IR Midterm #2 - copy
Differences between brute force and the power to hurt, according to Schelling
brute force: -used to subjugate enemies -ex: the US. tactics in the Comanche Wars, Sherman's March. colonialism -taking with strength, skill, or ingenuity or hurting (destroying value, causing suffering) -unilateral and undiplomatic -recourse to strength, strength opposes strength -military solution -instrument = threats -succeeds when USED -brutal, thoughtless, vengeful power to hurt: -more strategic, can involve diplomacy -operates on the threat of violence and in the case of nuclear weapons, the threat of mass destruction - it has become much more important in the modern world -the threat is NOT used, it is IMPLIED -diplomatic solution -instrument = words/diplomacy -coercion - latent threats and expectations of violence -compromise, restraint, understanding, bargaining -exploitation of enemy's wants and fears -succeeds when held in reserve -offers relief upon accommodation -atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki = promised more hurt (on civilians_ violence is most purposeful and successful when it is threatened, not used..."Successful threats don't have to be carried out"
Levels of analysis and their relationship with the spiral and deterrence models of war
level 1: spiral model because individual leaders don't think through their actions and think that building up their military will be understood as a defensive move but then it makes others feel insecure and there is an arms race level 3: deterrence model because it has to do with the balance of power in the international system and territorial expansion;
Justifications for the containment doctrine, Marshall Plan, NSC-68
containment doctrine: US sought to halt Soviet expansion on economic, ideological, military, and political grounds Marshall Plan: strategic? economic? Financial Aid for Europe; Partially Meant to Inhibit Soviet Influence NSC-68: National Security Council Doctrine; Concludes the Soviet Union is Inherently Expansionary (which is a challenge to the American ideal) and Recommends the Militarization of Conflict Throughout the World
What is moral hazard and why does this matter for IMF lending?
moral hazard is the idea that, in the presence of a safety net, reckless behavior might be encouraged (irresponsible economic policies and risks) (ex: seatbelt laws in the US were said to maybe encourage reckless driving) applies to IMF because it makes the fund controversial...if countries believe that safety net is there they might not make as sound of economic decisions and act more risky because they know/believe they'll be bailed out so they're not as concerned with doing things right the first time
Be able to explain the logic of nuclear deterrence
***nuclear weapons are a blend of offensive (1st strike capabilities) and defensive (2nd strike capabilities, MAD) ***Mutually Assured Destruction (both sides possess 2nd strike capabilities, which makes any use of nuclear weapons illogical because of the capacity for severe and quick destruction) ***Strategic Defense AKA National Missile Defense (missile shield that could intercept incoming nuclear weapons, but its very difficult and fails a lot; contentious because it is a defensive system that could serve offensive purposes; people oppose it because it undermines MAD in that it negates 2nd strike capability and then there isn't deterrence) (ex: US's "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative pissed off Russia -The main purpose of strategic deterrence is to prevent nuclear war by ensuring that costs and risks associated with an attack outweigh potential benefits. Nuclear deterrence is dependent on the perceptions and evaluations of potential aggressors, and if successful persuades possible adversaries that an advantage could never be gained by a first strike. -Effective deterrence is a function of real capabilities and the perception of a credible national will to respond to aggression. A nation must respond to an attacker before its weapons are destroyed or by making sure it has a second-strike capability. A second-strike capability means enough of the deterrer's forces have survived attack and are capable of damaging the aggressor in retaliation. -Potential aggressors must be convinced that the threatened nation will follow through with its threat of retaliation - a complex balancing act.
Potential faults of the Versailles treaty
***very flawed and led to WWII, led to hyper-nationalism, hyper-inflation, etc. all of which Hitler exploited and it contributed to his meteoric popularity •France and UK: Desire to punish Germany for wartime aggression. (made them pay huge reparations, extremely punitive) •US: pushed for self-determination and the League of Nations. (predates the UN, failed to enforce collective security, international institution intended to prevent war from ever happening again) •Treaty takes a hard line with Germany, reducing its army dramatically, requiring it to accept all blame for the war and to pay large war reparations to Allies.
Role of the IMF - what does it do? When was it created and for what purpose?
- Created at a UN conference in Bretton Woods in 1944 - Conference sought to build a framework for economic cooperation to avoid a repetition of the competitive devaluations that had contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s. - Charged with exchange rate management and global financial stability - the Brenton Woods system lasted from 1945-1973 (IMF managed fixed exchange rates, allowed currency to be bought and sold, and provided balance of payments financing in crises with conditions attached( - there was a collapse of the BW fixed exchange rate regime due to international pressure - so after that the governments could choose fixed or floating rates and there was a trend toward floating rates - there is no formal management of floating rates so they were "out of a job" - so now the IMF is a lender of last resort and attempts to provide global financial stability and lends almost exclusively to developing nations since the 1990s (short term loans to get them back on their feet economically) - conditionality is a key part of their loans (countries agree to policy changes in return for receiving loans - some never go through with it or all of it) - do their programs promote growth??? conflicting findings, some say no and some say yes, help with BoP crises at least in the short term
Conflict in Yugoslavia in the 1990s: be able to identify the main combatants, outline the general course of the conflict
- The disintegration of Yugoslavia as the Cold War was winding down, resulted from a breakdown of the nation-building of Marshal Josip Broz Tito, the wartime guerrilla leader who ruled Yugoslavia from 1945 until his death in 1980. - The collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe weakened the glue that had held together the diverse, mutually antagonistic ethnic groups of the former Soviet bloc. - The Serbian desire for a reunified homeland manifested itself in a resurgent nationalistic movement. Serbian leaders, such as Slobodan Milosevic, shaped the issues of alleged Albanian mistreatment of Serbs and a widespread sense of economic deprivation into concrete political goals. - Yugoslavia's government struggled unsuccessfully to cope with a plunging economy and the re-emergence of local nationalism. Yugoslavia's breakup began in May 1991, when Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence from the Serbian-dominated central government in Belgrade. - The Muslim president of Bosnia held a referendum on independence for Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnian Serbs boycotted the referendum, but 90 percent of those who did vote opted for Bosnian independence. On March 3, 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina was proclaimed an independent republic. - Bosnian Serbs rebelled, and an armed struggle broke out to determine which ethnic group would control the country. The Serbs justified their aggression by claiming that Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic wanted to turn Bosnia into a fundamentalist Islamic nation. Bosnia-Herzegovina was composed of 40 percent Muslims, 30 percent Serbs and 18 percent Croats. Although Bosnia's Muslims were in the majority with 2 million people, Bosnia's Serbian minority was better armed, receiving support from the neighboring Serbian army. - Serbian militias, backed by the Serbian armed forces, took control of two-thirds of Bosnia. Afterward, the Bosnian Serbs launched a reign of terror against country's Muslim population. - Enforcing a policy of "ethnic cleansing," Bosnian Serbs set out to "purify" Bosnia by expelling Bosnian Muslims from the country. Serbian artillery daily bombarded city streets and marketplaces in Sarajevo. - A NATO ultimatum brought about a cease-fire .between Croatian forces and Bosnian army with the Washington Agreement in 1994. - Kosovo War in 98 and 99: Kosovar Albanians faced repression from Serbs in Belgrade, desired to be autonomous republic. Kosovo Liberation Army formed in 1996 and began strikes against Serbs. NATO intervened in 1999 and began bombing of Yugoslavia (mostly Belgrade). Hostilities ended after two months when UN sends in KFOR to keep peace - Accusations and trials for genocide/crimes against humanity •Srebrenica and Eastern Bosnia, conviction of Radovan Karadzic •Trial of Slobodan Milosevic •Some estimates of 140,000 casualties in all wars combined
Schelling "A World Without Nuclear Weapons": Why Schelling argues that a nuclear-free world is not especially safe
- bad idea - because it would be a world in which many nations have hair-trigger mobilization plans to rebuild nuclear weapons and mobilize/commandeer delivery systems, all in high and alert status, with practice drills and secure emergency communications - in a non-nuclear world, the highest priority would be knowing the exact locations and readiness of enemy nuclear mobilization bases - it would be an even more nervous world than today - a political party would be able to campaign on basis of reassembly of nuclear weapons - we'd literally just be trading the form of the arms race and instead of build up of weapons we'd focus on speed of time table of mobilization - a world without nukes but we always have the technology and knowledge and mobilization bases (will always maintain possibility in case, so they have something to fall back on!) - this will lead to covert and frantic efforts in conflict situations - the first to assemble nukes will use them and try to disrupt an enemy's bases - former nuclear powers would just become LATENT nuclear powers - states wouldn't just LOSE a war instead of resorting to using them because of their instinct of survival - we are currently in a nuclear quiet, an absence of major conflict, due to mutual deterrence and the taboo (taboo is an non-proliferation argument more though) so he's against disarmament - he argues that mutual deterrence, not the taboo on nuclear weapons, is the deterrent - implied that nonproliferation guys use the taboo as a way to back up their arguments but Schelling says we have to think bout the bad and maintain our nuclear deterrent
Byrnjolfsson et al. "Labor, Capital and Ideas in the Power Law Economy": Why are Brynjolfsson et al. not very enthusiastic about employment patterns in the future?
- technology has created problems as machines substitute for more types of human labor than ever before (automation) - job creation now takes place almost exclusively in the large non-tradable sector (haircuts, medical, innovators) - offshoring is just a way station on the road to automation (tip of the iceberg) - jobs are now disappearing in those places too like in China (even though overall productivity is increasing) - shifts away from labor and towards capital - income will be distributed according to a power law, which means most people will be below average with a few extra rich innovators - they're particularly worried about the inequalities that will arise and how they'll be politically destabilizing
Schelling "The Diplomacy of Violence"
-2 types of violence, brute force and power to hurt - use of nuclear weapons (demonstrate to citizens of country in new wat an implied threat and use of nukes demonstrated the capacity of military to hurt them again) - not an attack against military or material strength - not the rule for WWII most in WWII target military - victory no longer prerequisite for hurting enemy - military in age of nuclear weapons doesn't have to fight military to get in borders - involvement of citizens in conflict isn't new, Napoleonic Wars was the 1st time, leaders expected ordinary citizens to get into the war effort, mobilization of the whole nation, seen again in WWII... but way before that 2 armies just met in a field and duked it out far from populations, they kept general power and economic structures in place!
Types of capital (money) flows: what are characteristics of each type?
-Foreign Exchange •Flows of money that occur as currencies are bought and sold. •Over $1.2 trillion per day; mostly for speculative purposes ("hot money") -Bank loans •Banks in one country lend to borrowers (governments or businesses) in another. •Played an important role in the 1970s and early 1980s; less so today. -Portfolio investment •Relatively short-term capital flows (time horizon less than one year) •Most common assets are stocks (equity) and bonds (debt). •More popular today! -Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) •Funds investment in specific projects, and gives investors a controlling interest in these projects. •Longer time horizon (sunk costs of making direct investments) (like a FACTORY) •A tool used by multinational corporations (MNCs) •Helps to create global production networks. •More popular today!
***Broad categories of material conflict over which states might go to war
1 - territorial disputes, including secession attempts 2 - conflicts over who controls national governments 3 - economic conflicts (trade, money, natural resources, drug trafficking) 4 - ideology, religion, ethnicity we talked about these and how in unequal societies, with a lot of young men and inequality are more likely for conflict (conditions on the ground that might lead to conflict)
Periods of the Cold War and how each was more or less "cold"
1. Friends to enemies, 1945-1947 - Soviet armies occupied most of Eastern Europe after WWII and installed pro-Soviet communist regimes throughout the region - Containment Doctrine (halt ideology, military, and political expansion by Soviet Union) - Truman Doctrine (U.S. to support free peoples who are resisting subjugation by outside pressures) - Marshall Plan (keep away Soviet influence and gain favor in Western Europe) 2. Full Frigid Force (1947-1956) - Berlin Blockade and Airlift - Soviets detonate first atomic weapon - Chinese communists take control of Mainland China - NSC-68 (Soviet Union inherently expansionary so recommends militarization of conflict throughout the world) - Korean War (North Korea communist dictatorship) 3. The U.S. in Decline (1957-1962) - Sputnik launched (advanced space technology) - Missile Gap, Bomber Gap (Soviets bluff on build-up and U.S. responds by building up) - Cuban Missile Crisis (direct confrontation, the last one, closest we got to actual warfare) 4. Learning to Cope (1962-1968) 5. Détente (1968-1979) - "peaceful coexistence" as U.S. and Soviet Union manage rivalry (avoid direct conflict, respect spheres of influence, manage nuclear balance) - Sino-Soviet Split and then normalization of Sino-American relations > Nixon visits China 6. Cold War II (1979-1988) - Fruitless Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - US resists arms control and renewed arms race occurs - Reagan Doctrine (return to ASSERTIVE containment) 7. Cold War winds down (1988-1990) - Gorbachev promises unilateral arms reduction - Sinatra Doctrine (policy change from Soviet Union > allowed Warsaw Pact countries to determine their own international affairs) 8. Soviet Union dissolves in 1991 - people didn't see it coming
What brought about the 2008 financial crisis, according to Johnson? How do we prevent the crisis from happening again, according to Johnson?
1. ILL BANKING SECTOR - the financial industry (bankers, lenders, etc.) who took on too much risk, and also there was a lack of oversight! 2. too much veto power in Wall Street and too many tight connections between them and the government - Congress was unwilling to squeeze the oligarchy and the "toothless Securities and Exchange Commission" (due to the connections between Wall street and Washington)
Three main theoretic approaches to IPE: be able to explain their differences (chart is useful)
1. Liberalism - (2nd) economics should determine politics (the pursuit of wealth should determine the nature of political order) (politics should not get in the way) - harmonious economic relations - main actors are households and firms - the state is an aggregation of private interests and public policy should be the outcome of a pluralistic struggle among internal groups - the goal of economic activity is maximization of global welfare - long-term trend toward world economic integration and this will set us on the path to global political unification and world peace - theory of change: focus on equilibrium (how do we reach a situation in which everybody reaches their max. potential?) 2. Marxism - (3rd) economics does determine politics (the mode of production DOES determine the super-structure of political relations because history is the product of dialectical process of contradiction between evolving techniques of production and the resistant socio-political system - conflictual economic relations - main actors are economic classes - the state is an executive committee of the ruling class and public policy reflects its interests - the goal of economic activity is maximization of class interests - so politics will yield to the dictates of the economy (e.g., German unity in 19th century was an economic necessity) - theory of change: tendency toward disequilibrium (emphasize tension between classes, destabilizing because of advantages and disadvantages between groups) 3. Mercantilism - (1st) politics determines economics (primacy of politics, they determine economic organization - conflictual economic relations - main actors are nation-states - the state is an organic unit in its own right and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts therefore public policy embodies national interest and the general will - the goal of economic activity is maximization of class interests - theory of change: shifts in the distribution of power (links wealth to power and says that state and economic power go together)
-Three possible explanations for civil and ethnic warfare - be able to explain each
1. economic causes - inequality between ethnic groups (no relationship with likelihood of war) - poverty (risks of war much higher for countries that are poor AND experiencing economic decline because of 1. resource scarcity (competition) and 2. (lack of) opportunities for youth (low life expectancy and high birthrate --> lots of youth (young people more likely to engage in war)) - natural resource dependence (also makes war more likely) (resource curse) 2. ancient enmities (culture and history) - ethnic conflict = result of ancient hatreds, which eventually simmer into full-scale war - Hagen's view (former Yugoslavia) is more moderate: 19th and early 20th century history matters (political leaders stoked these issues --> provocations, rise of nationalism) - this view of the Yugoslav conflict was quite common in Europe: the end of the Cold War allowed the revival of ancient hatreds - but, in many cases, "ancient enmities" manage to coexist peacefully for many years - do some types of ethnic diversity actually reduce the risk of civil war (20/20/20/20/20 split vs. 60/40 split?) 3. strategic leaders (opportunistic leaders) - a lot more level 1 in nature - national/sub-national leaders sometimes have political incentives to foment ethnic tensions - ancient enmities lie dormant until a leader evokes them (identities are constructed, not inherent) (use people as scapegoats, try to get more power/support) - this is the U.S. view of the conflict in Yugoslavia (prior to early 1990s citizens of Yugoslavia identified with their location or type of employment rather than
Dominant trends in patterns of warfare
1. major armed conflict (with many states involved, generally large numbers of casualties, and over large territories and populations) has declined markedly in the post-Cold War era. .....the general magnitude of global warfare has decreased by over 50% since peaking in the mid-1980s 2. At the same time, societal (civil) warfare had become the more common form or warfare (not interstate) since the mid 1950s. (its the dominant type of warfare in the world right now) •Civil war in Colombia •Conflict over Kashmir (India-Pakistan) •Europe: Yugoslavia (Serbs, Muslims, Croats); Russia (Chechnya) •Africa: Rwanda (Hutus-Tutsis); Sudan (northern vs. southern, and Darfur); Liberia; Ivory Coast; and others. 3. A good portion of civil wars stem from demands for self-determination •Since the 1950s, more than 70 territorially-concentrated ethnic groups have waged armed conflicts for autonomy or independence. (Example: Chechens in Russia). •In only a few cases, however, have these efforts resulted in new, internationally-recognized states (e.g. Bangladesh, Eritrea, Croatia, Slovenia, East Timor)
What are the alternatives to power-sharing as a solution to ethnic conflict and why do Hartzell & Hoddie believe they will not work?
1. military victory (one side wins the war) - other countries just turn a blind eye? let the conflict run its course and see who wins? - lingering resentments - high costs: loss of human life (ethnic cleansing) - government institutions unresponsive to losing group - fosters same issues as before with a winner and a loser, two polarized groups 2. partition (physical division of ethnic/civil parties to a conflict) - divides people up - you'll end up with MAJOR costs like a refugee crisis as people move to designated areas - also high costs in terms of casualties (think India and Pakistan partition with conflict over Kashmir) - you're just turning a civil war into an interstate war (think Ethiopia and Eritrea) (demarcates a border but doesn't help manage their differences) 3. creating incentives for moderation (encouraging moderation) - structure incentives for moderate behavior by politicians so that people move beyond identities linked to the initial conflict (incorporate former enemies as part of coalition of supporters or force politicians to seek support from purposefully-made diverse constituencies) - idea is to move beyond wartime identities (placing issues that are sources of identity-based conflict placed beyond authority of government) - set up a structure of checks and balances so no one group monopolizes political power - THESE POLICIES ARE RARELY ADOPTED AFTER CIVIL WAR (lack of appeal, preference for strong security guarantees bc they are living among former enemies, too soon and people need to feel secure before they can get along it's just not realistic after conflict, there are no venues for it)
Categories of weapons of mass destruction
1. nuclear - world's most destructive weapons due to the blast of the explosion, the hear, the firestorm, the sickness, the radiation, the electromagnetic pulse which interferes with technology (POWER) - fission (atomic bombs, cheaper and simpler, well within capabilities of many states/groups) and fusion (expensive and demanding technically, only for the richest, largest, most technically capable states) - ballistic missiles and other delivery systems (get nuclear weapons to their targets, basis of states' arsenals and strategies, wide variety) - strategic (can hit enemy's homeland at a long range) and tactical (battlefield use, very dangerous if theft or accident so phased out) - ballistic missiles (major strategic delivery vehicle for nuclear weapons, carries a warhead along a trajectory and lets it drop on the target, fired from fixed or mobile sites) - intercontinental ballistic missiles (longest range missiles) - cruise missile (more accurate type of missile, small and winged and travels far though previously mapped terrain) 2. chemical - releases chemicals that disable or kill people; indiscriminate, cheap, effective; ex: tear gas, nerve gas, mustard gas (WWI) 3. biological - resemble chemical weapons but use deadly microorganisms or biologically derived toxins; almost never used because big scary deal if used; ex: viruses, bacteria...anthrax, smallpox
Schools of thought regarding nuclear disarmament, according to Sokolski
1. official/arms control perspective - coming from Obama administration and others - reduction - nuclear disarmament = possible, desirable, and achievable in long run - eventually go to zero 2. hawkish supporters of nuclear weapons (hawks) - nuclear weapons deter! - we should build up! - proliferation/building up/arms race - OKAY! because MORE deter, provide safety, stability, and security 3. radical academic skeptics - finite deterrence - neorealists - arms races are foolish - wastes of money - a country DOES need nuclear deterrence but there's a sufficient amount beyond which you don't need to go -OKAY YES PROLIFERATION BECAUSE DETERRENCE BUT NOT TOO MUCH 4. radical academic skeptics - deterrence critics - post-neorealists - don't believe that nuclear weapons have a deterrent quality or give security - they are fine with going to zero - nuclear weapons are never used so they don't matter so we really shouldn't care about proliferation; they don't do anything - conflicts happen ALL the time between nuclear states so there really isn't any deterrence happening (various examples of nuclear states in conflicts, no nuclear conflict but the wars happened anyway like with US/Vietnam, US/Korea, and India/Pakistan) -PROLIFERATION IS UNNECESSARY AND MISGUIDED AND WE QUESTION THEIR DETERRENT ABILITY
Hartzell and Hoddie "Crafting Peace through Power Sharing"
BENEFITS: -chances for enduring peace greatly enhanced when competing parties include power-sharing or power-dividing provisions for multiple dimensions of state power as part of their negotiated agreement to end civil war -provides each group with substantive power to check predatory actions of other group but not enough to establish dominance -symbolic benefits: they are committing to this idea and an interest in peace by virtue of compromise! -indicate a sincere commitment and a new sense of confidence (impresses ideology) -3rd parties help -prevents one ethnic group gaining an advantage over another -electoral and parliamentary systems -change goals of combatants -enforce proportional representation in democracy (parliament) with quotes and closed list proportional representation systems -ensure different ethnic groups are represented -institutional innovations -foster sense of security among past rivals PROBLEMS: -inefficient governance (gridlock) -uncompetitive democracy (prevents other interest groups from forming, like shoe NOT based on ethnic groups) -inflexibility and inability to adapt
Relate deep and proximate causes to Rwanda study
Deep causes: tribal hatred Proximate causes: 2 presidents of Rwanda and Burundi killed; forced identity cards, etc
Difference between deep and proximate causes of war
Deep: deeper causes; more distal; usually thought of as the "real" reason something occurred; emphasized by studiers Proximate: what happened to precipitate war immediately before it started; event which is closest to, or immediately responsible; emphasized by mass media
Reasons why states might choose to balance or bandwagon when confronted with threat. Also, why does timing matter?
Balancing = allying or forming a bloc to oppose a threat, done for survival and to increase influence and Great Powers do it, DOMINANT TENDENCY IN INT'L POLITICS > Why? safer because perceptions re unreliable and intentions change, you want to not provoke others because people will ally against you so policies that convey restraint and benevolence are best Bandwagoning = joining with the side of the threat, done to survive and ensure security and weaker states do it because they have less influence on their own, OPPORTUNISTIC EXCEPTION > Why?competitive and intense and rivalries are big and you have to appear strong and aggressive so force is more likely to be used Considerations for choosing one or the other: 1. is the state strong or weak? - weak states bandwagon because they are worried about heir survival and security and have less influence on their own and need to choose the winning side, issues with powerful states threaten them more than they would a strong state - strong states balance because they want to ensure their survival and they can increase their influence on the weaker side, they have a real influence on events 2. availability of allies - if allies are unavailable you bandwagon (what other option is left?) - if allies are available and you have an effective system of diplomatic communication then you can balance 3. peace and war (timing of the conflict MATTERS) - if its peacetime or the early stages of war you'll balance - if its toward the end and the outcome appears certain you'll bandwagon because you want to jump on board the winner's side
Ways in which terrorism may be effective
Is terrorism effective? •Psychological effect -Pape notes that suicide terrorist attacks tend to be aimed at democracies, as these are more suitable targets. •Physical effect -Suicide terrorist attacks kill more people per attack (on average, 13 people) than do other types of terrorist attacks (on average, less than one person per incident) •Recruitment tool •Policy change? -Pape suggests that, about half of the time, suicide terrorism is an effective means of convincing target states to make modest policy changes. -BUT it is ineffective when it comes to achieving major policy changes, because powerful states are more willing to resist as the stakes rise.
Johnson "The Quiet Coup"
Johnson used to work at the IMF who has pretty straightforward procedure for giving countries in crisis money; they ask, in return, that these developing countries CHANGE (you have to do these things to avoid another crisis like getting rid of corruption and getting finances in order and "squeezing some oligarchs" which means making some of them take a hit to get the country back on its feet economically); he is applying this process usually used for emerging markets to the case of the U.S. financial crisis; it is not different fundamentally in terms of the mechanisms that created the financial crisis; it differs in that the U.S. doesn't have to and wouldn't anyway accept the IMF's advice
Explanations for the end of the Cold War according to the three levels of analysis
LEVEL 1: Great Leaders 1. Gorbachev's decisions to liberalize Soviet politics. (glasnost = openness, perestroika = restructuring) (sets of policies that were adopted to reform government institutions which led to more representation and flexibility which gave inertia to the process which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union) --> liberalization gets out of hand 2. Reagan's policy decision to get tough on the Soviet Union in the 1980s also led to collapse (believed it was inherently unstable in the international system?) LEVEL 2: Domestic Bankruptcies 1. economic = Cold War was too expensive, too much military spending, couldn't go on 2. ideological = communism was losing support among people (lack of freedom, inefficient public services, periodic shortages of food, hostility to religion); the west and its culture was much more popular among people 3. religion = Soviets could not completely stamp out religion LEVEL 3: Peace Through Strength 1. forced to concede by the U.S. (because the U.S. became more powerful; relates to the distribution of power in the International system; in the last 80s and early 90s we went from a bipolar to unipolar/hegemonic system led by the U.S.)
Different categories of terrorism and their characteristics
Nationalist: seek to form a separate state for their own group; fighting for "national liberation." Religious terrorism: seek to further divinely-commanded purposes. - Growth in this type of terrorism in the last decade. - But groups that espouses religious goals also may have nationalist goals (e.g. al Qaeda's goals). State-sponsored terrorism: used by radical states as a foreign policy tool. - US State Department lists Iran, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism. - Weak or failed states also can be havens for terrorists, even if they don't directly sponsor terrorism. Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Indonesia, Lebanon, Palestine, Philippines, Somalia, Yemen. There also have been examples of left-wing terrorism, right-wing terrorism (e.g. neo-Nazis), and anarchist terrorism.
Components of the Balance of Payments and what typically happens to bring about a BOP crisis
The Balance of Payments functions like country's check book. -An accounting device that measures money coming into and going out of a country. -Two main components: •Current Account: trade in goods and services (trade deficit: imports (consuming) > exports (producing)) (not bad by itself) •Capital Account: movements of investment (capital) (foreign investors!) -This is important because, overall, a country must be in balance. •A country can't consume more than it produces (current account without making up for it in the capital account. •Persistent balance of payments problems lead to pressures for economic adjustment, especially in developing nations. if one is in deficit, the other needs to be in surplus! BOP crisis -happens when a country consumes more than it produces (current account) and then doesn't make up for it in the capital account (not getting foreign investments) -occurs when a nation is unable to pay for essential imports or service its debt repayments, which is accompanied by a rapid decline in the value of the affected nation's currency -crises are generally preceded by large capital inflows, which are associated at first with rapid economic growth but a point is reached where overseas investors become concerned about the level of debt their inbound capital is generating, and decide to pull out their funds -resulting outbound capital flows are associated with a rapid drop in the value of the affected nation's currency -causes issues for firms of the affected nation who have received the inbound investments and loans, as the revenue of those firms is typically mostly derived domestically but their debts are often denominated in a reserve currency -once the nation's government has exhausted its foreign reserves trying to support the value of the domestic currency, its policy options are very limited
Hagan "The Balkans' Lethal Nationalisms": The Balkans as an example of civil and ethnic conflict, particularly Hagen's arguments about ancient enmities.
The Former Yugoslavia: (really mixed ethnically) •Main Ethnic Groups -Croats (mostly Roman Catholic) -Serbs (mostly Orthodox Christian) -Bosnian Muslims •Federation of Yugoslavia, established with a new constitution after WWII. -Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro, and Serbia. -Kosovo was an autonomous region within Serbia. •No group had a majority . -1991: 36% Serb, Croats 20%, Muslims 10% -And the states themselves were mixed. WAR - prior to early 1990s the citizens of Yugoslavia identified more with their location or type of employment, no their ethnic group, but leaders like Milosevic fomented ethnic tensions, referring to Croat massacres of Serbs in WWII and their alliances with Nazis and blaming Croats and Bosnian Muslims for Serbian loss of power in the federation (diminishment of status); they emphasized that previous division and took advantage of it to gain power and these hatreds were created, non completely ancient enmities but a smilier process! ethic nationalism plagued them and the civil wars and ethnic cleanings that ensued and the murders and the state-imposed violence... violence and inhumanity triggered by conflicts over the frontiers of successor states ; it was EXPULSION as the goal; nationalists seek secure "honorable" borders Post-war settlement: -1994 brokered peace between Croatian forces and Bosnian army with the Washington Agreement -Kosovo War (1998-1999) -Kosovar Albanians faced repression from Serbs in Belgrade, desired to be autonomous republic •Kosovo Liberation Army formed in 1996, began strikes against Serbs -NATO intervened in 1999, Began bombing of Yugoslavia (mostly Belgrade) -Hostilities ended after two months, UN sends in KFOR to keep peace •Accusations and trials for genocide/crimes against humanity -Srebrenica and Eastern Bosnia, conviction of Radovan Karadzic -Trial of Slobodan Milosevic -Some estimates of 140,000 casualties in all wars combined
Ausink "Watershed in Rwanda" : know about Rwanda conflict (Ausink article), particularly the US role
The Rwandan genocide took place over a period of 100 days, from April 6th, 1994 to July 16th, 1994. The two ethnic groups, the Hutus and the Tutsis were involved in the mass genocide. The Hutu extremists attempted to carry out their plan to wipe out the entire Tutsi population. The catalyst to the violence and murders over the 100 day period was the shooting down of an airplane on April 6th of the President Habyarimana, a Hutu. Prior to the plane being shot down there had been an ongoing conflict between the Hutu government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front, called the Rwandan Civil War, which began in 1990. - President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time. - It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers. - However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide". - "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination." - The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value. (because of the devastating US-led peacekeeping operation in Somalia, in 1993, which resulted in the loss of the lives of 18 American Army Rangers, the Clinton Administration reconsidered American foreign policy objectives) - Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide and knowledge as to its perpetrators, United States officials decided against taking a leading role in confronting the slaughter in Rwanda. Rather, US officials confined themselves to public statements, diplomatic demarches, initiatives for a ceasefire, and attempts to contact both the interim government perpetrating the killing and the RPF. The US did use its influence, however, at the United Nations, but did so to discourage a robust UN response (Document 4 and Document 13). In late July, however, with the evidence of genocide littering the ground in Rwanda, the US did launch substantial operations—again, in a supporting role—to assist humanitarian relief efforts for those displaced by the genocide.
Elements of the US response to international terrorism
The US State Department identifies ~30 foreign terrorist organizations. (Hamas, Al Qaeda, CIRA, Shining Path, Boko Haram) our response is evolving, the war on terrorism has changed in some ways 1. Responding to September 11 and other Terrorist Threats • Terrorism is instrumental (end or means to end?) • War on terrorism vs. war on fundamentalism (which is prioritized? Bush and Obama separated Islam from it and Trump doesn't make the distinction) (The struggle against Islamic terrorism is not a clash of civilizations, but a contest "closely tied to the civil war raging within Islamic civilization between moderates and extremists.") • Unilateralism vs. multilateralism (partners or alone?) • Aid, trade and development policies? (integral or peripheral) 2. Slowing down terrorist networks (homeland security) 3. Domestic policies: security vs. liberty? (scanners at airport, only ticketed passengers to gate, parrot act so transcripts of phone calls can be accessed by government, gun control debate) (all tradeoffs)
Define terrorism
What is it? Terrorism is political violence that targets civilian deliberately and indiscriminately. -bombings, shootings, assassinations, hijackings -premeditated -carried out by non-state actors, often acting transnationally but maybe with the backing of states Why commit terrorism? -Gain leverage and win concessions -Demoralize citizens (psychological effect) -Attract media attention to a cause -Raise morale of fighters and their sympathizers -Carry out a religiously-motivated campaign Terrorism is a rational tool, and terrorists are often well-educated, from middle class or well-to-do families. -While the suicide terrorists themselves may be irrational or fanatical, the leaders of groups that recruit and direct them are rational. Terrorism is a weapon of the weak: relatively cheap means of gaining leverage and attention. -Terrorism threatens future damage, thereby creating an opportunity for leverage. -Terrorists often have fewer qualms than governments about using force or targeting civilians. -Part of organized strategies.
Criticisms of the deterrence argument, especially with regard to new nuclear powers
enormous potential lethality of WMDs and the potential for proliferation (spread of WMDs into handoff other actors) is CONCERNING we worry about proliferation into hands of state and non-sate actors new nuclear states may behave more aggressively that old nuclear states because its a particularly dangerous and sensitive time for them; its more tempting to strike first against a rival where states have small nuclear arsenals the may be tempted to use them early before they get targeted or destroyed by an enemy's first strike these states might also have different views about using nuclear weapons' Messianic ideologies would override the taboo against their use; such leaders might not behave "rationally" in a conflict (maybe they're not concerned with survival??) new nuclear states have a hard time solving command and control problems (the US has nuclear football and the Red telephone which is a direct line to Russia); such chains of command are needed but in new nuclear powers such chains/networks/operating procedures might not exist nuclear weapons render otherwise weak or small states very powerful; bigger powers won't be able to "touch" new nuclear countries and this could make regional conflicts hard to address (like "armor" or leverage)
Sokolski "Our Not So Peaceful Future"
see his four schools of thought below he argues for non-proliferation - they won't stabilize and they AREN'T INCONSEQUENTIAL - possession and spread of nukes undermines security (only good for deterring other sates from using theirs) -proliferation will happen, yeah, but will make the world more dangerous
Elements of the definition of terrorism
political violence that targets civilians deliberately and indiscriminately - bombings, shootings, assassinations, hijackings - premeditated - carried out by non-state actors, often operating transnationally (but sometimes have backing of state) - done to gain leverage and win concessions by demoralizing citizens and attracting media attention - rational tool - weapon of the weak
Dominant explanations for protectionism
protectionism = policies to protect domestic industries against international competition, by trade tariffs and other means; it is contrary to liberalism because it distorts the free market to gain advantage for the state usually by discouraging imports motivated by: - cater to political demands of important domestic industries' interests - temporarily protect infant industries (until they can compete in the world market) - give a domestic industry breathing room when market conditions shift or new competitors arrive on the scene - protect industries considered crucial to national security - defense effort to ward off predatory practices by foreign companies/states (dumping = sale of products in foreign markets at prices below minimum level necessary to make a profit or below cost) ways to implement it: -tariffs/duties/taxes levied on imports - non-tariff barriers (quotas, subsidies like loans and tax breaks and guaranteed prices, restrictions and regulations like making it hard to distribute or market a product) - culture (economic nationalism)
Categories of potential explanations for the emergence of World War I ???
proximate causes: -Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist deep causes: - belief in offensive dominance (they thought the war would be quick, easy, and cheap) - cult of the offensive: belief in quick war - rigid alliance system (countries linked in complicated, sometimes secret webs) - two rival alliances in late 19th century = Triple Alliance: Austria-Hungary, Germany and (alliances began as strictly defensive but, by 1910, alliances had become more aggressive) - Pre-War conflicts likely heightened the security dilemma, and brought the two alliance camps into conflict with one another. •Morocco, 1905-1906 and 1911 •Bosnia, 1908-1909 •Balkan Wars, 1912-1913 - shifts in balance of power (Germany's rise as military force in Europe and Britains relative decline) - Domestic Politics (Nationalism - often an aggressive variant, Militarism - in Russia and Germany, increased military influence on domestic policy-making) also know things from the 3 levels of analysis!!!!
Gilpin "The Nature of Political Economy"
relationship between politics and economy reciprocal distinction not real, they are inseparable! politics is political science in the science of power - can't be quantified - psychological and relative - force - allocating scare resources thought a budget economics is the science of wealth - quantifiable - creation and distribution of wealth - allocates scare resources through a market mechanism three conceptions of IPE: liberalism, mercantilism, and marxism liberals say that the interdependent international economy is the normal state of affairs, trend toward integration marxists and mercantilists say that every interdependent system is under a hierarchy and the imperial power/hegemony organizes the relations and it would fragment if this power didn't exist interdependence allows for division of labor and more efficiency and wealth overall not always enough though sometimes we give up benefits for safety POLTICAL ECONOMY = the reciprocal and dynamic interaction in IR of the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit of power
Jervis "The Era of Leading Power Peace"
see below also, there are the continued threats of terrorism and stuff like that but they're not threats of existence dominance or a direct threat to security of state so he says nothing indicates otherwise so the security community will last suspicions and fears of future aren't enough to break it China not a concern,. not enough military power not worried about another WWII
Policy implications of both the spiral model and the deterrence model and reasons for these policies
spiral model: conciliation is the policy implication! you need to demonstrate/communicate that you aren't being aggressive and are just being defensive to avoid an arms race! the chief concern is EACH SIDE WILL OVERESTIMATE THE OTHER'S HOSTILITY and so you try to be generous and make concessions to increase the other side's security and allow them to reciprocate (ex: British strategy at Versailles, originally wanted to be more generous than the French); conciliation helps either side learn that the other is well-intentioned deterrence model: because it sees war as a failure of deterrence or failure to stop an aggressor, grounded in LEVEL 3 because it has to do with the balance of power in the international system and territorial expansion; so the policy implication is that you NEED TO DEMONSTRATE RESOLVE because the chief concern is an UNDERESTIMATION OF RESOLVE so its power met with power and status quo powers need to not project images of weakness as aggressor states will take this as a sign that they may do what they want (ex: 1938 Munich Agreement was appeasement and it was WEAK); conciliation demonstrates weakness
Pape "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism"
suicide terrorism is strategic, effective (at getting attention and/or sympathy), and we have to study and understand their objectives in rational ways 5 major findings: - its strategic (timing and organization) - its designed to get self-determination (nationalist goals) - it pays more than regular terrorism (generally gets more results) but only still about 1/2 the time - suicide terrorists may fail in getting their objectives and there are certain times this will happen (they can't go for things vital to the target country, it has to be something less major) -reduce the confidence in their ability to care this out (destruction is a form or coercion and it is a demonstrative recruitment tool to get new people and publicity) -target selection (aimed at democracies) - weapon of the weak - more destructive than regular terrorism - deliberately violate norms on the use of violence
How do terrorist campaigns end, according to Cronin?
terrorist campaigns and their various processes of death/decline are set in motion by the state, the group itself, or the audience 1. catching or killing the leaders (varies according to organization of group, is it a hierarchy with one charismatic leader or is it more horizontally organized?) 2. crushing terrorism with force (aggressive military campaigns abroad and/or domestic crackdowns at home, effective if the goal is to end violence against non-combatants for a time by a large scale brute force operation but this repression is only a temporary solution because you'll just export the problem to another country or region, also its hard in democracies because it undermines civil liberties or changes the nature of the state) 3. achieving the strategic objective (this is success or triumph of the terrorist group, they disband because of it, it rarely occurs but an example is the African National Congress in South Africa; to succeed like this they need well-defined and reasonable aims and they need to be able to convince major powers of their legitimacy and their actions have to align with broader changes in the international system already in existence and they should be part of a broad campaign) 4. moving toward a legitimate political process (requires negotiations between state and terrorist group, very gradual decline, its positive because it makes it easier to target radicals but negative because it increases violence against civilians in the short term and because there's domestic pressure not to negotiate with terrorists; need a negotiated settlement and older groups are more likely to do this but not many in general would, overall if well-handled it would be a wise and durable strategic tool; ex: FARC in Colombia and IRA) 5. implosion and loss of popular support (cut off from their source of sustenance, they lose their source of money or lose popular support; infighting and factionalization; fail to move beyond first generation; not well-organized, not enough funds; tendency to lose control over operations because horizontal structures make them uncoordinated; sometimes do something so awful that people turn against them) 6. moving to other malignant forms (violence continues in another form like criminality so drug running and piracy in which they just care about money not political objectives like the terrorist group did or insurgency which has a degree of legitimacy or conventional war)
Who funds the IMF and why does that matter for the IMF's lending decisions?
the IMF's resources come from member governments; its basically a bank with pools of funds and the bigger states contribute more funds; larger "quotas" or contributions lead to greater voting power and influence in the IMF and the US has the largest share of votes at 17% and a lot of decisions require 85% of vote therefore the US has de facto veto power (makes sense because it was created BY THE US post-WWII)
Relationship between the spiral model of war and the security dilemma
the spiral model of war focuses on the security dilemma as the cause of war (a downward spiral) and it says that a fundamental understanding takes place, grounded in LEVEL 1, individual leaders don't think through their actions and think that building up their military will be understood as a defensive move but then it makes others feel insecure and there is an arms race
Principle of comparative advantage: be able to explain how it works, why it supports free trade, and which theoretical perspective it supports
the success of the liberal economy is due to gains realized by TRADE defined: principle that states should specialize in trading hoods they produce with the greatest relative efficiency at the lowest relative cost (David Ricardo, Adam Smith) you produce goods for which you have the comparative advantage and trade for those of other countries you have to include "transaction costs" in production costs (transportation, processing of information - both low because of globalization) international trade expands the Pareto-optimal frontier by increasing the overall efficiency of production FREE TRADE allocates global resources to states with comparative advantages prices will be lower overall and more consistent SUPPORTS THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE OF LIBERALISM - the approach that emphasizes absolute gains, commitment to free trade and free capital flows and an open world economy, dominant in Western countries; politics should serve the interests of economic efficient and therefore should not get involved except to regulate markets; it is for the maximization of total wealth by achieving optimal efficiency - believe that free trade lowers prices for consumers (efficiency) and lowering barriers to trade has diffuse benefits but concentrated costs you might not have absolute advantage in anything but you'll have a comparative advantage in something NEOCLASSICAL TRADE THEORY > trade more efficient than autarky or protectionism free trade is the flow of goods and services across national bounds unimpeded by tariffs or other restrictions know examples from class!!! comparative advantage is just the thing you're better or LESS BAD at making! total productivity hoes up in an atmosphere of specialization, gains are realized through trade specialization1
Cronin "Ending Terrorism"
the various ways that terrorist campaigns end implications for counterterrorism - we need to think strategically and avoid the trap of acting narrowly and directly to violent initiatives of terrorist grous - knowing how they fall apart we can consciously drive them to these ends - instead of simply being REACTIVE most likely way for ISIS and other current things to end? - crushing terrorism with force has led to diminished Islamic state already - implosion = if they cannot maintain contiguous territory or caliphate they will lose support - unlikely to achieve objectives
Why is Jervis optimistic about great power peace?
war among the great powers (U.S., Western Europe, Japan, etc.) will not occur in the future because they are involved in a pluralistic security community and he thinks this community will last because nothing since the Cold War indicates otherwise; suspicions, fears for the future and conflicts of interest are not enough to break it; expectations of peace increase security because people close off doors to war; China doesn't have the military power to be great and they may be up and coming but they aren't real threats to the security community; of course there's terrorism and that's a problem but we aren't worried about another WWII with all the world powers fighting again we have homogenous values and systems in community (no desire to change others) capitalism less strong security fears democracy and identity (compromise, consideration for others, respect for law, shunning of violence) conquest appears difficult and war appears costly expected benefits of war have decreased complex interdependence
Also for Schelling, when did warfare change and why?
warfare changed when man collected enough military power to eliminate his own species from earth for the first time in history (age of nuclear warheads) war is now so destructive that it can no longer be an instrument of national power these nukes have changed the politics of war, the process of decision, the possibility of central control and restraint, motivations of people in charge, and our capacity to think and reflect while the was is in progress these has been a divorce of war from the political process and it has been, in many ways, taken out of human hands it's not the number of people killed but the speed with which they're killed restraint must occur DURING the war itself wars used to go through a military phase before the victors could punish the enemy and now you can do violence to the enemy without winning first; this makes war less military-based...victory no longer a prerequisite for hurting the enemy a major war now would be a contest in national destruction (who can destroy first) deterrence is now the threat of pain and extinction. serious. it's not just the threat of military defeat. we now have 2nd strike capabilities and impacts the focus is on civilians now, not armies...its nontraditional; noncombatants are deliberate, primary targets WE ARE IN THE ERA OF DIRTY WAR
Reasons for the rise of fascist regimes in Europe in the interwar period ??
•Isolationism in the US, as well as in Europe. •Continuing power vacuum in Europe - lack of leadership .•Economic nationalism and protectionism throughout Europe as responses to post-war settlement (economic depression (blamed economic difficulties on versailles treaty and democratic governments)) (argued that they were taken advantage of, exploited anger and came to power) •Rise of fascist regimes (Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain) •League of Nations failed to check aggression (Manchuria 1931, Ethiopia 1935, Rhineland remilitarization 1936). •1938 Munich Agreement (Germany annexes Sudetenland)
Differences in allied response to end of WWII, in contrast to end of WWI
•Mistakes Made Following WWI: -Belief that the Treaty of Versailles Was too Hard on Germany (too punitive, reparations and their effects on the economy and industry) -Idealism Behind the League of Nations Ignored Balance of Power Politics •Allies Change Demands in WWII: - USA was much more involved -Germany Must Surrender Unconditionally, Even if this Means Prolonging the War -Create United Nations (LASTING) That Mixes Balance of Power Politics with Collective Security •Post-War Realities: -Germany Was Divided Into Four Sectors -Soviet Armies Occupied Eastern Europe -UN Rendered Ineffective Because of U.S./Soviet Tension (bipolar, both have seats on security council, can't make agreements)
Outbreak of World War I: how did it proceed
•Serbian nationalist assassinated Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand. •Austria issued an ultimatum to Serbia, asking for the dismissal of all anti-Austrian government members; permission for Austrian police to enter Serbia. •Serbia said no to some conditions; so Austria - knowing it also had the support of Germany - declared war on Serbia. •Russia mobilized against Austria-Hungary, with French backing. •Germany declared war on Russia and on France; war spread widely, eventually involving 27 allied states and 4 central powers. (the sequence of events leading up to WWI, not super specific on dates but web of alliances leading up to conflict created higher possibility of conflict and imperial rivalries in combo with nationalism, essential ingredients in period leading up to it)
