PoliSci 126 Midterm

What makes a threat credible with deterrence

1 Commit yourself to carrying it out. Aka tying your hands so you have no choice but to carry it out. Commitment is a tactic, it can be used as a public promise. If the leader doesn't carry out his promise he looks weak Can make a commitment through deeds such as sending troops as a tripwire US set troops in Berlin during cold war so if any of them were killed by soviets they'd automatically enter the war Same thing in South Korea in case north korea invades. 2. Reputations Develop a reputation/backing of always carrying out threats 3.Madman Strategy You will carry out threats even if it hurts you because you are that insane Trump?

What are conditions that favor the success of coercion

1. Asymmetry of motivation Coercive power is more motivated than the target to win. Motivation is on the coercing power side. Motivation depends on the issue at states. Nationalists may be motivated to get back territory and willing to suffer lots of pain The greater US interest, the more likelihood the US has to win 2.Moderate Demands Opponent is more likely to conceive if what you're asking of him is not very hard. The more we demand the less likely he is to concede. Power is very important to leaders One way to make coercion work is demand less of what you originally demanded 3. Use carrots If coerced power gets some benefits, conceding is less humiliating 4.Fear of escalation Other side must fear consequences of more force If other side is not afraid of war coercion is not going to work 5.Usable Capabilities Usable capability is a matter of will

Does deterrence work with rogue states (post cold war)

Don't obey the rules. More motivated often have authoritarian leaders that don't worry about public opinion. Leader of north korea good example because doesn't worry about being punished. Rogue states can retaliate against the US because they are willing to violate human rights. Deterrence CAN prevent rogue state leaders from using nuclear weapons.

Why does arms race not cause wars

Having more weapons doesn't necessarily mean they will be used, they are good for deterrence. The country which started WW1 - Austria spent less than any of the other great powers US and soviet union had an arms race during the cold war but never went to war with eachother Cold war substitutes war. Allows each side to determine which is more powerful Britain and germany had a naval race but they declared a truce before ww1

what is the state of nature according to Hobbes

He assumed every man and woman was equal. each man would be equal in faculties in body of mind. Weakest had power to destroy strongest either through joining with others or through secret machinations If everybody was equal, they would all have equal desires. also if two people want the same thing they will destroy eachother

what is state of war according to Hobbes

Hobbes thought that the tension and suspicion of being in a state of war would be just as bad as actually fighting In a state of war every man is an enemy to every other Nobody would have any security except for what he could provide for himself through strength or enginuity A self help system (every man for themself) No industry, no culture, no navigation, no building, no science, no arts, and no society because everybodys energies would be devoted to self protection. No moral or legal norms. No right or wrong. No justice or injustice. Life of man in a state of nature would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." - Hobbes

How is international law enforced through reciprocity

If a state sends armed troops over your border you can retaliate Initially there was no such thing as ambassadors but kings discovered it was useful to have a representative and kings found it was better to not kill the ambassador Anti-terrorism. Israel closes of its border to palesteniens who work in Israel to retaliate against suicide bombers. This is tit for tat. Arms control without agreement. Where one side won't deploy a weapon. In 1963 the soviet leader khroushchev responded to an appeal by Kennedy where Kennedy said US wouldn't orbit nuclear weapons in space so long soviet didnt. There was an agreement between the two even though there was no formal agreement or treaty. Later it was codified into the outerspace treaty In 1991 president george HW Bush announced that US was eliminating all tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia and they invited Soviet to do same thing. So they both agreed and eliminated it. This was great because didn't have to go through long process of writing up negotiating and confirming a treaty.

Interdependence of commitments (deterrence in cold war times)

If one commitment wasn't carried out everything would collapse. US had to defend Taiwan or west berlin because if we did not the communist would next invade California - shelling Obviously CA is more important to US than Taiwan Commitments are not equal as Schelling would argue US however became obsessed with credibility of their commitments US lost the war to protect south vietnam but that did not cause soviets to invest western europe Credibility of the commitment depends on the interest of the acting party Even a textbook application of deterrence can fail.

What is problem with thinking human nature caused war

If we didn't have weapons people would kill eachother with rocks and sticks But for most of history people have lived at peace Wars are relatively infrequent Because wars are rare there is not one set of causes for every war There are different causes for different war Human nature doesn't change but war starts change

What are the limits of the concession / convergence model

In theory territory can always be divided but in practice territory often has emotional significance. The disagreement over jerusalem States don't know what the resistance point is, it can even change over time.

Does deterrence work against internal conflicts aka civil wars, ethnic cleansing, genocide (post cold war)

Ineffective. The threats now seem to be within states from armed insurgents to terrorist groups. It's impossible to deter these things because there is nobody to communicate to with things like ISIS

Does deterrence work with collective security? (post cold war)

International organization tries to use deterrence to prevent aggression Threat comes from UN - seems more legit than just the US Increasingly difficult to coordinate

What happened in Iraq in 1998 when coercion was used

It failed. Stop saddam hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons and the UN was supposed to have inspections. Saddam would allow inspections but when they would show up the scientists would leave along with all their work. So finally Clinton used cruise missiles against 88 sites. Saddam still was unwilling to allow inspections.

Deterrence hybrid wars? (post cold war)

It's what the russians are doing in ukraine - special forces where identities are disguised, social media, etc. russians claim aren't involved and not wearing russian uniform Russia takeover of crimea with little green men Some indigenous support Be used to destabilize countries.

is coercion the same as punishment and warfare

Not the same as punishment and the reason it is different is punishment inflicts costs on the other side but does not try and change the other side's behavior. Often punishment is used in response to terrorist attacks for example clinton bombing Iraq for trying to assassinate George H.W. Bush. Often economic sanctions are used as punishment because they aren't supposed to really work, just hurt. For ex Russia sanctions to show we disapprove of takeover Crimea and to inflict costs

What are redistribution agreements

One side demands redistribution of costs such as territory, money, etc What one side gains the other side loses Examples include Munich agreement - hitler demanded part czechoslovakia 1961 Khrushchev wanted to change US rights in Berlin Brexit - britain tried to leave EU US and China - trump demands china changes economy and stop stealing intellectual property and instead purchase more from the US State that wants to change will likely use force Status quo state will agree Good relations with the state that wants to change i.e. china might be willing to make some changes despite hurting themselves to keep good relations. To avoid punishments and maybe it would like to keep

what are innovation agreements

Sets up something new like the EU

what does classic ultimatum need to have

Time limit Punishment Demand

What is pactomania? (Cold War context deterrence)

US formed CENTO which was supposed to apply to the middle east. This exaggerated soviet union intentions Overlooked the importance of interests. If the US does not have an interest in defending... CENTO fell apart. SETO didn't have much effect in preventing the Vietnam war

What is pactomania? (deterrence)

US formed CENTO which was supposed to apply to the middle east. This exaggerated soviet union intentions Overlooked the importance of interests. If the US does not have an interest in defending... CENTO fell apart. SETO didn't have much effect in preventing the Vietnam war

is coercion different from deterrence

Yes, it is genuinely harder to compel than to deter because in coercion, the coercing power has to decide what he wants the other side to do. He has to formulate a demand whereas deterrence is easier we want the other side to not do anything - zero but coercion requires more strategy on the part of the coercing power. If coercion fails the threatening power has to initiate military action whereas if deterrence fails its the aggressor that has to take the initiative. Compliance with a coercive demand is more humiliating. A country can say they never intended to invade but to pull back it is much more visible and is worrisome that it may appear like they will fold later. ^therefore has to add a carrot.

What is the definition of strategy

a plan to get someone to do something that he or she would otherwise not do

what is defensive realism

argue states don't want to max their power they merely want to defend what they have states that try to maximize their power will provoke other states to join against it Coalitions formed to defeat Hitler, Napoleon Don't believe uncertainty is inevitable. States can signal they have peaceful intentions by signing arms control agreements, obtaining only defensive weapons

what is offensive realism

argue states try to maximize their power because all states have offensive capabilities. It is impossible to read the other states intentions but they can count how many soldiers they have States only look at capabilities and engage in worst case thinking. assumes states will use all there offense. States try to get as much power sa they can to prevent weaker states from attacking them. More power = more security and larger margin of error. International competition is a zero sum game

What are normalized agreements

- States negotiate change abnormal state of affairs such as war, the absence of diplomatic relations, for ex establishment of diplomatic relations like the 1973 vietnam peace treaty more ex include.. The berlin agreement of 1971 Ended society practice of disrupting access to west berlin Carter's establishment of full diplomatic relations in China in 1979 Diplomatic relations to end war in Bosnia - Context matters. If war is being fought negotiations are influenced by the battlefield like who is winning.

Advantages of deterrence

- Threats are cheaper than the rewards - With a promise you have to provide some benefit to the other side - Threats are effective

Disadvantages of deterrence

- Threats can be costly to the sender - aka military action - Spiral of Conflict. Problem with nuclear threats is they place them in a position where you could not back down without losing face. - Provocative - provoke war because they can think that war is inevitable. Like the japanese did in WW2 and think there only option is to strike first and by a surprise. So deterrence may have to include a promise not to use military action if the other state complies - Never again - the other side may be deterred now but he may be resolved to never be put in that position again. - Soviets were deterred by Kennedy but they told US you will never be able to do this to us again - Time - Buying strategy. Deterrence only works for a short period of time it doesn't remove the other side's motivation for ex President Trump tweeted out threat to Turkey - Does not change relationship. At the end of the cold war US and Russia still had A LOT nuclear weapons pointed at each other - Supplement with rewards. In addition to making aggression more costly, you can make the status quo more favorable by offering the other side some benefit.

What are coercion instruments

1. Bombing - used until the other side makes a concession. Purpose is to effect the other sides will not to defeat military sources. Symbolic. Bomb the military headquarters, or bridges, or some center of subversive activity. 2. Symbolic use of force. Gunboat diplomacy dates back to 19th century where great power sends a warship to visit another person's shoes to show them you have a lot of power and intimidate them. Was often used by colonial powers to intimidate smaller countries but the united states to continue to use gunboat diplomacy today. 1966 US send 2 aircraft carrier groups in the vicinity of the Taiwan straits. Missile tests. When north korea tested missiles it was seen as coercion to Japan When russia invaded georgia in 2008 russia was signaling to other countries they better not try to join NATO because if so they would be invaded 3.Economic sanctions Can be used for coercion if there is international cooperation in applying them with a clear demand US still has sanctions on North Korea reinstated them against Iran Problems - require everybody to cooperate in imposing them so if you forbid other countries from buying a product it does no good if others continue to buy them For ex china cheating on the sanctions against north korea that Thus economic sanctions are normally used as just punishment

Why does GRIT work?

1. Clear - more credible than just words it carries out concessions Actions speak louder than words 2. More credible 3. Consistent 4. Uses norm of reciprocity 5. Rewards good behavior 6. Change relationship lower defense expenditures more opportunity for trade more trust If the enemy is behaving nicely towards you that is inconsistent that the enemy is untrustworthy

What are the problems with negotiation?

1. Deadlock If both sides are committed how can either of them conceed Kennedy - Khrushchev 8-11 inspections v 3 inspections but they got so caught up in the number they didn't even specify inspections 2. Inefficiency - waste a whole lot of time 3. Damage to relationship

What are the policy implications of tit for tat

1. Enlarge shadow of the future Make future more important by having lots of ongoing cooperative activities i.e. stake at better relationships US and china should be involved in more cooperative activities.. Like trying to control piracy fighting terrorism and drugs etc this forces the to look towards future meetings and a stake to negotiate on. We don't have a shadow of the future with Russia. 2.Reward good behavior If the other side does something you like you should give them a reward to reinforce the behavior Iran is not building a nuclear weapon wheras north korea is so TFT means we should reward iran and hurt north korea 3. Niceness Trump has said we will withdraw from INF but if we follow tit for tat we should not do that. But if the other side does defect we should retaliate so if China steals intell the US should do something in return 4.Retaliation 5.Proportionality The punishment should be proportional to the crime

Differences with the international system in a state of war

1. Industry culture and trade between states despite being in a state of anarchy - States don't spend all their resources on defense 2. Not as insecure as individuals would be in a state of nature - States can join together regardless of the weakness of any one individual - People can be killed but rare that whole civilizations (states) die. 3. States are not equal - Some states are more powerful than others - The great power is not as vulnerable to an attack as a smaller state. - Great power like U.S. can take responsibility for maintaining order for ex US assistance in middle east - Balance of Power - Absence of right and wrong - Rules governing treatment of prisoners of war - Civilian casualties - States which violate our concept of morality are condemned for ex chemical weapons. They become moral outcasts - Another ex Putin held a referendum he had to go through motions of asking Crimean if they wanted to join.

Why does deterrence fail?

1. Motivation of aggressor - State that is largely motivated will take action even if threat is credible; willing to take the punishment North vietnam knew the US would bomb them and send in troops but they did not care because reunifying their country was more important than avoiding military action In 1999 yugoslavia president was willing to pay the price because costavo? Was important enough. US makes the mistake of underestimating the motivations of other states 2. Misperception of other's rationality Assume the other state has the same rational and values we do Other countries may care more about territory, identity, and independence than about economic damage like the US States have various ways to challenge deterrence 3. Salami tactics No one act is enough to warrant retaliation Small step aggressions Parent says you can't go in water because too soon after eating so kid asks for toe, then foot, then up to his knee, then before you know it kid is in the pool. During the cold war the soviets did not take over west berlin but they had various small measures of making west berlin's life unbearable i.e. prevent supplies, electricity, etc. Chinese also with sea. They would bring up sand and make coral reefs into islands. But chinese said not going to be militarized going to be used for research. After they reclaimed the coral reefs, they put missiles and aircraft hangars on the islands. Now it is too late for US 4. Design around threat Does something not explicitly forbidden but also has bad consequences US has commitment to defend Taiwan, but US is not commited from preventing Chinese from testing missiles by firing them into Taiwan stray? But US never told China they can't do that. So Chinese challenged the deterrence without outright doing the forbidden things specified 5. Fait accompli Take over very quickly and don't give state chance to respond Saddam hussein did this

what are the requirements for success of deterrence

1. Potency. - Threat you make against somebody else must be potent The punishment must be so bad it outweighs the benefits of what you are trying to stop them from doing If punishment isn't bad enough otherside will do it anyway The more powerful punishment should be the most effective but it isn't always because not always credible 2. Credibility Hurts the threatener to carry out the punishment Costly to the punisher. They would obviously prefer not to have to punish because casualties in the army they send cost of missles Capability and will to take out the threat. You could be bluffing and if deterrence works you won't get caught 3.Communication If threat is vague the other side may not even realize it is being threatened Tradeoff. Clear threat more credible but it also means you have to be willing to carry i out if it fails. Ambiguous threats leave you some wiggle room. 4.Rationality Rational enough to weigh costs and benefits For ex. Not deter a cat because cats are too stupid. You can deter a dog because they're smart. 5.Common interests Britain tried to use threat of war to stop hitler but hitler didn't mind because he wanted war. Can also do this with allies.

What are conditions that favor successful appeasement

1. Revisionist demands limited 2. Revisionist power is insecure and needs to be reassured It is acting out of fear rather than greed Concessions should be viewed as an effort to conciliate not as a sign of weakness. The defending power should maintain the capability to enforce the agreement if the other side cheats. Britain had a powerful navy more so than the US so Britain could guarantee the US would not become more expansionist. Uses the demands as legitimate not just because it wants to avoid conflict Passive appeasement is bad. It just conveys the impression of weakness and doesn't give appeasement power any cred 3. Concessions viewed as conciliation 4. Sufficient concessions 5. Alert to new evidence 6. Divide up concessions over time - give the money or land in payments to guarantee they are keeping up with payments

What are the conditions for success for tit for tat

1. Shadow of the future Game must continue game must go on if there is only one game then defection is the rational strategy People are much more rude in a big city because you probably will never see them again but in a small town you're going to see them often 2.Low discounting $100 today or $100 a year from now People must not discount the future too much for tit for tat to work 3. Monitoring ability 4.Timely warning to know the other side is cheating before it is too late

How do you build trust?

1. Small agreements Absolute trust isn't necessary for cooperation Require less trust and can increase trust Can see if the other lives up to its promise. Staging an agreement over time. Israel gave back sayana peace by peace 2.Costly unilateral concession The other state may ignore a consiliatory offer and view it as propaganda More likely to take a gesture seriously if costly i.e. admitting blame, withhdrawing troops, lifting sanctions Cost is subjective 3. Consistency Incredibly important Not just when it is in their own interest 4.Summit meetings Understand one another better Erroneous 5.Patience Beliefs don't change overnight People need time to see if they have lived up to their promises Initially george HW Bush was suspicious of Gorchabev but within two years he had changed his mind and at their summit meeting he told him I trust your intentions. So Bush actually changed his mind and helped end the Cold War even before the Soviet Union collapsed.

Similarities with the international system in a state of war

1. States are sovereign - Every state has right to control its own territory without interference from outsiders - 1648 Westphalia ended 30 years war and decided every states ruler what religion would be practiced in his territory Rulers will was supreme above that of the pope, holy roman empire, etc - Consequence of sovereignty international anarchy 2. No world government - Nothing to enforce international laws upon states - Each state is a judge of its own morality 3. Use of force - At any time states can use force to solve disagreements. Nothing to prevent them - Hobbes said kings were in a state of war because kings were continually jealous and in the posture of gladiators with spears pointing at each other. - Because any state can use force, states live in a self help system.

What are the sources of mistrust

1. Stereotyping We view individuals as members of social groups like race, ethnicity, background, class, political party. We categorize the social world because it allows you to perceive things quickly and more economically Categorization leads to people exaggerating the similarities of groups and perceive greater differences between other groups See groups as homogeneous People view the world as in groups and out groups Each group tends to exaggerate its own good qualities while denegrating the out group - we can see this in rivalries with athletic teams Stereotypes can block empathy 2. Split Second Judgements People decide to trust somebody within 4-5 seconds They're not basing that decision to trust on a lot of decisions so they are using stereotypes People are prone to disrust the outgroup 3. Fundamental attribution error The way we explain other states behavior People exaggerate the extent to which a person's behavior reflects their character or behavior Underestimate the external factors that are contributing The other state may believe it is reacting to threats and it is behaving defensively During cold war most people believed soviet union had huge army because it planned to invade western europe. Soviet union saw it as they were surrounded by enemise and they had to have troops to keep their countries in the Warsaw pact States don't see how the other can be acting definsively because they don't understand how others can perceive them as a state In the US we assume we only try to help other states so other states shouldn't feel threatened by us, so if states don't understand how others could be threatened by them they apply double standards to the same behavior 4. Double standards Assume their behavior is defense but the other state doing the same behavior is defensive Soviet intervintion in afghanistan was perceived as controlling the Persian Gulf by the US. meanwhile the us also intervened in North Korea that was in favor of democrat 5. Blame casting Because states can't see themselves as threats to others they assume the other side started it Middle east to bosnia to syria people always believe the toher side started it Who started it is who is to blame Each side has its own narritive where the other side is to blame and the other side can't trust

What is the negotiating bargaining process?

1. Three fold choice Accept the agreement offered by the other side Break off negotiations Continue bargaining 2. In order to make this threefold choice they engage in Cost-Benefit analysis How likely is it I'll get a better deal if I keep bargaining Each side tries to wait out the other and not make concessions until the very end. Better to make large concessions at the end instead of small concessions over time BATNA Best alternative to a negotiated agreement Which side would be better off if no agreement is reached. For ex. North korea the longer the negotiations go on the more progress and powerful it gets. So north korea has more bargaining power as time goes on. 3. Make no agreement less desirable Make threats and cause the other side to change its resistance point. But opponent may think accepting the punishment is better than conceeding for ex yugoslavia president accepted bombs instead of making concession in 1993. May be worried that if they make concessions the other side will try this again and just keep making threats Threats are indeed costly though 4. Further bargaining useless Make a commitment that your hands are tied you can't go any lower; its equivalent to burning bridges. Make public statement so if you back down you lose face. Walk out of negotiations Trump just walked out when he tried to negotiate with Pelosi Depends on your best alternative to an agreement. Deadline Otherwise the parties can talk forever Easter agreement Trump has done this with Chinese - he gave them until March 1st 5. Sweeten the offer Side payments - Gorbachev Log rolling Each side makes a concession on issues the other cares about

How does Grit defer from Tit for Tat?

1. Tit for tat wants immediate reciprocity where as grit is more patient with making several concessions without immediate reciprocity 2.Grit is clearer than tit for tat because of public statement 3.Grit is more flexible 4.More forgiving 5.More ambitious strategy Grit spreads the concessions across geographic location whereas tit for tat is very much the same issue areas so trade for trade weapons for weapons.

What are the criticisms for tit for tat

1.Noise We don't know how the other side has moved whether they have cooperated. We often don't know how the other side has played and we don't know what it means One reason we don't know what the other sidee has done it is that states are not unitary actors different parts of the government may act at cross purposes with eachother 2.Whether it is cooperative or a defection can be difficult to read because the other side's intentions are ambiguous - ambiguous intent It may not be clear if cooperative move is sincere or if they are just deceiving 3.Does not overcome mistrust It may take more than one concession to establish trust 4. Biased perceptions of equivalence. People overvalue the value of their concessions Married couples disagree over who does the most house work the men will say they do 50% and wives say they do 20% so in the same way the states may disagree on if they have made equal concessions Us soviet concessions died because kennedy said soviets hadn't done enough hadn't made enough concessions 5. Punishment costly and often ineffective Whether bombing or trade it is still costly to the punisher and punished Tariffs against China are costly for US manufacturers 6. Echo effects Punishment echos back and forth One side defects the other side defects so it becomes a never ending cycle of punishment Kind of like a fued. Trump imposes tarrifs on china and china established tariffs on soybeans and on american cars, things we want to sell China 7.Need for negotiations Need to be able to work out verification

What was the U.S. containment policy?

1947 president truman doctrine Idea that the US would contain any further soviet expansion Containment and deterrence went hand in hand. US threatened to use nuclear weapons against soviet union

Russians in the cold war

2001 helped the US in afghanistan extensively allowing them to use central asia Bush invited him to his ranch Putin thought the US was accepting Russia as an equal state. Later putin was angered by US support for popular color revolutions in georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgzstan. He felt like his trust ras betrayed. All these states were formerly part of Russia 2011 Clinton criticizes elections as neither free nor fair Russia revenged in 2016 by interfering in the election Trust is fragile

What is the Leviathan?

A book written by Hobbes that advocates the monarchy of a God-chosen king

What is the goal of GRIT? Gradual reciprocation in tension reduction

Have a spiral of tension reduction instead of conflict Create mutual trust that will make negotiations easier

What are the effects of trust and mistrust

Act as a filter or a lense influencing the way we interpret other states behavior a state that mistrusts another state will not take any cooperative move at face value it will always look for a trick A state that mistrusts another will always take the worst interpretation Mistrust can be self-confirming and it can prevent us from engaging in behavior that shows us we are wrong. Mistrust is self- fulfilling prophecy Prophecy that was originally wrong but made true based on how people behaved Treating the other person as if he is stupid will cause him to behave in that way In the same way treating the other state as if they were an enemy will make them act as your enemy After WW2 soviet leader Stalin mistrusted everybody including himself. He saw enemies everywhere and as a result he expanded soviet borders and he created enemies that weren't there before We have to look for missed opportunities where states could have cooperated we have to engage in counterfactual balances. Think about things that didn't happen

what are the different types of appeasement

Active policy of appeasement : status quo state hears the grievances of the revisionist state and attempts to satisfy legitimate demands through negotiations Great britain gave back hong kong to china Passive appeasement: do nothing when the other side engages with aggression.

Trust is needed for cooperation for two things

Anarchy and Uncertainty Can never get into somebody elses head- always a leap of faith involved in any international agreement. Trust is the leap of faith

What was Haiti's success story using coercion

Aristide only allowed to serve for 8 months before overthrown Haiti is one of the poorest countries - but the US cared because because people were landing to the US in boats so in july 1993 President Clinton brokered an agreement with the Haitian leaders to allow Aristide to return to power. This was called the Governor's Island agreement. To prepare for that, october 1993 about 200 canadian and US policemen and troops went to Haiti to train police and military in Haiti. When they reached Haiti there were riots on the docs. The Haitian military refused to carry out the agreement and Clinton withdrew the US ship making the US look humiliated. Haiti stood up to the United States and the refugee continued. In july 1994 clinton went to UN and asked for authorization of an invasion. Then former President Carter decided to mediate he flew to Haiti and made an agreement and Aristide was returned to power without US troops having to invade/ use force. You could say Carter wouldn't have succeeded if the US wasn't getting prepared to invade.

What are possible ways to deter terrorists? (post cold war)

Assets - Poppy fields, diamond mines, etc. might be able to deter state supporters of terrorism like North Korea Might be able to deter leader of terrorist group or their financers who don't necessarily want to die. Threat of failure - if terrorist group thinks attack will fail they may not carry it out. Intelligence, hardening of targets, shared info with local officers, etc.

Advantages of appeasement

Avoid unnecessary conflict Possible to change from enemy to friend

What is the definition of trust

Belief rely on the other at risk of bad outcome because the other has good intentions

What are the uses of appeasement

Buy time. Appeasement bought time for britain to build up its forces so it would be able to challenge hitler. Reduce military expenditure Rising power. Before world war 1 they wanted a place in the sun, a bigger fleet. Rising powers will sometimes go to war to secure what they believe is their rightful share. Less costly to buy off this rising power. Some argue US should do this with China. Maybe make concessions os we can avoid a war. Prevent states from allying

Disadvantages of appeasement

Can be costly. Territorial concessions could strengthen a potential aggressor and make them better able to be aggressive i.e. Hitler Concessions could increase appetite of aggressor i.e. Hitler. Neither deterrence nor appeasement is likely to work by itself

What are the risks of ultimatum

Can be viewed as a bluff and if the threat fails the coercive power has to decide if he really wants to carry out the threat Could provoke war - other side believes war is inevitable and best to go force May make the other side more motivated to resist - nobody likes to be threatened or bullied. The other side may comply but only partially - is it enough? What saddam did. He would agree to open up nuclear weapon sites then resign If you don't use force, it hurts your reputation. If hurt has to be used the purpose is to hurt the other side, not to punish it. Punishment is applied until the other side gives up.

Why was coercion used post cold war

No longer concerned with Soviet Union US objectives are more ambitious Stopping humanitarian disasters

What is the try and see method of coercion

Coercing power doesn't have all of the components of an ultimatum (punishment, demand, and time limit) for ex 1995 chinese tested missiles in Taiwan strait. Chinese never said what their demand was and no time limit but they wanted something because they were testing missles. They didn't want taiwan to be independent. Another ex US bombed North Vietnam with no demand or time limit before we sent in ground troops

What was motive for british appeasement (1812)

Commercial. British wanted to buy cotton and wheat. Territorial. British were concerned about the vulnerability of canada Reduce enemies. Britain had rivalries with France, Russia, Germany, and they couldn't deal with those enemies. Rather have the US as a friend

What are criticisms of GRIT

Dangerous if you used grit on a rogue state that was expansionist like North Korea, all it would do is strengthen the aggressor. Instead you would want to use conditional reciprocity You wouldn't make any concessions unless the other side makes concessions as well Unilateral concessions can be viewed as signs of weakness they may make the other side think they can take advantage of you Domestic political constraints US gets impatient if the other side doesn't immediately respond Insufficient It doesn't resolve the underlying conflict of interests for taht you need bargaining. It reduces tensions At least with US and North Korea the atmosphere is less tense despite not much reciprocity

what was the Korean war trauma (deterrence)

Dean acheson 1950 excluded Korea from the US defense perimeter US withdrew troops from South Korea and in june 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea. This caused the US to reevaluate whether we wanted a state we created to be taken over by communists Us learned we had to commit ourselves to defend other countries in advance and we had to signal that intention to soviets Currently Trump is threatening to withdraw troops from South Korea unless they pay more. So important to remember what happened last time we withdrew troops

What is the definition of security dilemma

Definition: the means that a state takes to increase its security decrease the security of others Significance: because the actions that a state takes to increase its security makes the other states also want to increase their security to counteract the increased security of the first state. This back and forth build up between both sides can lead to a spiral of escalation. Consequently, an attempt to make itself more secure has made the state less secure than before it increased its security

What are extension agreements

Designed to prolong an arrangement or state of affairs Little change in made in the agreement Examples include renewals of the trade agreement or renewal of rights to maintain oversea bases or replacement of world leaders Characteristics is the status quo has an important impact on the final agreement, it sets a precedent, normally they are minor changes Prolonged agreements can make both sides lose and in no agreements both sides can lose for ex Congress has to approve NAFTA and if that falls apart... corporations with supply lines in Mexico will be messed up

How does security dilemma lead to spiral of conflict

Even though state A and B didn't have any aggressive intentions there is a spiral of conflict after interpreting state's A's defensive tactics as offensive

How does security dilemma lead to spiral of conflict

Even though state A and B didn't have any aggressive intentions there is a spiral of conflict.

What are examples of GRIT

Gorbachev stopped nuclear testing unilaterally for 18 months he agreed to destroy more nuclear weapons than US in teh INF treaty In december 1988 he agreed to reduce soviet army by 500K and destroy 50K tanks unilateraly It took the US a while to reciprocate Reagan visited the Soviet Union and stated it was no longer the evil empire Became enemy to friend

What is an example of tit for tat

Malinowski studied cooperation in south sea island and he found fisherman would bring fish to farmers and farmers would bring their products to fisherman. There wasn't a state to enforce this it was just based on reciprocity and self interest

What are the obstacles to deterring terrorism when using deterrence (post cold war)

Many terrorist groups don't have tangible assets like cities or weapons sites Suicide terrorists are willing to give up their lives - unlikely to be deterred by threat of punishment Return Address - Don't know who carried out the attack and don't know where to retaliate. Many terrorist groups are stateless actors and terrorists are also non-unitary actors. Non unitary actors - many terrorist groups are decentralized. There are terrorist wanna bes. That suggests that deterrence doesn't have much utility

what is the problem with believing an accident causes war

Maybe some troops start fighting each other by accident and escalates to war 1931 japanese soldieers blew up portion of railroad track and claimed the chinese did it and started their war It was just some lower level japanese officers 1914 german chancellor if the iron dice are now to be rolled then God help us. Seemed he was taking a risky measure but at the same time germans thought they would win in four months.

British appeasement (political)

Monroe doctrine 1890s there was a territorial dispute between british colony and venezuela British supported colony but US said we should be allowed to mediate because it was our hemisphere and the british should stay out. Monroe doctrine said Latin America is for the US Britain did not want to go to war so they accepted monroe doctrine in 1896 and the crisis was over. US won. At the end of the 1890s britain withdrew most of its navy from western hemisphere making it the dominant power Successful case of appeasement. British satisfied US legitimate demands. American demands did not increase

Why do states trust?

Mutually beneficial collaboration. It is irrational to trust but also irrational to never trust. Trust helps us fill in the gaps

What is the problem with believing scape goats is the cause of war

Need a scapegoat to unite the country Having a war will unite everybody behind the leader but historically it is very hard to find ex where a state started a war because of domestic trouble Losing a war can result in revolution or overthrow of the leaders. In russia there were revolutions in 1917 because of the wars Before ww2 it was the fascist countries germany japan and italy that were united the democracies were the ones taht had trouble yet it was the fascist countries that started the war

why is imbalance of power not a logical reason for causing war

One state becomes too powerful and then starts war Fits balance of power theory Balanace when no state can law down the law to others Multipolar system with many or multiple great powers is more peaceful than a system with one or two great powers (INCORRECT) Mainly responsible for maintaining existence of smaller states, not preventing wars Two great powers and small power, small state can play off the big guys to prevent being dominated When one state becomes too powerful other states are supposed to come together and form a coalition to limit power of large state Napoleon, hitler War is more common when balance power Less likely when one powerful state, a hegemon like the USA - a unipolar system every state knows which is more powerful and doesn't want to risk war with them

What are the characteristics of the concession/ convergence model ?

Other side doesn't know the other sides resistance point Each keeps trying to guess their minimum of resistance point i.e. Trump's wall

Strategic british appeasement

Panama canal Us withdrew from claton - bulver treaty in 1850 1902 British signed Hay-Pauncefote treaty letting the US build the canal

What is the process of GRIT

Publicly announcing a series of unilateral concessions Invites the other state to participate but DOES NOT DEMAND an equivalent concession GRIT carries out concessions without waiting for reciprocity that is because it may take several small concessions to have an impact on the other side. The concession should be moderately costly it shouldn't be things the state was going to do anyway. Concession should not be too costly at first. Grit is not unilateral disarment. If the other side does reciprocate grit does make slightly more concession but if the target tries to take advantage of grit, then grit retaliates only to restore the status quo Some concessions may be sharing science information or cultural exchanges

China in the new cold war

Represents misplaced trust 1978 china opened up economy to trade, investments, allowed more refrence to the market than communism Many americans developed the belief China was going to become more democratic US observers believed it was only a matter of time but now we see that is not going to be the case becasue in October Chinese president Xi Jin ping removed term limits from teh Chinese constitution meaning he can stay in power for life. Also stepping up censorship, and instead of becoming more democratic they are becoming more authoritarian. This mistrust is seeping into the entire relationship with China - trade military cooperation academic exchanges and so forth. There is a risk we will return to cold war

Pre-WW2 definition of appeasement

Reward a state legitimate aspirations so that it will not go to war Brits appease germany so that it will join league of nations

What are side effects of bargaining

Sometimes states negotiate to make themselves look good and don't even want an agreement There was a lot of this in the Cold War, specifically nuclear disarmament Both sides included what you might call poison pills or fish hooks designed to make the other side would not agree During cold war sometimes the US would engage in negotiation just so we could find out what the Soviet Union thought so less likely to get into accidental war Sometimes states negotiate to keep or stall the other side from using force This was used by US when it came to Berlin Sometimes states negotiate for deception. Democratic states believe you should try for public opinion because public opinion will never go to war unless negotiation was at least tried

what is the problem with believing economic need causes war

States avoid going tow ar when they have no money in the treasury to pay their soldier

What are indicators of trust

Symbolic behaviors are indicators of trust I.e. smile Xi Jinping abe 2014 had confrontation over islands in the East china sea so the two leaders finally got together and the picture of them.. Is amusing.. They both had a bitter gourd face. But in 2018 they smiled together because trump due to their common adversary now. When president trump first met Merkel he turned away and refused to shake her hand to show mistrust

What are the conclusions of coercion

Target has the initiative Punishment alone can not alter the behavior usually necessary to offer positive inducement Credibility matters - Haiti did not believe the US would use force . Bosnian serbs didn't believe un would use force because of russia. Context matters - easier for US to use force against Haiti because close to our shore. Not so easy in bosnia. Geometry and interests matter.

British appeasement in 1842-1895

Territorial Webster ashburton treaty - turned over Maine and head of Lake superior to the US 1846 treaty had great britian turn over the oregon land to the US. Canadians were pissed because it extended border to the pacific but britain decided the territory wasn't worth fighting over.

what is deterrence

definition: persuasion of one's opponent that the costs and or risk of the given course of action will outweigh the benefits - status quo is better than the benefits of no resistance minus the cost of aggression if the other side resists A strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started.

what is deterrence

definition: persuasion of one's opponent that the costs and or risk of the given course of action will outweigh the benefits - status quo is better than the benefits of no resistance minus the cost of agression if the other side resists Deterrence is psychological and aims to influence the others will

What was the Dayton agreement? (COERCION)

ended Bosnia civil war in 1995 Bosnia declared independence from Yugoslavia in 1992 Bosnia was dilled with Servs, Croats, and Muslims. Bosnia Serbs did not want to succeed so a civil war broke out. Serbs made it to where in Sarajevo you couldn't leave your home without being fired upon. UN put sanctions. On several occasions Clinton administration threatened to use force unless bosnia serbs stopped what they were doing. The US threatened to bomb them. They would stop but then in a few weeks they would start again. Then there were a couple of instances that caused the US to move towards a more forceful action. One of these was July 1995 Massacre in Srebenica. The servs rounded up all muslim mens and boys and shot them all (8,000) outrage caused NATO to move towards coercion. UN did not use force because Russia would oppose. August 1995 Serbian shots into a market so there were major bombing strikes. The US got NATO to apply force and this was accompanied with negotiations. Richard Holbrooke got everybody together in Dayton Ohio and they negotiated an agreement. By this time the Serbs were willing to negotiate and the carrot was they would receive autonomy in Bosnia. Bosnia was split into three different territories - muslim, croat, serbs. Holbrooke used President Milosevic to pressure Serbs. In december 1995 the violence

How did John Locke view state of nature

he did not think state of nature would require them to give up their freedom instead they could sign a social contract.

Goal of coercion

influence the other sides will by using punishment NOT to beat him into compliance. Coercion works by changing the other sides calculations of cost and benefits. An offer you can't refuse is coercive. If a mugger steals your purse, it is not coercion. BUT if a mugger asks do you want to die or do you want your purse that is coercion because it is a choice.

What is realism concerned with

insecurity and war

What is the definition of negotiation?

involves a process in which explicit proposals are put forward to reach agreement on common interests where conflicting interests are also present Sometimes actors argue with deeds not words. Tacid bargaining is when they do not use words. Without conflicting interest there is nothing to negotiate about. Negotiations are used for complicating forms of cooperation like setting up an international organization. Negotiations are necessary for monetary settlements, or overseas basis, or troops Us is trying to get south korea to pay more - negotiations are needed for formal arrangements like an alliance

when is there no interdependency

nature.

Current definition of appeasement

pacify another actor usually signify a sacrifice moral principle to avoid violent conflict

what are the criticisms of Hobbes state of nature

people obey the law for reasons other than fear for ex follow speed limit even when no cops because safety, society, shared interest, habit, etc. they don't need constant supervision Hobbes assumes nothing between anarchy and a totalitarian state

bargaining elements usually contains a mixture of what three elements

persuasion coercion and accomodation

what is the role of strategy in peace and war

strategy is important because it affects the outcome of conflict between states (not always determined by the most powerful states) i.e. US lost to North Vietnam in War and US can't get North Korea to give up weapons despite pushing sanctions

Coercive diplomacy defensive

the use of threat or force to persuade the adversary to stop doing something or undue what he has already done. For example cuban missile crisis.

Coercion Definition

the use of threats or punishment to make an adversary do something like give up territory allow inspection withdraw troops stop using chemical weapons coercion includes blackmail as well as defensive action. Coercion is attractive because it offers a cheaper way to achieve objectives than appeasement or war.

What is trust a mixture of

trust is a mixture of cognitive emotional and behavioral elements A trusts B to do C - you might trust your friend to lend them your car. When people's trust is betrayed they get angry because there is an emotional element President carter felt soviet union betrayed him in dec 1979 when they invaded. Carter felt like he'd been lied to and the soviet invasion was the greatest threat to peace since WW2. then the us boycotted moscow olympics and placed sanctions. Carter didn't have same reaction to china's invatsion of soviet union Behavioral aspect is relying on somebody else. Trust is made necessary by presence of mistrust.

when are actors interdependent

when the outcome of each actors choice depends on the decision of the other way

Did appeasement work with Great Britain and the US

yes it did