Dr. Tabakian’s Political Science 7 Modern World Governments – Spring 2013

Supplemental Power Point Material #10

LECTURE HIGHLIGHTS (1) • Spheres Of Influence • Transitional Effects • Stabilization • Spheres of Influence Makes A Nation • Communication Between Spheres • State Interdependency • Unilateral Grand Strategy • Transnational Communication • Rules Based Regimes & Organizations • The Wars Of The World • Types Of War

LECTURE HIGHLIGHTS (2) • Causes Of War • Conflicts Of Ideas • Nationalism • Ethnic Conflict • Religious Conflict • Ideological Conflict • Conflicts Of Interest • Control Of Governments • Economic Conflict

Political Science 1 examined pluralism as being the best theory that describes how competing spheres of influence protect minority rights against majority factions. These majority factions may consist of individual powerful elite entities or groups of “spheres of influence”. Alliances will form among once competing spheres in order to “check” another sphere or individual elite base that acquires too much power. This constant “checking” as described in the “competing spheres of influence” diagram describes how this plays out in all systems. Individual spheres of influence are always on the alert for one of their peers assuming too much power. This argument also applies to International Relations. Just replace these spheres with nation-states.

SPHERES OF INFLUENCE

TRANSITIONAL EFFECTS Competition among spheres of interest produces great returns for humanity. The constant strive for marketplace acceptance has resulted in America progressing from a predominantly agricultural society to an industrial, nuclear, and information based society. The United States is unique in that it excels in more than one particular capitalist endeavor. Innovation has led to advancements that have greatly influenced every aspect of society. Society has benefited from constant advancements in energy harvesting, computers, communication, water purification, medicine and all other areas not listed for the list would be enormous. Every significant discovery has in turn greatly influenced societal norms of behavior. Masses today view internet communications as a vital necessity. It is nearly impossible to operate in a complex society without easy access to the web. The majority of masses did not have this belief fifteen years ago. Only society determining that the internet allowed for greater efficiency was it adopted as a societal norm. Those not willing to adapt became obsolete.

STABILIZATION Sudden instability is the greatest threat to humanity for it threatens to cause irreparable harm to the individual. One may never consider harming another person in a state of nature. Elimination of one’s sustenance throws the individual into a state of war, because their survival is now threatened. Nation-states consist of multiple spheres of interest in turn consisting of individual units consisting of people. As survival is the primary goal of man, so it is the ultimate pursuit of nation-states. The primary concern is that of stability. This philosophy has prevented a major war from taking place over the last sixty years. Instability is the primary cause of all conflict both within and between nation-states.

Spheres consist of individuals who share a common set of interests and/or belief systems. Individual participants are the absolute micro-level of every sphere. Here are some examples of spheres: family, work, school, political parties, and religion. Different spheres of influence communicate with one another through the individual who is a member of those same spheres. Various societal interactions influence individual behavior.

SPHERES OF INFLUENCE MAKES A NATION

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SPHERES(1)

Communication is essential between spheres of interest to prevent misunderstandings. A good example of this would be a nation-state undertaking a war games exercise near its border. Bordering states would be naturally concerned, perhaps to the point of contacting political leaders in the state conducting these games. Let us presume that communication lines were down due to some technical error. This situation may lead those bordering states to launch defensive measures to an eminent offensive attack. This argument carries over from transparency theory, which argues that the United States in particular discloses its political, economic, and military policies and power capacities to prevent misunderstanding among its international peers.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SPHERES (2)

Communication essentially maintains open lines of communications to prevent all actions, especially those that are peaceful, being misconstrued. Imagine if you will that, the “red line” between Russia and the United States collapsed due to a technological glitch. Now let us presume that a satellite being rocketed into space went off course towards Moscow. What would convince Russian military leaders that the rocket’s payload was not a nuclear warhead? Communication helps to prevent misunderstandings that in turn could spell disaster.

STATE INTERDEPENDENCY (1) Societal interdependence addresses situations in which events within one society affect events in another. Government involvement in instigating these events does not have to take place for this to occur. Transnational relations helped to encourage interdependency between states. Nation-states interdependent on one another presented each with economic and political trade-offs whereas gains in one may lead to the weakening of another. Economic gains that may be derived from external sources that are able to produce them more efficiently while only retaining those industries that are efficient may allow a state to achieve higher overall productivity. This comes at a price when a state becomes so dependent on foreign sources of goods that it affects how its foreign policy is conducted.

STATE INTERDEPENDENCY (2) As a state becomes more interdependent on one another it also serves to prevent it from acting overly aggressive against those states that it has become dependent. Interdependence reversed the low levels of political optimism beginning in the 1970s that established linkages between the West, Latin America, and Asia and culminated with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

STATE INTERDEPENDENCY (3) Simple interdependency is morphing into a complex interdependence that was uniting economic and political interests of states into one cohesive block. War among the advanced states became unthinkable as interdependence made it ever more costly. Interdependent world of liberal-democratic states can at some point in time lead to world peace. Regardless of these economic forces, security concerns as well as the drive for national honor can overrule the costs associated with breaking linkages. Countries that wish to attract foreign investments or accrue technological innovations have to wear a “golden straitjacket”. This is a set of policies that include balanced budgets, economic deregulation, free trade, a stable currency and most importantly an overall transparency so that people can predict the overall direction of a country.

STATE INTERDEPENDENCY (4) Societal and economic interdependence can interlink the domestic policies of two nation-states. Take the example of Canada and the United States. The high degree of societal interdependence assures that Canada will be strongly affected by American policies. The most powerful nation-state can more affect the policies of another country interdependent on its society as the US and Canada example shows.

STATE INTERDEPENDENCY (5) Underlying most analyses of world politics and international organization is the state-centric approach. This makes two assumptions: (1) Governments remain the most significant actors in world

politics. (2) Governments are unified actors. Transgovernmental is a

reference to direct interactions between agencies (government subunits) of different governments where those agencies act relatively autonomously from central governmental control.

UNILATERALISM OR MULTILATERALISM? (1)

There are policymakers within the United States calling for an end to multilateralism. The US has won not only the Cold War, but has surpassed every nation in terms of political, economic and military power. This position allows the US to act unilaterally without much repercussion. History has shown that even the most powerful states can achieve greater advantages in the long run by supporting and operating within an international system of rules and institutions. History has shown that the most powerful countries are able to author the rules of the game as it pertains to international rules and institutions. America is in a far better position if it continues to work within the system it created.

UNILATERALISM OR MULTILATERALISM? (2)

America may be the most powerful nation on Earth, but it should not rely solely on its power to achieve its objectives for doing so is short-sighted and dangerous in the long run. It does not matter who sits in the White House or which political party controls the government. America is walking down a path of unilateralism that hegemonic powers normally accepted as its fate. This results in a hegemonic led power-based international order. History has shown that this direction will at some time lead to the destruction of those empires that act unilaterally. There are three reasons why the United States should support multilateralism and rule-based order: the functional demands of interdependence, the long-term calculations of power managements, and America’s political tradition and identity.

UNIVERSAL GRAND STRATEGY (1) America has entered into a new paradigm as she feels that her obligations to its partners and international rules she helped construct have subsided. She has begin to play a more unilateral role in areas aside from merely seeking terrorists or confronting rogue states that seek to manufacture or traffic weapons of mass destruction. There are seven elements that help make up this “grand strategy”. 1. America commits itself to maintaining a unipolar world

that can never have a peer competitor. 2. A new analysis of global threats and how they should be

handled.

UNIVERSAL GRAND STRATEGY (2) 3. The Cold War concept of deterrence is outdated.

Deterrence, sovereignty and the balance of power work together. This is exemplified with the Bush administration’s security doctrine that makes clear that the US now claims the absolute right to preemptively attack any nation or entity that is deemed to be a risk to its national security.

4. This new strategy requires a new definition of sovereignty for the US has declared its right to act unilaterally to preemptively enter into any territory “anywhere, anytime” to destroy any threat. It is not a new situation for great powers to transgress on the affairs of sovereign governments, but this was only true within a given sphere of influence. What is new now is that the Bush administration has decided to apply this on a global basis.

UNIVERSAL GRAND STRATEGY (3) 5. The deprecation of international rules, treaties, and

security partnerships. 6. America will have to remain able to respond to any threat.

This belief is based on the realization that there exists no other country or coalition on the planet that has the force-projection capabilities of the US.

7. There is a sense among the unilateralists that past traditions of multilateral cooperation has been rendered obsolete.

TRANSNATIONAL COMMUNICATION Transnational communication and shared civic values have played a distinct role in eroding national loyalties, creating radical strains of political association that focus on international law and other normative principles that focus on international concerns. Changing the interests of political actors from the domestic to international helps to alter the direction of their actions.

RULES BASED REGIMES & ORGANIZATIONS (1)

Liberal institutionalists are not concerned whether institutions help thwart conflict, but they do pursue the claim that states cooperate when doing so does not contradict its self-interests. The theory is found to disregards security issues, instead focusing on economic and environment issues. Liberal institutionalism is based on the postulation that international politics is split into two camps: security and political economy, but its theory concerns political economy. Cooperation is more likely when the issue is economic.

RULES BASED REGIMES & ORGANIZATIONS (2)

Regimes contain sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures based on the expectations of those participating actors regarding areas of concern pertaining to international relations. Regimes seek to eliminate many of the risks or costs that states face when dealing with other actors. Prisoner’s Dilemma theory presents a good argument to how states act when agreements go against their own self-interest. Non-state actors are going to play an increased role in international relations as economic-technological interdependence continues to assume greater dominance in the world. This situation will further encourage non-state actors to compete with nation-states themselves to further exploit world resources.

RULES BASED REGIMES & ORGANIZATIONS (3)

Susan Strange argues, “The progressive integration of the world economy, through international production, has shifted the balance of power away from states and toward world markets.” Strange offers three schemes to backup her argument: first, “power has shifted upward from weak states to stronger ones that in turn have global or regional reach”; second, “power has shifted sideways from states to markets and thus to non-state authorities deriving power from their market shares”; third, “some power has evaporated with no one exercising it.”

THE WARS OF THE WORLD • Largest contemporary wars:

– Iraq – Western Sudan (Darfur) – Afghanistan

• Of the 11 wars, all but Chechnya (Russia) are in the global South.

• All but Colombia are in a zone of active fighting spanning parts of Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East.

• Most peace agreements in the world’s postwar zones are holding up.

TYPES OF WAR (1)

• Hegemonic war: – War over control of the entire world order –

the rules of the international system as a whole, including the role of world hegemony.

– Last hegemonic war was World War II. – Likely that due to the power of modern

weaponry, this kind of war could not occur any longer without destroying civilization.

TYPES OF WAR (2)

• Total war: – Warfare by one state waged to conquer and

occupy another. – Goal is to reach the capital city and force the

surrender of the government, which can then be replaced with one of the victor’s choosing.

– Napoleonic Wars. – Evolved with industrialization, which further

integrated all of society and economy into the practice of war.

– Last total war: World War II.

TYPES OF WAR (3)

• Limited war – Includes military actions carried out to gain

some objective short of the surrender and occupation of the enemy.

– War to retake Kuwait from Iraq (1991). – Raids

• Limited wars that consist of a single action. • Raiding that is repeated or fuels a cycle of

retaliation usually becomes a limited war that is sometimes called a low-intensity conflict.

TYPES OF WAR (4)

• Civil war: – Refers to war between factions within a state

trying to create, or prevent, a new government for the entire state or some territorial part of it.

– U.S. Civil War of the 1960s - secessionist civil war.

– El Salvador in the 1980s - civil war for control over the entire state.

– May often be among the most brutal wars.

TYPES OF WAR (5)

• Guerrilla war: – Includes certain types of civil wars; is warfare

without front lines. – Irregular forces operate in the midst of, and

often hidden or protected by, civilian populations.

– Purpose is not to confront an enemy army but rather to harass and punish it so as to gradually limit its operation and effectively liberate territory from its control.

TYPES OF WAR (6) War is never pretty. Multiple methods of engagement are necessary in order to pacify an enemy. The Geneva Convention maintains strict guidelines to warfare. It identifies acceptable methods of killing, the rights of prisoners of war (POWs), etc. Unusual methods include acts of terror against civilians. This video examines the morality of rape as a method of warfare.

CAUSES OF WAR (1)

• The question of why war breaks out can be approached in different ways. – Descriptive approaches – Theoretical approaches

• Broad generalizations about the causes of war have been elusive.

• Wars do not have a single or simple cause. • Levels of analysis can help us organize theories

of war.

CAUSES OF WAR (2) • On the individual level of analysis, theories about war

center on rationality. – One theory, consistent with realism, holds that the

use of war and other violent means of leverage in international conflicts is normal and reflects rational decisions of national leaders: that “wars begin with conscious and reasoned decisions based on the calculation, made by both parties, that they can achieve more by going to war than by remaining at peace.”

– An opposite theory that conflicts often escalate to war because of deviations from rationality in the individual decision-making processes of national leaders.

– Neither theory holds up well.

CAUSES OF WAR (3)

• The domestic level of analysis draws attention to the characteristics of states or societies that may make them more or less prone to use violence in resolving conflicts.

CAUSES OF WAR (4) • Theories at the interstate level explain wars in terms of

power relations among actors in the international system. – Power transition theory holds that conflicts generate

large wars at times when power is relatively equally distributed and a rising power is threatening to overtake a declining hegemon in overall position.

– Deterrence – stop wars by building up power and threatening its use.

– Theory of arms race – wars are caused, not prevented by such actions.

– No general formula has been discovered to tell us in what circumstances each of these principles holds true.

CAUSES OF WAR (5) • At the global level of analysis, a number of theories of

war have been proposed. • Several variations on the idea that major warfare in the

international system is cyclical. – One approach links wars with long economic waves

in the world economy (~50 years) – Another approach links the largest wars with a 100-

year cycle based on the creation and decay of world orders.

• These cycle theories at best can explain only general tendencies toward war in the international system.

• Theory of linear long-term change: war as an outcome of conflict is becoming less likely over time due to the worldwide development of both technology and international norms.

CONFLICTS OF IDEAS • Six types of international conflict:

– Ethnic – Religious – Ideological – Territorial – Governmental – Economic

• Most difficult types of conflict have intangible elements such as ethnic hatred, religious fervor, or ideology – all conflicts of ideas.

• These identity-based sources of international conflict today have been shaped historically by nationalism – link between identity and internationally recognized statehood.

NATIONALISM

• Devotion to the interests of one’s own nation over others. – May be the most important force in

world politics in the past two centuries. – Nationality is a difficult concept to define

precisely. • Historical development of “nationalism”.

– Principle of self-determination.

ETHNIC CONFLICT (1)

• Quite possibly the most important source of conflict in the numerous wars now occurring throughout the world.

• Ethnic groups: – Large groups of people who share ancestral,

language, cultural, or religious ties and a common identity.

– Often form the basis for nationalist sentiments.

• Territorial control.

ETHNIC CONFLICT (2) • Lack of a home state.

– Kurds. • Redrawing of borders by force. • Outside states worry about the fate of “their people.”

– Albania. • Genocide:

– Systematic extermination of ethnic or religious groups in whole or in part.

– Sudan. – Rwanda.

ETHNIC CONFLICT (3) • Causes of ethnic hostility

– Longstanding historical conflicts over specific territories or natural resources, or exploitation or political domination of another

– Ethnocentrism – Dehumanization – Global identity in the future?

RELIGIOUS CONFLICT (1)

• Because religion is the core of a community’s value system in much of the world, people whose religious practices differ are easily disdained and treated as unworthy or even inhuman. – Fundamentalist movements – Secular political organizations

RELIGIOUS CONFLICT (2)

•Islamist movements •Armed Islamist groups •Afghanistan •Pakistan •Saudi Arabia •Palestine •Sudan •Algeria •Chechnya

IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT

• Ideology symbolizes and intensifies conflicts between groups and states more than it causes them. – Because they have a somewhat weaker hold

on core values and absolute truth than religions do, they pose somewhat fewer problems for the international system.

– China Maoist communism in 1949; Russia’s Leninist communism in 1917, U.S. democracy in 1776.

– Angola.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (1) • Territorial disputes:

– Means of controlling territory – primarily military. – Secession – province or region leaving an existing

state. – Ethnic cleansing - driving out or massacre of

designated ethnic population. – Interstate borders:

• Role of the norm of territorial integrity. – Lingering disputes – Israeli borders; Kashmir; Peru &

Ecuador; Spratly Islands. – Territorial waters – part of national territory. – Airspace.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (2) As Brazil continues to develop, more and more of the rainforest is cleared to make room for new farms, producing cattle and soybeans for world markets. This economic expansion threatens the very existence of the Enawene Nawe, as their traditional lifestyle and culture is destroyed. At the same time, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon also releases greenhouse gasses sequestered in the trees of the rainforest, increasing the threat of global warming.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (3) Nigeria’s experience with oil has not been a positive one. While the oil industry has provided significant export earnings, oil production has been accompanied by rising ethnic inequality, environmental degradation, rapid urbanization, and—from 1966-1970—even civil war. In addition, declining oil prices in the early 1980s led to a collapse in export earnings, fueling Nigeria’s debt crisis and forcing the country to undergo structural adjustment. A further decline in global oil prices in 1986 pushed Nigeria into a recession from which it has yet to recover. Yet, multinational oil companies continue to invest in Nigerian production.

CONTROL OF GOVERNMENTS

• Most struggles to control territory do not involve changing borders.

• They are conflicts over which governments will control entire states.

• International conflicts over the control of governments – along with territorial disputes – are likely to lead to the use of violence.

ECONOMIC CONFLICT (1)

• Economic competition is the most pervasive form of conflict in international relations because economic transactions are pervasive.

• Such transactions contain a strong element of mutual economic gain. – Usually do not lead to military force and war. – But this was not always the case historically.

ECONOMIC CONFLICT (2)

• Economic conflict seldom leads to violence today because military forms of leverage are no longer very effective in economic conflicts. – Mercantilism. – Lateral pressure.

• Drug trafficking.