College aantekeningen
Lecture Summary International Relations part 2
- Instelling
- Universiteit Van Amsterdam (UvA)
Done with studying now! Enjoy the free summaries!
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 47 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 47 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
7 beoordelingen
Door: gabrieldart96 • 3 jaar geleden
Door: Blanka • 4 jaar geleden
Door: ETruelsen • 4 jaar geleden
Door: dillewienese • 4 jaar geleden
Door: lauraniechziol • 5 jaar geleden
Door: brigidoines • 5 jaar geleden
Door: camilpapa • 5 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
30-4-2019: Lecture 8 – Cold war,Bipolar Security and the Foreign Policy
of Great Powers
Cold War becomes important after WW II. After WW II, George Orwell points the Cold War out for
the first time. After the bombing of Hiroshima + Nagasaki, he says that we have created a peace that
is not a peace, but a Cold War. Living under the threat of destruction is not a peaceful situation, but a
Cold War (bipolar Soviet – USA conflict).
Traditions in American Foreign Policy
One of the misunderstandings of the American foreign policy, is that there is always a chance of the
USA turning inwards: starting a foreign policy of isolationism. This has to do with the first 100 days of
the President. Mostly, Presidents are known for their domestic policies, not necessarily for their
foreign policies in these first 100 days. Thus, most Presidents don’t have any experience for foreign
policies. Once in a while, there is a rumour that the USA is going to turn inwards and start a foreign
policy called isolationism. For example, after the World Wars, American involvement in Europe was
deemed too costly. Also after the Vietnam War: why bother with faraway countries? It is too costly.
Also after the Cold War, there was the argument that the USA wasn’t longer in need to intervene in
international affairs. Last example: Obama and Trump. If you compare both foreign policies, there is
more continuity in the foreign affairs policy compared to what we think.
So, all these arguments about American isolationism are bullocks. Since the American Civil War, we
see an international America, because the USA are too big to isolate themselves from international
affairs. Instead of a constant choice between isolationism and internationalism, we can see
isolationism is historical, rather than a current explanation. Internationalism will rather be stronger in
the coming decades, because of the power transition going on. If internationalism is the current
form, there are different forms:
- Mead: Special Providence – Hamiltonianism or Wilsonianism (neorealism vs. Neoliberalism)
o Hamilton was an American minister talking about power politics. In 1823, we have
the Monroe doctrine. The basic line of this doctrine is that the USA will defend its
vital interests in Latin America in the case of a European attempt to intervene in
these affairs. The USA is afraid that Spain will intervene in countries who try to free
themselves from their regulation. This Monroe doctrine is a warning to Spain. It is
about power politics defending American interests abroad (neorealist)
o Wilson was the American President after WW I: open door politics. National self-
determination, open markets, the removal of barriers; a world-order strategy aiming
at cooperation and free markets (neoliberalist)
- Unilateralism or multilateralism: The American policy is characterized by both
o Unilateralism: after 9/11, Bush wants to intervene in Iraq. Every country that wants
to help with the intervention is invited, but they will do it by themselves anyways.
- Republicans vs. Democrats?
, o The Doves (Obama’s) as an image of peaceful cooperation. Taking a historical
overview comparing the American Presidents, the Democratic “Dove” comparison
doesn’t always hold. If you compare the Obama administration with the Trump
administration, there is much more continuity than discontinuity.
Decision-making theories (foreign policy analysis)
One of the most important topics in IR. IR is very state-centric.
Neorealists argue that it wouldn’t make any difference whether there is a Democrat or a Republican
President; States are seen as a snookerball. States act in an action-reaction pattern. Domestic affairs
doesn’t matter, only foreign policy matters in IR.
- Rational actor model/cybernetics
o Starts from the primacy of national interests. So, the foreign policy of a country. If we
have a change of government, the domestic preference doesn’t change that much,
because we have a single national interest. Second, the state is a unitary actor in the
international system. Third, it acts on the basis of rational choices. Example:
cybernetics. Cybernetics argues that 80% or more of a country’s foreign policy is
about standard responses/standard operating procedures. Foreign policy of Israel is
an example of cybernetics: we are not negotiating with terrorists. They send elite
troops to get them back with force.
- Bureaucratic Politics Model
o Critique: a state is not a unitary actor. If we unpack the state, we see different
interests. Second critique: group-think. Every directorates-general, is looking at its
own particular topic. When group-think occurs, the group fails to consider alternative
ways to arrive at the best possible decision. In other ways, the final decision will be
sub-optimal/irrational.
o Example: USA has a President with a staff, a Vice-President with a staff, the Security
Council, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Pentagon, military, congress and
business. Compared to the EU, there is the European Council, European Commission,
HR CFSP + staff, individual commissioners, directorates-general, committee of
permanent representatives, national bureaucracies, national ministers of Foreign
Affairs + COGs.
- Cognitive processes/constructivist turn
o In trying to analyse the foreign policy of states, we should look at
norms/interests/value systems of states. We call this the strategic culture. Example:
special relationship USA and UK. Other example: Germany after WW II is embedded
in post- WW II restriction. A German military intervention is till today tricky.
o It is not so much elements in the bureaucracy, but they argue that the bureaucratic
politics model starting from the premise of group-thinking underestimate the role of
personalities/characters of leading persons in the foreign establishment. So, the
cognitive characteristics of the decision-maker are really important. That is why a
social constructivist would allow for irrational decision-making, because a final
decision may be the result of a decision-makers personality instead of a rational
decision.
, - Theory of the Military Industrial Complex
o Elite theory, which is moving back to rational choice. It is partially returning to
rational choice, but they argue that it is not about the rational choice/national
interest, but it is an important group of people/institutions within a state that can
dominate the foreign policy of a state. It is thus not about the state’s national
interest, but a specific rationality related to a specific group. It is rational choice for a
social purpose, build upon bounded rationality. Example: merging of interests
between Ministry of Defence, Army, and Defence Industry. Dwight Eisenhower was
one of the liberators of continental Europe in the World War, a Republican, and
warned the American people for the military industrial complex.
o Some quotes:
Four major wars among great powers
Industry: shifting from ploughshares to swords (instead of producing for
public, we produce for military)
Permanent armaments of vast proportions
Conjunction defence establishment and arms industry
MIC: potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power
Endanger our liberties and democratic processes
o It is just after the 1950’s, where the arms race started between USSR and USA. This
MIC is taken to explain to post- WW II American and USSR policy, by saying that in
both countries, this MIC pops up. This creates an establishment of defence
politicians, military, and arms industries so powerful and connected to the vested
interests. The military staff wants better weapons, the defence politicians want a
strong army, and arms industries want to sell weapons. There is a rational group
interest in their perspective, but it is not rational nation-wide. To some extent, it
looks at rational choice, but on the other hand (soft/bounded rationality), it is group-
rationality, strong enough to impose their rationality to the whole nation.
o There is now a new arms race between China and the USA, so MIC is not only
explainable due to the Cold War.
- Comparative Politics Approach
o We are just getting lists of variables and these variables are independent, with the
dependent variable being the foreign policy of the state. We use these independent
variables to explain the foreign policy of the state. You can for example use the
characteristics of the decision-maker, the regime type, the national identity, the
geographic location, and the economic development as the independent variables.
The urgency and immediacy (crisis vs. Non-crisis) is the environment, and the
instruments can be persuasive diplomacy (soft power, ideas), coercive diplomacy
(sanctions), or military intervention (hard power). Joseph Nye: smart power; the use
of soft and hard power.
- IPE and foreign policy
Both CP and BPM are critiques on the rational actor model. BPM looks more at different sections of a
national bureaucracy; constructivists look more at individuals
, International Security Studies
Sometimes, Standard Operation Procedures are rational, but become irrational. The biggest example
is the end of the Cold War. As a result, we are no longer talking about a bipolar conflict between 2
ideological systems. After ’89, the West won the Cold War. The essence is that everything in the
period ’45-’89 was subordinated to the bipolar conflict between USSR and USA and their spheres of
influences.
The Copenhagen School of ISS became prominent around 1990. The founding fathers were
Weaver/Buzan/Hansen/de Wilde. They started a new way of looking at security. This was new,
because during the Cold War, after WW II, all the military strategic security studies concentrate on
the avoidance of war. This is because the overwhelming security threat is the nuclear capacity of the
two superpowers in this bipolar conflict. So, in the nuclear era, war between the two superpowers
imply mutual destruction, which must be avoided (mutually assured destruction). So, the most
important task is to avoid war. During the Cold War, there were some minor studies not related to
this.
- Critical peace studies
- Positive peace and structural violence. Positive peace – not only try to avoid warfare, but
look at the deeper causes of war and try to eradicate these deeper causes of warfare
(poverty, inequality). – Structural violence: violence in terms of poverty and inequality rather
than actual warfare.
- Environmental consciousness and economic security. Club of Rome: the increasing world
population immanent food crises.
At the end of the Cold War, there is a deepening/broadening of security studies. Some keywords:
- Societal security: globalization leads to people losing their national identity. Not a state that
is the focus point as in traditional security studies
- Human security: human rights, unemployment
- Post-colonialism: the debate of international security is literature on Western security. What
we should do is to create a research agenda of a post-colonial nation, not only looking at the
Western security. Example: migration. We tend to forget that the neighbouring countries of
the civil war that see the most migrants, instead of just the Western countries.
- New wars: after the end of the Cold War, we have new wars: civil wars/implosions. As a
result of the end of the bipolar sphere, this system collapses, and with it the discipline
imposed on less developed countries, with a result of new wars/national implosions/new
wars.
- Securitization: at one point, an issue that is no problem at all may rapidly turn into a security
threat. Example: migration. In the 1960’s, we try to get as many labour migrants to the
Western world in order to fill the empty places in the industry. Later, it becomes a problem.
- Desecuritization: something that was for centuries a problem is not a security problem
anymore (Alexander Wendt). Example: Germany and France. The relationship was bad a long
time, but after WW II, the relation became normalized. Can be explained by a social
constructivist way of IR.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper GerbrandHolland. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €0,00. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53068 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen