Category: International Relations–PLSC250

This category was previously named PLSC250–the name and number of my Introduction to International Relations course at U of R.

Thanks in part to Hillary and “Obama-san”, fresh image of U.S. Abroad

In Chapter 5, Mingst discusses two main categories of the power of states–tangible and intangible. Amongst the intangible sources of power are national image, public (whether domestic or international) support, and leadership. Based on this article in the Christian Science Monitor, the Democratic primary seems to have increased the level of tangible U.S. power.

Paris – Regardless of which Democrat pulls ahead as the candidates race toward Nevada and South Carolina, the rapid political rise of a Harvard-educated Illinois senator with a Kenyan father is bringing ripples and some tides of excitement in the near and far corners of a weary world.

Who’s The One? Japanese watched the results of the New Hampshire Democratic primary in Tokyo Wednesday. Shizuo Kambayashi/APIt’s clear that the buzz around America’s first realistic black candidate has fed the imagination of many non-US observers, who see the controversial superpower as offering something different…

…”[Barack Obama is] what the rest of the world dreams America can be,” says JacquesMistral, a transatlantic specialist and director of economic studies at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. “He looks like a Kennedy type, and that he’s black is very new. In Europe, the idea that a woman can win is accepted. But for a black person to win would represent a radical change – for the US, and the world.”

It is too early to say that “Obama-mania” is sweeping the planet, particularly after the junior senator’s second place showing in New Hampshire. The public in Europe and Asia have only recently focused on Mr. Obama, though in Africa he’s been news for some time.

But in a world where nearly every poll shows America’s image seriously dragging after the Iraq war onset, and scant interest in Republicans, Obama has made a significant splash, especially among the young…

…In Japan, where US elections are sometimes taken more seriously than the election of the Japanese prime minister, the rise of Obama is as intriguing a subject as the romance between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the Italian singer Carla Bruni.

“Obama-san is great,” says Azusa Shiraishi, a sophomore at Seinan Gakuin University in Fukuoka. She compares Obama with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and thinks “he could bring different perspectives of the US to us as well as American people. That would be great.”

Roundtable–Globalizing Sport: National Rivalry and International Community in the 1930s

As we discussed in PLSC250, Woodrow Wilson set out an idealistic vision of the post-WWI world in his famous “Fourteen Points” address to Congress in 1918. As we all know, the vision was almost immediately undermined and finally turn asunder when Nazi Germany showed the rest of Europe–and the world–that military and economic power would triumph over cooperation and peace. Barbara J. Keys has written a compelling monograph on a little-researched aspect of that era–the role of sport in international politics. Of course, many are familiar with Hitler’s use of the Berlin Olympics in 1936 as a propaganda tool, but that is but one event. In Globalizing Sport: National Rivalry and International Community in the 1930s, Keys demonstrates “how sports revealed international contact zones as well as distinctive qualities of nationhood.”*   Here is a lengthy excerpt from Thomas Zeiler’s introduction to a roundtable at H-Diplo on the Keys’ book:

  “I see great things in baseball.”  Although we cannot confirm that poet Walt Whitman actually authored this famous quote back in the 1840s, we do know that he later believed the sport to be a shaper of American character that reflected the country’s democratic institutions, striving disposition, and rising geo-political and economic greatness.  In the
middle of the next century, intellectual historian Jacques Barzun also viewed the sport as a mirror of national traits.  In God’s Country and Mine:  A Declaration of Love Spiced with a Few Harsh Words (1954), he offered the oft-quoted words, “Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball.”  A half century after this publication, we come to Barbara Keys’ masterful work on how sports revealed international contact zones as well as distinctive qualities of nationhood.  Arriving in the age of globalization, her study properlysituates sports as a transnational movement amidst and between the national of Whitman and Barzun and the vast global arena.

Of course, as readers will discover, Keys’ focus is not on baseball, but she does examine the primary influence of nationalism on sporting events, particularly the Olympics movement and also other aspects such as athleticism and soccer.  Among many others, the main contribution of this book to the literature on diplomacy, sports, and culture regards Keys’ analysis of the tension between the manipulation of sports as an expression of national identity and sports’ position as a transnational carrier of culture abroad. 

*From Zeiler’s introduction to the roundtable in H-Diplo.

Call for Papers for Human Rights, Individualism, and Globalization

Bethany College in West Virginia is hosting a conference this April on the general theme of human rights, individualism, and globalization.  There will also be a panel dedicated to  an undergraduate research paper competition, and an award will be given to the best undergraduate research paper.  There are two conflicting deadlines, but the earlier one is February 21st, by which date you must send a 150-word abstract of your proposed paper topic, which would then have to be completed (assuming your proposal is accepted) by April 10th.

According to the conference website, some suggested topics are:

Cultural Narcissism; The Lonely Planet—Literature; Film and Art; Alienable Vs Inalienable Human Rights; Documenting Human Rights Abuse; Film; Art; Literature; Imagining a Human(e) Community; Common sense and Common Selves; Self Reflection and the Reflected Self; Global Orders Private Lives; The Law and Practice of Human Rights; Abolition of Slave Trade; Refugees and Forced Migration; Nationalism and Ethnicity; Diplomacy and Human Rights; Human Rights and Religious Expression ;Trafficking in Persons and Drugs; Human Rights and Globalization; Democracy; Political Rights and Human Rights; Democracy and Political Activism; NGOS and Human Rights; Rights of Women; Rights of Children; Human Rights and Diversity in the Workplace; Preventing Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace; Human Rights and Labor Exploitation; Human Rights and the Environment; War Crimes and Terror; Transnational Politics and Globalization; Gandhi’s view on Globalization; Poverty and Globalization; Globalization as a Sophisticated Form of Colonization; Outsourcing; Capitalism and Worker’s Union; Anti-terrorist Measures and International Human Rights; Gangs; Violent Crime and Security; Racism and the Multicultural Self; Social Responsibility and Labor Rights; Objectivist Framework of Individualism; Privacy Rights and Communications Technology; Genetic Engineering and Human Rights.

I encourage you to send a proposal and you could use your blogs as the basis for a research paper to present at this conference.  There is more information at the conference website.

The USA’s Place in the World in 2016?

I posted earlier some excerpts from Daniel Drezner’s article envisioning what a post-Bush administration American foreign policy may look like, In a similar vein, here are some snippets from a piece in the New York Times Magazine written by Parag Khanna* that try to predict the nature of US power and authority at the end of 2016. The article is entitled “Waving Goodbye to Hegemony.” Do you think that the United States will lose its hegemonic status by 2016? What about the challenges from an integrated Europe and a rising China? I encourage you to read the whole article. If we have time, we will read this at the end of the semester.

But the distribution of power in the world has fundamentally altered over the two presidential terms of George W. Bush, both because of his policies and, more significant, despite them. Maybe the best way to understand how quickly history happens is to look just a bit ahead.

It is 2016, and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term. America has pulled out of Iraq but has about 20,000 troops in the independent state of Kurdistan, as well as warships anchored at Bahrain and an Air Force presence in Qatar. Afghanistan is stable; Iran is nuclear. China has absorbed Taiwan and is steadily increasing its naval presence around the Pacific Rim and, from the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea. The European Union has expanded to well over 30 members and has secure oil and gas flows from 27world3-450.jpgNorth Africa, Russia and the Caspian Sea, as well as substantial nuclear energy. America’s standing in the world remains in steady decline.

Why? Weren’t we supposed to reconnect with the United Nations and reaffirm to the world that America can, and should, lead it to collective security and prosperity? Indeed, improvements to America’s image may or may not occur, but either way, they mean little. Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth.

Remember that when I post snippets from articles, that in no way suggests that I agree with what the author is saying. I alert you to them mostly because they introduce or mention concepts, theories and ideas that we discuss in class and also to show you get you to think critically about claims and assertions made by the author(s). To which theory of international relations do you think the author is an adherent? Why? What evidence in this article can you find to support your assertion?

*Parag Khanna is a senior research fellow in the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation. This essay is adapted from his book, “The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order,” to be published by Random House in March.

Drezner explains Neo-conservatism

Here‘s a nice, and concise, description from Dan Drezner* of neo-conservatism, the theoretical underpinning of the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

Neo-conservatism borrows many ideas from liberal internationalism, though it promotes those ideas in terms of more expansive aims and aggressive methods. The first sentence of the March 2006 National Security strategy reads, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” Like liberal internationalists, neo-conservatives believe that the spread of free markets, democratic values, and human rights leads to a more prosperous and pacific world. But neo-conservatives reject the “third leg” of the Kantian triad: multilateralism. Whereas liberals put greater faith in international institutions as a means of promoting American interests, neo-conservatives view them as constraints on US action: in place of multilateral agreements, neo-consevatives prefer more unilateral and more forceful means of promoting regime change.

*If you are interested in international political economy, you should take a look at Drezner‘s blog.  You also may be interested in his new book–Daniel W. Drezner, All Politics Is Global Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).

The Future of US Foreign Policy post-Bush?

Daniel Drezner, an associate professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, has published an article in the latest issue of Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft (“International Politics and Society”) entitled “The Future of U.S. Foreign Policy.”  In it he envisions what a post-Bush US foreign policy (regardless of which party wins the White House) should look like.  

As we have already discussed, and will discuss further throughout the course, a fundamental tenet of the realist theory of international relations is that the nature of the domestic regime does not matter as it pertains to the manner in which a state acts in the world.  Thus, whether a regime is democratic, authoritarian, or even a theocracy, the compelling logic of trying to ensure security in an anarchic world means that all states will act the same way.  A corollary of that is that it does not matter, say the realists, whether the leadership of a state is more left-wing or more right-wing, the fundamental character of foreign policy will be the same.  Does Drezner agree with the realists?

For Europe, American foreign policy in 2009 will clearly be an improvement on its current incarnation. Regardless of who wins the presidential election, there will likely be a reaching out to Europe as a means of demonstrating a decisive shift from the Bush administration’s diplomatic style. This does not mean, however, that the major irritants to the transatlantic relationship will disappear. On several issues, such as GMOs or the Boeing–Airbus dispute, the status quo will persist. On deeper questions, such as the use of force and the use of multilateralism, American foreign policy will shift, but not as far as Europeans would like. When George W. Bush leaves office, neo-conservatism will go with him. This does not mean, however, that Europeans will altogether agree with the foreign policy that replaces it.

Drezner also has some interesting things to say about neoconservatism, the theory underpinning the Bush administration’s view of international relations:

 It would appear that Americans are now disenchanted with neo-conservatism
as a foreign-policy doctrine. Five years ago, the idea of muscular,
unilaterally-imposed democratization was believed to resonate with
American values in a post-9/11 world. This is no longer the case. In October
2006, a Public Agenda poll found that 83 % of Americans are worried
about the way things are going for the United States in world affairs.
Their new »Anxiety Indicator« found that »a significant majority of the
public is feeling anxious and insecure about the country’s place in the
world.« Iraq – an obsession of neo-conservatives for over a decade now –
is obviously a major cause of this discontent…

…Neo-conservatism will formally expire as the grand strategy of the
United States on January 20, 2009: the date George W. Bush leaves office.
What will take its place? There are myriad ways in which us foreign
policy could diverge from the neo-conservative approach.

NATO Report Cites Four Most Dangerous Threats to the West

The authors of the NATO-commissioned report I mentioned in the post below have listed what they believe are the most potentially dangerous threats to international security. If you’d like, you can choose to select one of these as your blog project for the semester.

Once more, from the Guardian:

The authors – General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato’s ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany’s former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato’s military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK – paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope.

The five commanders argue that the west’s values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

  1. Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
  2. The “dark side” of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
  3. Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential “environmental” migration on a mass scale.
  4. The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

We will address the impact of environmental change on migration later in the semester when we read the work of Thomas Homer-Dixon.

NATO–Preemptive Nuclear Strike a Key Option?

We discussed in class today the use of preemptive force to respond to potential security threats and how this was a central component of President Bush’s National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States (2002). Now, according to the Guardian newspaper, it seems that “five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists” have insisted that NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the

west must be ready to resort to a preemptive nuclear attack to try to halt the “imminent” spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a “grand strategy” to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world”.

The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.

“The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible,” the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. “The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Remember that in one of our earlier sessions we wondered aloud if there were any institutionalized norms in international relations and we thought that maybe there was a normative injunction against the use of nuclear weapons. Nina Tannenwald has written about the “nuclear taboo” but suggests that in the aftermath of WWII, officials in the US and Europe thought that nuclear weapons would come to be seen as another type of conventional weapon.

Continue reading “NATO–Preemptive Nuclear Strike a Key Option?”

Gapminder–How has the World Changed over time?

Gapminder is a fantastic resource that provides a fascinating glimpse of a myriad of different indicators of income and development across the world. One of the true virtues of Gapminder is that it allows the user, from her computer, to visualize trends across the world and over time.  The user can find information such as clean water levels, GDP, poverty, education, health, etc. Below is a video that shows some of the capabilities of Gapminder, analyzing income and poverty levels worldwide over the last few decades.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started