Test: INR2002 Monday - NOV 5 10/08 The Friday Article Huntington "The clash of civilizations?" (1993) -The west vs. the rest -19th & 20th century wars -19th: fought based on power -20th: WWI based on power WWII ideology, fascism vs. communism Cold War communism vs. liberal democracy "Western civil war" Huntington hypothesis the dominating source of conflict in the world will be cultural not ideological or economic -"A civilization is the highest cultural grouping of people" -"The broadest level of cultural identity" -Defined by objective things -Language, history, religion, customs, institutions -Defined by subjective elements -Self-identification of people -Lines between civilizations are rarely sharp, but they are meaningful -Civilizations are dynamic; rise and fall; divide and merge Major Civilizations -Western -Confucian -Japanese -Islamic -Hindu -Slavic-orthodox -Latin American -African ** All conflicts are going to occur across ^^^ these civilizations Why will civilizations clash? -Differences among civilizations represent the most fundamental differences between people; more fundamental than differences among political ideology -World is becoming a similar place; more interactions among civilizations leads to more hostility -Growth of fundamental religions -A "return to the roots" phenomenon is occurring among non-western civilizations -Cultural differences are less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones -Economic regionalism is increasing
What should West do? -Promote greater cooperation and unity within own civilization -Co-opt closely related civilizations such as -Latin American -Japanese -Slavic-ortho (Russian) -Limit expansion of military strengths of Islamic and Confucian states -Maintaining military superiority in East and Southwester Asia -Exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states -Support groups in other civilizations that are sympathizes to your views -Strengthening international institutions that reflect and legitimate western interests and values 10/10 What are the causes of war? >War is becoming less frequent, decreasing in size 5 types of war 1) Hegemonic war the type of war that is impossible because it would destroy civilization = world war 2) Total war when one country invades another to conquer, occupy 3) Limited war US going to drive out Iraq from Kuwait 4) Civil war internal war/conflict 5) Guerilla war also usually internal Conflict of interest or conflict of ideas? -Interest: fighting over "goods" -Land territorial disputes -Secession -Border disputes (land, water) -Territorial waters -Sovereignty @ 3 miles -UNCLOS UN Commission of Land and Sea -Shipping 12 miles -EEZ Exclusive Economic Zones 200 miles Conflict of Ideas -Nationalism: early 20th century -Ethnic -Religion -Ideological The Causes of Armed Conflict: Rival Explanations -Individual level -Human nature and aggression
-Conflict is normal, reflecting, rational decision of national leaders -Weigh outcome if benefits outweigh costs -Deviations from rationality -Domestic Level -Duration of independence -Culture determinants/nationalism -Poverty -Militarization -Economic system -Type of government (democracies are less violent) Interstate/Global Level -Contagion effect -Power transition have challenger to hegemon, bad news -Cyclical theory sometimes peaceful, sometimes not -Arms races reciprocity increasing spiral, make you less secure -Distribution of power (parity vs. preponderance) Equal power hegemonic stability theory -Polarity: uni, bi, multipolarity -Today cold war before WWI The Long Peace -Wars between major powers are a thing of the past -Evidence we've gone 62 years without a major power war -WHY? -Nuclear weapons -We have learned -Increased inter-dependence -Democracies don't fight each other -Cold war bipolarity -Moral progress -Spread of democracy 10/12 Democracies and Peace -Immanuel Kant republics = peaceful -Woodrow Wilson -Self-determination > democracy -Peace 2-part proposition: -Democratic states are in general just as conflict prone as other type of government -Democracies do not fight each other
Side A Side A non-dem &
Side B Non-dem
dem
This box would be pretty empty What explains democratic peace? -Chance? Counter-example: wealthy countries went to war together in WWI -Democracies tend to be developed and wealthy? -Similarity of government structures? -Ideology (but communism go to war with each other) Two Competing Explanations 1) Political culture people see themselves as the people in other country norms of behavior which permit peaceful resolution of disputes with out threat of violence within democracies come to apply to relations with other democracies 2) Political structure institutional constraints division of power, checks and balances make it harder for democratic leaders to move their countries to war Balance of Power and War -Realists say we should maintain B.O.P. -What is the relationship between B.O.P. and stability? -Is the international system more stable when there is rough equality among nations? -Is the international system stable when there is significant inequality among nations? Parity or preponderance: which leads to stability? Preponderance hegemonic stability theory 1) Parity => stability -An even distribution of power 2) Preponderance => stability -An uneven distribution of power decreases likelihood of conflict Both approaches agree: equality leads to uncertainty The Friday Article "Good War Gone Bad" Foreign affairs committee passed a resolution condemning: genocide against Armenians (1915) 10/15 9/11/01 -Attacks on World Trade Center -Bomb Afghanistan on 10/7/01
-Fall of Kabul Nov 12 -20-40,000 peacekeeping troops > 8,000 US -end 2002 -NATO takes responsibility Military Force -Conventional weapons -Weapons of mass destruction -Chemical -Biological -Nuclear -Tactical (small) -Strategic (large) -1950's Eisenhower said nuclear are like conventional but bigger -Had nuclear land mines -Countries need means of delivery for their missiles To compel or to deter? -Compelence: the use of force to make another take (or stop taking) particular action -Deterrence: to threaten punishment if the other side takes certain action (nuclear weapons) -You threaten to punish the other worse than what they do to you Strategic Nuclear Weapons and Policy Strategic arsenal 3 parts (triad) -Land intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) -Air bombers and cruise missiles -Sea submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) - Submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) Historical Trends -Movement from land-based to sea-based systems decline in total megatonnage (destructive power) Mutual Deterrence -Deterrence: "a condition created when an aggressor's attack is prevented by threatening retaliation" -Necessary condition for deterrence second strike capability -Sufficient condition: to willingness use that capability MAD mutual assured destruction policy prescriptions implicit in MAD 1) Mutual vulnerability or civilian populations 2) Mutual invulnerability of weapons 3) Willingness to destroy an enemy's society after he destroys yours Phases in the Strategic Rivalry US nuclear monopoly: 1945-1950
Why 1950? US Nuclear Dominance: 1951-1957 Why? Eisenhower's massive retaliation "advocated he use of nuclear weapons to contain communism and soviet expansion" Space race Sputnik International Ballistic Missiles From dominance to parity: strategic arms limitation treaty = SALT What to remember? SALT = limitation not reductions INF = important because it was the 1st to allow on-site verification and it also was 1st to require weapons to be destroyed -It wasn't until after the end of the cold war that reductions in strategic arsenals actually began Intermediate Forces Treaty = INF 1972: SALT and ABM Treaty 1979: SALT II 1987: INF Treaty 1991: START I 1993: START II 2002: SORT Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972) Restricts the deployment of ABM defense systems to one area, prohibits the development of sea-, air-, space-, or mobile land-based ABM systems Duration: unlimited 1983: Reagan announces SDI breaking the ABM Treaty was a major part of G. W. Bush's pre-9/11 foreign policy 2002: US withdraws from ABM Treaty 10/19 NO INR 10/26 Preemption vs. Prevention -Just War Doctrine: -Under what conditions can a state justly resort to arms? -What are the rules of war? 1) Only if a state is defending against a real threat or restoring justice after an injury 2) Violence must be the last resort 3) Must be explicitly declared by a legit authority 4) Must have a reasonable chance of success 5) Non-combatants must be immune from intentional attack 6) Damage from war must not be disproportionate from the injury suffered 7) Only legit and moral means must be employed in prosecuting the war
1st Gulf War an example -Seen to be US response helping Kuwait, satisfies requirements -Real injury invasion of Kuwait -The UN (legit authority) supported it -The US didn't use anything like gas Except 6 > people say the US and carpet-bombing may have killed 100,000 Iraqi soldiers Intervention nonintervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states is the basic norm of international law Different levels Low coercion > -Speeches for or against V -broadcasts -Economic aid -Military advisors -Support opposition -Blockade (sanctions) -Limited military action High coercion > military invasion >When is intervention justified? -A counter invention to nullify a previous intervention >Intervention to rescue a people threatened with massacre -To prevent genocide >Intervention to assist secessionist movements when they have demonstrated their representative character Preemptive Intervention -The threat must be clear and imminent (if you're about to be killed you can attack) Preemption vs. prevention -The doctrine of preemption permits a first strike when an attack is imminent -Preemption: a form of self-defense recognized by international law -Preventive war: attack based on the supposition the other country intends harm sometime in the future NOT recognized by international law NOT morally justified US plans to attack Cuba during Cuban Missile Crisis > "lets knock them out now before they can kill us" (with missiles)
Terrorism -To have a comprehensive definition of terrorism, the definition must answer all these questions: 1) Who are the actors (perpetrators?) 2) Who are the targets? 3) What is the objective of action? 4) What type of action can be classified as terrorism? 10/22 Terrorism cont'd Goldstein "political violence that targets civilians deliberately and indiscriminately" (pg 150) "use of political violence for political purpose by non governmental actors" (James L Roy) US definition> -Terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatants and sub national groups Ex: the Beirut bombing would be terrorism What actors can commit terrorism? -Common elements on must terrorist acts: -Committed by groups who don't possess power to change policies they view as intolerable -Targets are chosen to maximize the psychological effect on a society or government -Actions planned to get as much media exposure as possible -Actions are justified on ideological or religious grounds arguing that they are responding to a greater wrong or promoting greater good -Terrorism is an instrument of weak states; groups can't influence power in other ways Origins of Terrorism >Jewish nationalists, 1st century BC -Come from: -Oppressed national groups within a country -Religious fundamentalists -Ideological extremes -State Sponsored Terrorism: -States are financing, equipping and providing sanctuary for terrorist groups who advocate goals they embrace or attack common enemies -State Departments list SST: -North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Cuba How do you respond to Terrorism? -"Iron first" policies versus policies of accommodation -Attack terrorists or states that sponsor them?
-Law enforcement strategies versus military strengths? -Unilateral vs. multilateral strategies 10/24 International Organization (IOs) Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) Global IGOs Regional IGOs Ex: UN, Intelsat Ex: ASEAN, EU In 1950, the # of IGOs surpassed the # of states > states come together and make IGOs they find useful Tension between sovereignty and supranational -Supranational: the capacity to make decisions binding on the national members without being subject to their individual approval ex: EU only one, can make laws without their approval Origins of United Nations -Began in WWII 1943 -US, UK, China declared intentions to form -Lessons from League of Nations 1) Participation of great powers essential 2) Application of sanction Timeline Spring 1945 San Fran Meeting, signed by 51 nations June 1945 charter complete July 1945 - charter ratified by senate: 89-2 US ready to accept role as hegemonic leader UN: Basic Principles -All states equal under International law -States have full sovereignty over their own affairs internally -States have full independence and international integrity -States should carry out international obligations Do not infringe On the sovereignty Of states >respecting diplomatic privileges (diplomats have immunity) >refrain from aggression >observing terms of treaties that they sign
1) General assembly composed of all states (192) one state, one vote Duties: 1) determines budget 2) Selects secretary general and justices 3) Debates issues 2) Security Council
-Primary responsibility is peace and security -5 permanent members: USA, Russia, France, UK, and China -10 rotating non-permanent members -"Great-power" veto 3) Secretariat -The executive: day-to-day operations -International civil servants -Led by secretary general