Political Science 308: International Politics Introduction and Overview

Things to do before proceeding 1. Complete the syllabus quiz 2. Be sure to have completed the academic integrity exercise 3. Be sure to have completed the academic integrity exercise 4. Be sure to have completed the academic integrity exercise 5. Be sure to have completed the academic integrity exercise

Two core topics International conflict: Why rivalries, arms races, militarized conflicts, and full-scale wars occur – and why negotiation, mediation, cooperation and peace also occur International political economy: How the international system affects national economies and the global economy – recessions, depressions, growth, development, inflation, and economic crises.

The World and You Why and How to Study International Politics

Why I Study International Politics I study it because I hope that I will discover things that policy-makers can use to avoid my childhood nightmares. I study it because some nightmares come true. As a Cold War child living on/near Air Force bases with Minuteman missiles, a.k.a nuclear targets, I had nightmares… …and I don’t want my child to suffer from them – or experience them as living nightmares.

Why You Should Study International Politics The world affects you too! Knowledge can be power. Therefore, understanding international politics makes you a better citizen and helps you understand your life – past, present, and future.

What can you expect from International Politics? The good news: We do know some non-obvious things about international politics, especially trade, negotiation, and armed conflict We have rigorous theories that can help predict or prevent the next world war The bad news: Most theories basically monocausal  multicausal explanations needed Theories disagree about very important things (i.e. whether and how there will be a World War III)

I. How International Relations Affect You A. Military Security 1. World War III 2. Conventional War 3. “Small Wars” 4. Rivalry and Conflict 5. Terrorism

B. Economic Security 1. Trade and Jobs 2. Consumption and Prices 3. Taxes and Spending

C. Values 1. Religion – Christianity, etc. 2. Justice – Genocide, etc. 3. Affinity – 10% foreign-born; 10% children of foreign-born

D. Interactions 1. Travel 2. Disease 3. Communication

II. Theories of International Politics A. Theories (defined on pp ) come in two varieties: 1. Empirical: Explain and/or predict observable facts about the world. Example = “Liberal Peace” 2. Normative: Evaluate the moral or ethical status of behavior and structure in the world system. Example = “Just War Theory” 3. This course focuses on empirical theory, but includes a unit on normative theory

B. Four Perspectives on International Politics 1. Perspectives (aka paradigms) = very broad theories or groups of theories – see Table 2.1 on p. 25 for three of them

2. Details of three perspectives summarized in Table 2. RealismLiberalism“Radicalism” World System AnarchyCommunityHierarchy Key Actors StatesStates, IGOs, NGOs, Warlords Classes or Dominant Groups Goals of Actors National Interest (Security) Problem Solving (Security, Growth, Environment…) Profit / Exploitation Formal Agreements Cheap TalkFunctionalMasks

a. Realism RealismLiberalism“Radicalism” World System AnarchyCommunityHierarchy Key Actors StatesStates, IGOs, NGOs, Warlords Classes or Dominant Groups Goals of Actors National Interest (Security) Problem Solving (Security, Growth, Environment…) Profit / Exploitation Formal Agreements Cheap TalkFunctionalMasks

Examples of Realism RISK: Conquer or be conquered “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” – Chinese and Arabic proverb. Lord Palmerston: “His Majesty’s Government has no permanent friends, only permanent interests.” Winston Churchill: “If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

b. Liberalism RealismLiberalism“Radicalism” World System AnarchyCommunityHierarchy Key Actors StatesStates, IGOs, NGOs, Warlords Classes or Dominant Groups Goals of Actors National Interest (Security) Problem Solving (Security, Growth, Environment…) Profit / Exploitation Formal Agreements Cheap TalkFunctionalMasks

Examples of Liberalism Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points: “I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at.... II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas…. III. The removal….of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations…. IV. …. national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety…. XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under ….mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” Free-Trade Agreements United Nations

c. “Radicalism” – actually Marxism / Dependency Theory RealismLiberalism“Radicalism” World System AnarchyCommunityHierarchy Key Actors StatesStates, IGOs, NGOs, Warlords Classes or Dominant Groups Goals of Actors National Interest (Security) Problem Solving (Security, Growth, Environment…) Profit / Exploitation Formal Agreements Cheap TalkFunctionalMasking

Examples of Radicalism (Marxism / Dependency Theory)

c. “Radicalism” – actually Marxism / Dependency Theory RealismLiberalism“Radicalism” World System AnarchyCommunityHierarchy Key Actors StatesStates, IGOs, NGOs, Warlords Classes or Dominant Groups Goals of Actors National Interest (Security) Problem Solving (Security, Growth, Environment…) Profit / Exploitation Formal Agreements Cheap TalkFunctionalMasking

Examples of Radicalism (Marxism / Dependency Theory) “The so-called Great Powers have long been exploiting and enslaving a whole number of small and weak nations. And the imperialist war (World War I) is a war for the division and redivision of this kind of booty.” – Vladimir Lenin Foreign Aid: “From poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” -- Problem is class solidarity among wealthy, not the idea of aiding the poor.

Examples of Radicalism (Marxism / Dependency Theory) "True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring…” US allied to “landed gentry of Latin America” and “capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

3. (Social) Constructivism Constructivism World System Constructed (Rhetoric Determines Reality) Key Actors Structures and Communities Goals of Actors Dominance and Resistance Formal Agreements Indeterminate Texts Other Key Concepts Securitization, Identity, Immanent Critique

Examples of Constructivism The power of metaphors – A “war” on drugs  actual wars in Colombia and other countries “Anarchy is what states make of it…If the United States and the Soviet Union decide they are no longer enemies, the Cold War is over.” – Alexander Wendt. World system not product of nature, but of structures made by people, which means we can change it.

3. (Social) Constructivism Constructivism World System Constructed (Rhetoric Determines Reality) Key Actors Structures and Communities Goals of Actors Dominance and Resistance Formal Agreements Indeterminate Texts Other Key Concepts Securitization, Identity, Immanent Critique

Securitization Actors transform issues into security threats – allowing otherwise unthinkable solutions

Identity It’s where interests come from Usually multiple identities in play

Immanent Critique Revealing the flaws from within Local actors may be better at it.

Example: Fourth Geneva Convention says “Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape...”  Criticized as having a masculine-identity conception of rape (dishonor) rather than a female one (violation of bodily integrity) Criticized for excluding male non-combatants, reinforcing the image that male = warrior  worse human rights abuses (see Srebrenica in July 1995)

C. Which one is correct? 1. Parts of all of them, but all of none of them a. All of them make some plausible claims and some counter-intuitive claims. b. All of them sometimes reach contradictory conclusions. c. They are perspectives with different interpretations, not rigorous theories in and of themselves. 2. Our approach = Attempt to study such perspectives by clarifying theories and testing hypotheses (empirical approach)

D. A useful way to integrate perspectives: The Menu of Choice 1. Simple rationalist model 2. Key Actors = Leaders 3. Goals = Stay in Office, Improve Policy, Personal Gain 4. World System and Society = Constraints on Leaders 5. Menu Analogy a. Some items aren’t on the menu (no opportunity) b. Some items are on the menu but not desirable (no willingness) c. Item chosen = preferred, available dish (both opportunity and willingness)

5. Example: US Intervention in Libya’s Civil War (2011) Menu Get Qaddafi to step aside Support a truly democratic opposition Invade Libya and impose regime change Allow Qaddafi to crush/massacre the opposition Support an imperfect opposition without US troops

5. Example: US Intervention in Libya’s Civil War (2011) Menu Get Qaddafi to step aside Support a truly democratic opposition Invade Libya and impose regime change Allow Qaddafi to crush/massacre the opposition Support an imperfect opposition without US troops

5. Example: US Intervention in Libya’s Civil War (2011) Menu Get Qaddafi to step aside Support a truly democratic opposition Invade Libya and impose regime change Allow Qaddafi to crush/massacre the opposition Support an imperfect opposition without US troops

III. Levels of Analysis A. Ordered by size of the units System 1. The International System: one unit over time

III. Levels of Analysis A. Ordered by size of the units System Region 2. Regions: 2-24 groups of states over time

III. Levels of Analysis A. Ordered by size of the units 3. Dyads: Pairs of states (19,306 in 2012) over time System Region Dyad

III. Levels of Analysis A. Ordered by size of the units 4. States: Now about 197; fewer in previous years System Region Dyad State

III. Levels of Analysis A. Ordered by size of the units 5. Decision-makers: at least one per state and usually more. System Region Dyad State Decision-Makers

III. Levels of Analysis A. Ordered by size of the units 6.The public: 7 billion and counting… System Region Dyad State Decision-Makers Public

III. Levels of Analysis B. Textbook scheme: oversimplifies System Region Dyad State Decision-Makers Public Global Society Decision- makers Domestic Society

C. What’s So Important? 1. Problem: Testing Hypotheses at the Wrong Level of Analysis a. Fallacy of Equivocation: Using the Same Word to Mean Two Different Things “Balance of Power” – Does this mean all states are equal (system level), that two states are balanced with each other (dyad level), or that a leader is committed to preserving a balance of power (decision-maker level)?

b. Example: Do Alliances Cause War? The World at Time 1The World at Time 2

b. Example: Do Alliances Cause War? The World at Time 1The World at Time 2 WORLD- SYSTEM Time 1Time 2 % Allied % at War

b. Example: Do Alliances Cause War? The World at Time 1The World at Time 2 WORLD- SYSTEM Time 1Time 2 % Allied 0%60% % at War 0%40%

b. Example: Do Alliances Cause War? The World at Time 1The World at Time 2 WORLD- SYSTEM Time 1Time 2 % Allied 0%60% % at War 0%40% STATE- YEARS Not AlliedAllied Peace War

b. Example: Do Alliances Cause War? The World at Time 1The World at Time 2 WORLD- SYSTEM Time 1Time 2 % Allied 0%60% % at War 0%40% STATE- YEARS Not AlliedAllied Peace 53 War 20

b. Example: Do Alliances Cause War? The World at Time 1The World at Time 2 Answer: It depends on the level of analysis! A system with more alliances is more war prone A state in an alliance is less likely to fight a war

2. Applying Findings at One Level to Another a. Aggregation: Building up from lower levels. Results may be unexpected! b. Example: The “Democratic Peace” hypothesis i. Democracies Don’t Fight Each Other ii. Autocracies are Less Likely to Fight Each Other Than Average iii. Democracies Do Seem to Fight Just as Often as Autocracies c. Question: Is more democracy in the world a good thing if we want to avoid war?

Democratic Peace Example #D#DAD DADA # of Wars Risk for Autocratic dyads is 1% Risk for Democratic dyads is 0% Risk for Mixed Dyads is 2%

Democratic Peace Example #D#DAD DADA # of Wars Risk for Autocratic dyads is 1% Risk for Democratic dyads is 0% Risk for Mixed Dyads is 2%

Democratic Peace Example #D#DAD DADA # of Wars Risk for Autocratic dyads is 1% Risk for Democratic dyads is 0% Risk for Mixed Dyads is 2%

Democratic Peace Example #D#DAD DADA # of Wars Risk for Autocratic dyads is 1% Risk for Democratic dyads is 0% Risk for Mixed Dyads is 2%

Democratic Peace Example #D#DAD DADA # of Wars Risk for Autocratic dyads is 1% Risk for Democratic dyads is 0% Risk for Mixed Dyads is 2%

Democratic Peace Example #D#DAD DADA # of Wars Risk for Autocratic dyads is 1% Risk for Democratic dyads is 0% Risk for Mixed Dyads is 2%

Democratic Peace Example #D#DAD DADA # of Wars Risk for Autocratic dyads is 1% Risk for Democratic dyads is 0% Risk for Mixed Dyads is 2%

Democratic Peace Example Solution: Relationship is nonlinear – Adding democracies to a world of dictatorships increases war risk until critical point reached. After that point, more democracy means less war.