IR Notes Lecture 24

IR Notes Lecture 24 - IR Notes Lecture 24April 19, 2007...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
IR Notes Lecture 24—April 19, 2007 Post-Cold War International Relations: Pax Americana? I. US Foreign Policy After the Cold War II. 9/11 and US Foreign Policy III. The Future of US Grand Strategy IV. Reactions to US Unipolarity I. US Foreign Policy After the Cold War a) Throughout the Cold War US interests were pretty evident—to protect US interests from Soviet threat and commitments were fairly clear i) Allied to Canada and W. Europe through NATO ii) Allied with Japan in E. Asia iii) Israel and Egypt in the Mideast iv) Intervened in L.A. and Caribbean to protect its backyard b) Collapse of USSR, US interests no longer so clear, no longer self-evident US should be committed to all these countries c) Fundamental questions began to be asked about nature of international politics in an emerging Unipolarity world i) Was there a need for the US to have military protecting allies no longer threatened by USSR ii) What did the evolution of the EU, especially in 1992, imply for relations in Europe, Europe’s role in world, and relationship with US d) US foreign policy in 1990s dominated by 5 issues i) Future of NATO (1) New questions: what role should be, should there be new members? (2) Formed to balance against the USSR, so what’s the purpose after the Cold War? (3) Decision made that not only will NATO survive, it would be enlarged (a) Enlarge always used, not expand—meaning that it was enlarging to cement peace in post-Cold War era (b) Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary (c) I was a rapid and wide enlargement across E. Europe (4) NATO redefines itself also with 1999 paper (a) Shifted its mission away from traditional missions of defending all the members of NATO from an external threat and begins to consider whether it has a role to play in ethnic conflicts and out-of-area missions (which during the ColdWar it explicitly said it would not do) (5) Those advocating enlargement (a) Brining countries into an international institutions (b) Promote democracy (c) These countries would them subsequently be ready to be brought into EU (6) **These are three basic liberal idea talked about earlier in the semester, and this was the major reason for enlarging NAT
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
(a) Create a wider area of peace and stability in Europe, war becomes less likely (7) Other argue (a) It was just institutional inertia—had to enlarge to give itself a purpose (b) Realism (i) Realists argue it should enlarged to fill a vacuum in central and eastern Europe 1. take advantage of Russian weakness, enlarge it while you can (8) There was not much consensus (a) Most of academic world against, policymakers for (i) Academics thought it would unnecessarily antagonize Russia and in long term the friendship of Russia was more valuable than friendship of Poland, Czech Republic, or Hungary (ii) Other argued that these countries should not have much faith in NATO to protect them 1. Mearsheimer: the US had no core central interest in defending these countries, so they should not put false faith in US, should
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

IR Notes Lecture 24 - IR Notes Lecture 24April 19, 2007...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online