism will fail owing to the fact that it fails to comply to the three laws of motion* through overseas imperialism. Adds the law that there is a fourth marxist law, that capitalist countries grow to the point where they become colonial. Furthermore, Lenin believes that capitalism creates its own destruction by creating foreign competitors (via imperialism colonies) that can outcompete the previously dominant economies with lower wages, lower standards of living and better efficiency. THREE LAWS: 1) Law of Disproportionality: a. Fundamentally denies Say's Law* b. The imbalance of supply and demand causes depressions and booms which inherently get more severe// proletariat rebel 2) Law of Capital Concentration a. Profits/ Competition drive capitalism b. Dog eat dog mentality means "super efficient elites controls everything -few rich vs. many poor 3) Falling Rate of Profit a. Less return as capital accumulates—less incentive to invest more** b. Result: rate of profit plateus and unemployment continually increases (efficiency) RESULT: ECONOMIC STAGNATION// PROLETARIATS REVOLT

The Long Peace- Gaddis

Realist. ● Puzzle: How do we explain the stability of the post WWII world? Why is bipolarity more stable? Why wasn't there a WWIII when there were no peace talks after WWII? (because of bipolarity) ● Argument: The post WWII system of international relations was based on arbitrary and strikingly artificial division of the world into spheres of influence. Bipolarity is more stable because big powers don't depend on the small states and changes in allegiances don't matter and are less likely to happen. There are self regulating mechanisms in bipolarity that cause stability. The wwII settlement was not a triumph, it resulted in polarization, but it ended up being stable (we got lucky). Nuclear deterrence created the caution which contributed to the peace, however it could have worked with less nuclear weapons. But nukes were not a bad thing. technology can also be a deterrent and could decrease war if its uses are not exploited. Tech lets the 2 powers know each other's capabilities so there's less deception and less insecurity. Ideology causes war and violence. SU and US share the most important ideology- preserving order. But overall systematic interests and preservation is more important than ideological interests. ● In response to: Classical liberalism assumes that the more extensive contacts between nations are, the greater the chances for peace are. Economic interdependence and cultural exchange are argued to cause peace too. But Gaddis argues that these are pleasant things to believe that don't have historical evidence to validate them. Rejects marxism and capitalism as causes for this peace. Also domestic politics are not good explanations for the peace either - just the fact that there were two powers and the little factors didn't matter ● Critique: Bipolarity as explained in the review session is more stable because no state can defect and no other relationships matter. This reading is about balance of power so we can use realism to analyze it. Also, constructivist when it talks about ideologies that can disrupt the system or lend to peace. - alignment of china: USSR seems more powerful with China, USA seems more powerful w Chino post sino-soviet split

Katzenstein constructivism reading 9

Religions are pluralist. Liberals believe in multi faceted views of cultural/religious in given civilizations. Internal pluralism of civilizations is reinforced by a larger context in which they are embedded. Based on a global set of values that have often contradictory notions of diversity in a common humanity. This loose sense of shared values centers on the material psychological well being of all humans. This is more important than the civilization they believe they belong to. Huntington views the world as an international system rather than a global ecumene (inhabited land, in this context its full of different groups of people subdivided by their various identities. For instance a kurd in iraq will have a different identity than a shia). Chinese and AMerican civilizations are pluralist.

Owen:

Republican liberalism: Liberal democracies do not automatically fight iliberal states in an endless crusade to spread liberal values. Liberal states won't fight States perceived to be liberal democracies with similar values (but will if perception changes).

Kennan: The Failure of Success (G.F. Kennan)

Structural and offensive realist - Question: What was the cost of the US waiting for the USSR's "unconditional surrender"? Was it right to wait for total surrender at a huge cost? - Argument: United States conveyed our message through the Marshall Plan, Berlin Blockade, but in the end, we, and none of our western allies, wanted to enter into negotiations and peace talks. We paid for our "unconditional surrender" with 40 years of huge, unnecessary military spending, the development of vast, useless nuclear arsenals that stand as a danger to man and the environment, and 40 years of communist control of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary which damaged the structures of their civilizations. We have also come to the point where although there are no great-power rivalries that threaten the peace of the world, we are without an enemy like the Nazi's, the Japanese Militarists, and Stalin's Russia. Americans are demanding a "grand plan" for government with one or two focal points, which is the opposite of what we should have in our complex world - there cannot be a single common denominator for approaching problems, for each must be judged on context and merit. The country just needs (evolving) principles of the nature, needs, interests, and limitations of the country. - Against: people proud of the "unconditional surrender" of the USSR who believe the US won the war in the end through whatever domestic and international variables.

Mamdani, Good Muslim Bad muslim (reading 10)

Terrorism is found only in wahabbi islam not most. Doesn't make sense to write political histories of islam that are focused on the political history of the middle east. Muslims conform to what's in the press. Begs the question of how you reconcile politicized forms of religion like fundamentalist christianity. In Rhodesia, the CIA called terrorism low intensity conflict. American-Saudi-Pakistani alliance formed over the basis of the terrorism in Afghanistan spilling into the Soviet Union. CIA funded Afghani Jihad to deal with Soviets. US created the Taliban and the Mujahadeen because they preferred it to the secular nationalism that was in the region (or the soviets). Israel similarly allowed hamas to exitst.

Wallerstein (reading 6) World systems

Two world systems: World empires and world economies World systems have extensive division of labor. World Economies are divided into core, peripheral and semiperipheral. Has to be capitalist, classes always exist for political reasons. World Empire: Political structure links culture to spacial location. Sub-Paradigms: Instrumental Marxism: This theory works under the idea that state leaders, elite, who tend to be policy makers and hold positions in the government display a nepotistic like attitude to their class and thus make policy's/legislature that benefit them and their counterparts. This economically dominant class asserts their hegemony at the cost of those below. Thus, all law imposed, whether perceived to be just or not is a guise for manipulation. The two actors in this case are the elite and the rest of the ruled class. Structural Marxism: State acts independently but with the interests of corporations and businesses in mind. The state is a tool of the capitalist system. The state is the actor here and the state intervenes when capitalist interests supersede cost of war. This ideology is differentiated from instrumental marxism because the state is the actor. The state works to serve capitalist and bourgeoisie interests overall. If the state is benefiting the proletariat class (in any way) it is inevitably serving a greater interest of the elite (bourgeoisie) long term. The state would act in this way in order to maintain the balance of power necessary to regulate a capitalist system and keep it functioning.

Rosencrance- trading in the modern world (reading 11):

Two world types : military economic and trading worlds. Military economic: Nations stratify from strongest to weakest. Calls for a continued return to war because the units within it continue to compete with each other. Trading world: No stratification but each state is sorted by function. Waging war is absent because it gets rid of interdependence and disrupts trade (commercial liberalism). Most nations can't emancipate themselves from external restraints, hence they can't conquer every country, Keohane: Superpowers must be kept in check, hence the importance of international institutions. end of the cold war changed theories of world politics because it meant that the countries were determining their allegiances on national or religious lines. Therefore, allegiances came from how groups of people identified. Globalization means we should focus on democratic institutions at home, international organizations and transnational networks.

Kagan: Not Fade Away

● Puzzle: Is the United States in decline like everyone assumes? ● Answer: Nah son. History proves it's not. People think the US used to get its way all the time but it didn't. It def has power and influence then and now, but never to the extent that people imagine it was. Not everyone was enchanted with the US back then. many people didn't like it at all. Also, increase in power of other nations doesn't diminish the US's power. also they could never catch up. it never did in history! only china could threaten US power but that probably won't happen anytime soon. The US doesn't resemble nations in decline like the British Empire when it declined. US military power still unrivaled. Decline takes a long time, and as Kagan argued, people have only been talking about US decline for a few years. Any setbacks the US is currently facing it can recover from, because it's recovered from worse in the past. Also the US isn't the only nation that can run into problems. The world needs the US because it's fragile. ● In response to: People who think US power is declining. ● Critique: the article is not Realist even though it's about power, because it says US power is not declining but other countries are gaining power. **So it's discussing absolute gains, which means it is a liberal interpretation.** Furthermore, it focuses on the US as a governing role in maintaining world order. Institutional liberalism. Also some commercial liberalism probably bc of economic power.

Skidelsky: What Went Wrong?

● Puzzle: US financial crisis in 2008 seen as a Black Swan (epoch defining unexpected events)-- how and why did it happen? ● Argument: There are two theories that can explain the US financial crisis in 2008: the conservative (Greenspan) view of "money glut", where money was kept too cheap for too long, thus creating an asset bubble, and the Keynesian view of "saving glut", where rising interest rates in 2005 brought the housing boom to an end, causing Americans to save instead of spend, ultimately causing collapse. Skidelsky argues that the Keynesian view is superior-- Ultimately through a historical understanding of the evidence KEYNES WAS RIGHT. ● In response to: The traditional view that the financial crisis was the result of failure of "risk-management" models within large american banking institution's (That's Alan Greenspan's viewpoint) as well as the government buying of toxic assets from the American subprime mortgage (bailouts) and stimulus packages ● Critique: Commercial liberalism → global savings glut caused problems, marxism