to Intro. International Relations 1.24-1.31 Lecture Anarchy: no greater power above the state -There is no rescue force/police force for int'l community -In an anarchic situation you protect yourself through arms buildup -This is internal balancing; also, coalition building with other nations is external balancing; internal balancing is best option! SELF HELP is the most reliable way of issuing one's own safety Sovereignty: When the state has total authority over its people; outside authorities hold no control over internal affairs Internal sovereignty: e.g. King has control over his own people; his rule should be absolute Statehood: control of one legislated and administrative ruler (?) EMPRICAL STATEHOOD: recognized by other states Juridical statehood: you have control over people Example of juridical but not imperial: democratic Iraq They can't exercise internal sovereignty, but U.S. army keeps it organized Somalia: int'l force pulled out and all went to hell FAILED/QUASI-STATES: can't insure the safety of anyone Ethnic violence Causes of civil war: nationalities want their own state -used to live in peaceful EMPIRE of many states and nationalities -Nationalism erupted w/ French Revolution and caused ethnic violence Much ethnic violence erupts after main authority weakens, e.g. Yugoslavia -Minority vs. Majority group: minority begins ethnic struggle at the point of weakening gov't b/c there's a window of opportunity for change Why else do people want their own states? SECURITY!! The minority won't cut a deal w/ majority b/c/ when they later regain power, they'll go back to their old oppressive ways SECURITY DILEMMA Alliances: present opportunities and constraints; you're forced to help their own troubles, but you are helped too. Also, automatic enemies are found. -e.g. China vs. Taiwan U.S. has committed itself to Taiwan sovereignty. However, U.S. doesn't want confrontation w/ China CONSTRAINT -U.S. tries to stop Chinese invasion of Taiwan and at same time tries to stop Taiwan from doing anything radical against China Entrapment: committing oneself into an alliance and being bound to them Buck-passing: Not helping your allies
I. Realism Theoretical and practical realists focus on 2 questions: 1) Survival of Individual States: what things are associated w/ survival and prosperity? They also promote specific, "good" behavior 2) What accounts for the endurance of systems of states? As policy advisors, they also promote certain methods of longevity. Offensive: assumes states seek to maximize power and become hegemony Defensive: suggests states are seeking to survive; not only do you have to wage war, but you have to start war to maintain the current situation. Differentially, you're not seeking to run the whole planet. Classical realists: broader inclusion EXTREME Automatic stabilization Universal empire MODERATE Power balancing Cycles of concentration
OPTIMIST PESSIMIST
Automatic stabilization: selfishness is a positive forced. Let states follow their own self interest; if you don't seek to dominate system (ors top someone else), you'll be yourself Power balancing: there needs to be something else besides the activity of states behaving in their own self-interest. -you cannot eliminate another significant state. Why? B/C next year, there won't be enough power to stop dominance by someone new. -depends on clever diplomats -Needs a state that stand back from affairs of conflict; this state is the "balancer" state -Need a state willing to forgo self interest occasionally to keep balance Pessimist: a system of states following realist behavior eventually collapses, when one state (illegible). Ultimate outcome empire. Moderate pessimist/cycles of concentration: eventually the empire collapses II. Post WWII: people began to focus on the polarity of the system -polarity: the number of militarily significant states in the system Is a bi-polar world more stable than a multi-power world? Multi-power world is safer? more interaction opportunities w/ many states # of actors means that one single issue will rarely divide them into 2 groups and 2 groups alone. At any given time, there was always some positive relationship w/ another state. It's hard to focus enough to go to war; too many actors to obsess over just one
Bipolarity is safer? only 2 countries to worry about US AND USSR kept allies under control no worries about the balance of power very difficult to miscalculate what is happening world is multi-polar right before WWI and WWII and bipolar after! We can't decide which system is better anyway! Relationship b/w polarity and World War, 1900-1989 Multi-polar 2 33 35 .057 Bi-polar 0 45 45 .000
War No war Totals Batting Average
if bi-polar had significant effect, there should be a lot more wars under multi-polar model if one expanded definition of war, there would be more wars under multi-polarity, but some under bi-polar too ALLIANCES are another way to analyze relationship internationally -two ways to think of alliances: 1) way to add power to fight; intimidates challengers 2) war-power -Alliances may legitimize a regime -if ally is having difficulties, you can manage and control it e.g. Warsaw Pact: 1956, formed after Germany is rearmed also, Soviet Union protected allies form Germany by stationing own troops in their countries
1.26.2006 Power and Influence POWER and INFLUENCE Some talk about it in terms of RESOURCES ACTS are also important RESPONSES, e.g. the U.S. is powerful because people do what we tell them to do We prefer to talk about power as resources POWER= resources available for a government to use to achieve its goals in the international system INFLUENCE= governments ability to get others to do what it wants (response) If we equate power with influence, then we cannot ask question of whether power guarantees influence
We weight power and influence by looking at indirect measures (indicators) are What the rules for figuring out what indicators to use? Rules make it easier for others to follow what we're doing Following lists are "Components of Power" and their possible measurements Capabilities One of the first measurements we look to is the total population of a nation -list of world's most powerful countries probably only has nations with relatively large populations -population is qualified by health, education, ages, etc Another significant resource is raw materials (oil, uranium, ability to feed own people) Industrial capability is a good way to take account of power Technology Geography: physical size can be helpful (Russia's size helped vs. Hitler, Napoleon) Organization Need bodies in the military; can do this through volunteers, or draftees To have some kind of government, you only need 1) a military and 2) tax collectors Organizational efficiency is important; for example, if collecting taxes requires a dime for every dollar collected or 40 cents for every dollar Taxes collected, relative tax effort, gov't revenue, military expenditures Will Number of volunteers for the military Foreign aid CapabilitiesOrganizationWill components available for each shrink as you move rightward Government resources are capabilities, organization takes some, will takes even less Japan GDP 1988: $2.8 trillion USSR GDP 1988: $2.5 trillion If GDP is used to evaluate power, Japan is somewhat more powerful than USSR in 1988 Japan military spending 1988: $28 billion USSR military spending 1988: $299 billion Military expenditures illustrate a different picture of power than GDP Power tends to decline with distance History of North Vietnam 1945-54 fight the French Take in S. Vietnam around 1960 We enter Vietnam around this point 1973-75: they reengage Vietnamese and later occupy Cambodia Fought war vs. China in 1979...point is, they viewed war differently than us
1/31/06 Influence situation -requires actors w/ different preferences on something -must be aware of differences -must feel it important enough to try to influence your roommate Three situations resulting from influence situation 1) fight: goal is to harm, perhaps destroy, your opponent 2) game: goal is to outwit your opponent 3) debate: convince your opponent Role of power in influence situation -in a fight, states primarily use military power -in a game, power an stem from a lot of things, such as money -in a debate, power is useless Almost always in international relations, a situation is a game rather than fight or debate Even a war may be more like a game than a fight for instance, when trying to avoid civilian casualties or potential use of WMD
Time, Power, Cost and Credibility Time Past Present Future Type of use Reputation Punish, reward Threat, promise Cost Low High Medium Credibility Medium High Low
Reputation: e.g. split w/ roommate over playing certain music; next roommate knows what music not to play Punish/reward: high cost, but credibility is strong b/c you're doing something Future: threats don't have lots of credibility ("I will kill you") U.S. threatened Saddam before 1991 Gulf War; why didn't he believe we would act? 1) Saddam didn't feel U.S. coalition (such as many Arab countries) was credible 2) Biggest reason he didn't believe us was, given what he thought he could do to U.S. forces (e.g. casualties), Saddam felt U.S. would not be very aggressive 3) Stoll thinks Vietnam played little/no role in Saddam's thinking; instead, Saddam was probably thinking about Lebanon in 1983 -after barracks bombing, Reagan pulled troops out of Lebanon -Saddam thought U.S. would not be able to take heavy casualties -so, Lebanon, Stoll thinks, may have lowered U.S. credibility
Important to understand other side's cost-benefit consideration, b/c they may value things differently than you do Bargaining Face-to-face bargaining: who conducts negotiations? What is the forum? Who Conducts Negotiation? Political Leader Professional negotiator Versailles Law of the Sea SALT I (Henry Kissinger) SALT I (Gerald Smith)
Forum for Negotiation Public Private
Public: everyone is aware of what is going on, e.g. WWII (no one aware of UK's commitments, WWII may not have happened in Germany knew UK supported France) Private: not influenced by public opinion; say things in private that wouldn't be said in public. You can compromise in private or make decisions that the public may think are inappropriate Political leaders: can make decisions themselves; they can decide policy then and there Professional negotiators: argue that they best negotiate SALT I: Behind Smith's back, Kissinger was negotiating w/ Russians -Smith was furious when he found out Kissinger nearly allowed for language restricting U.S. military capabilities to be included in treaty; Smith notices this and tells Kissinger; debate rages on as to who should negotiate (Kissinger: I broke logjam; Smith: Kissinger was clueless) Tacit bargaining: most of what you do is not face-to-face -example of WWII: Japan knows it will lose; U.S. considering invasion -bargaining primarily done out in open, through back channels, etc. -U.S. gov't had felt Japan's emperor was war criminal -however, our Japan experts knew he would never step down -so, U.S. gov't crafts statement suggesting peaceful step down is impossible -Japan get this message and must respond; only bargaining chip they had was threat to keep fighting now, must release issue public statement that balances offer for peace and desire to keep fighting -U.S. assumes that Japan rejected peace offer -difficult to address different audiences in one tacit message/communication Duties of Diplomats -to obtain information -safeguard pics/military interests of country -expand commerce
Diplomatic protocol minimizes "fighting about stupid things" Seniority: "prestige" based on when credentials are received Diplomatic immunity Non-interference