Introduction to International Relations

Introduction to International Relations
INTL 203 Introduction to International Relations

XIX. The Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
The Origins of Nukes 1939: German physicists way ahead But Nazi’s dismissed nuclear physics as “Jewish physics” Einstein Letter 1939 / Manhattan Project (US, UK & Canada) Overwhelming fear that Germans would make it first Costs trillions $ A-bomb versus thermonuclear bomb; the latter is far more powerful War in Europe over in May 1945; A-bomb not completed until July 1945 **Every year I have students that express that the US nuclear bombing of Japan is important; Not sure why what are the implications for global politics? (if it is a moral issue it is beyond the scope of this class) show a picture of Einstein’s letter

The Origins of Nukes **Every year I have students that express that the US nuclear bombing of Japan is important; Not sure why what are the implications for global politics? (if it is a moral issue it is beyond the scope of this class) show a picture of Einstein’s letter

The Origins of Nukes There was never a “decision” to use A-bombs against Japan Idea of “decision” imagined later Fact: always assumed the A-bomb would be used to shorten the war Context: History of bombing cities/civilians During WWII precision bombing was impossible; so ‘carpet’ bombing was done to destroy arms factories

The Origins of Nukes Context: History of bombing cities/civilians Deliberate targeting of civilians has long global tradition in colonial wars First deliberate aerial bombing of civilians was British against Iraqis 1920s Among Europeans tradition of NOT targeting civilians from Protestant Reformation to WWI Germans changed things: WWI massacres of Belgians Nazi bombing at Guernica, Spanish Civil War In WWII German planes deliberately targeted Polish civilians in September 1939

The Origins of Nukes Context: History of bombing cities/civilians Japanese also deliberately targeted civilians: the “Rape of Nanking” Murder of 250,000 Mongolians in germ experiments Deliberate targeting of civilians for strategic reasons (to affect morale) started by Germans accidentally over London 1940. NOTE: Historically bombing does not reduce the will to fight

The Origins of Nukes WWII: By 1943: UK/US doing mass bombing of German cities By end of war, estimated 600,000 dead Germans (far more than killed by the nukes on Japan) Tokyo firebombing (100,000) / Hamburg (40,000) / Dresden (25,000) FACT: Children and all unnecessary adults long evacuated from cities

The Origins of Nukes Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 1945: Japanese already lost war, but would not surrender / were committing mass suicide Kamikazes (last 30 seconds) Mass suicides (Saipan) Mass Suicides on Marpi Point_ Saipan - WW2 in HD and Color - YouTube.wmv Only 200 Japanese POWs throughout war War was expected to last for years Expected millions to die (mostly Japanese) film of moms and babies running off the cliffs ---1:45 onwards Exercise: Turkey in war many dying . . .

The Origins of Nukes Hiroshima/Nagasaki A-bombing of Hiroshima (August 1945) Killed est. 70,000 in first few days, later another 70,000 Japanese still refused to surrender 3 days later: A-bombing of Nagasaki Killed est. 70,000 in first few days, 10,000 later

The Origins of Nukes Hiroshima/Nagasaki Japanese insisted on “conditional” surrender of Emperor staying as figurehead US makes concession and accepts compromise in violation of its prior ‘non-conditional’ pledge to its allies Even then: Japanese generals attempt a coup to prevent the Japanese surrender INDISPUTABLE FACT: Bomb shortened war and saved millions of lives **Don’t think war would have ended anyway! **Why not ‘demonstration’ bomb? A  *US had only 2 bombs! Context: Kamikazes, etc SUM: US needed SHOCK effect

The Origins of Nukes Post-fact (learned later): Japanese plan of germ warfare Japanese experimented with Germ warfare; killed 250,000 Chinese in Manchuria But for nuclear bombings, Japanese would have brought Bubonic Plague to US in aircraft launched from submarines in Sept. 1945, likely killing millions of civilians Two Myths: The US was rejecting Japanese peace feelers (“zero” documentation) The US goal was demonstrate to the Soviets (Example of ignorance) FACT: 0 documentation that impending Cold War with the Soviets was not on anyone’s mind; And oodles of evidence against . . .

Baruch Plan Nuclear technology is not really secret Scientific knowledge cannot be secret US leaders recognized future problem of proliferation US offered international control of nuclear technology: Offered to turn over all of its weapons to a proposed International Atomic Development Authority On the condition that all other countries Pledge not to produce weapons and Agree to an adequate system of inspection

Baruch Plan USSR refused: Stalin’s paranoia USSR was building its own a-bombs (with spies) USSR was planning renewed confrontation with West

The Nuclear stand-off of the Cold War, 1949 to 1991 US did not NOT begin building nuclear arsenal It made only 5 from the Manhattan Project Leaving only 1-2 after tests . . . Not until April 1947 did the US re-start its nuclear weapons program With the increasing fear of Soviets building their own Strategic imbalance in Europe: Stalin had 200 divisions vs. 30 for NATO

The Nuclear stand-off of the Cold War, 1949 to 1991 1949: Soviets get the bomb Berlin Crisis Increasing fear of Soviets 1949: US/USSR race to be first in thermonuclear bombs US gets thermonuclear capability 1953; USSR soon after

The Nuclear stand-off of the Cold War, 1949 to 1991 NATOs Defense Strategy: Deterrence Defense is aimed at denying opponent gains from war Deterrence seeks to make the cost of war for opponent greater than its gains *** NATO could not defend itself by putting 200 divisions in Europe, but it could deter an attack on it with the threat of nuclear retaliation

The Nuclear stand-off of the Cold War, 1949 to 1991 NATOs Defense Strategy: Deterrence Why could NATO not raise 200 NATO divisions? Answer: Too costly ; Europeans (not US) rejected these costs Why would Europe not want to pay that cost? Answer: For the economy (keeping 200 divisions in Europe would have impeded European economic recovery)

The Nuclear stand-off of the Cold War, 1949 to 1991 NATOs Defense Strategy: Deterrence Defense strategy worked well until 1957 because US had air (delivery) superiority . . . From 1957: Sputnik Changed everything: Soviet missiles would soon be able to reach the US 1957 to mid-60s: Only “intermediate” range missiles NATO puts missiles in Europe (including Turkey) Cuban Missile Crisis By late 1960s, each side (The USSR and the US) had 1000s of thermonuclear warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed directly at each other

The Nuclear stand-off of the Cold War, 1949 to 1991 MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction Agreed in anti-missile defense treaty Problem of US threat credibility Nuclear war would destroy the US (as well as Soviets) . . . So US now committed to commit suicide to defend Europe/NATO (including Turkey) Munich syndrome (must always appear aggressive) 1964 France opted out of NATO military command; constructs its own nuclear defense Partial cause of Vietnam War “Detente” 1963 to 1979 STORY: Dr. Strangelove (made global destruction process automatic)

The Nuclear stand-off of the Cold War, 1949 to 1991 1980s: US Strategic Defense Initiative (“Starwars”) : End of the USSR and Cold War US/Russia re-aimed their nukes Agreed to radical reduction to roughly 2000 warheads each

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (1968) US enticed Soviets to join ‘Baruch plan’ by creating two-tiered class of nations: The nuclear powers: US, UK, Russia, France, and China The non-nuclear states (everyone else at the time) Deal: Non-nuke states commit to never making nuclear weapons, and allow inspectors Non-nuke states get assistance in making peaceful nuclear power

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (1968) Only three states did not - and never - signed: Israel Does not confirm or deny Therefore is **not** used for deterrence **Must be** planning tactical usage Makes sense: Israeli strategic are defensive Israel does not want to encourage ME proliferation Political problem for Arab leaders India (got it in 1974) Pakistan (got it in 1998?)

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (1968) Three states signed, got nuclear technology, and then have not allowed or restricted inspections: Iraq North Korea Withdrew from NNPT in 2003 Estimated to have 6+ bombs now Who is most afraid of North Korean nukes? South Korea Japan Problem of technology/bomb sales to terrorists 2006 UN Resolution: Anyone can halt and inspect shipping into and out of North Korea (problem is everybody is afraid to do so)

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (1968) Three states signed, got nuclear technology, and then have not allowed or restricted inspections: Iran Secret weapons “enriching” facility in Qum But final evidence incomplete Danger of Israeli attack (re Iraq; Syria) Europe/US sanctions Arabs also fear Iranian nukes

Chemical/biological WMD Chemical Weapons Used in WWI Both chemical and biological made illegal after WWI Not used *in warfare* in WWII and elsewhere Only known violation: Saddam Hussein

XX. De-colonialization (most LDCs today are ex-colonies)
Two starting points For most colonized the colonial period was brief, often less than 100 years. This means that the colonial period is only one part of a colonized nations’ larger history . . Some colonizers kept in place traditional forms of government. The British, for instance, usually kept intact the roles of tribal chiefs and so on. ?Why is the “globalization of Westphalia” inherently good?

Changing global norms against colonial imperialism US Pres. Wilson’s “progressive imperialism” made colonialism a little embarrassing New educated elites in most colonies agitated for “independence” US hegemony (US Open Door/anti-imperialism) NTR/ Bretton Woods (made many colonial privileges illegal; colonialism now a net economic loss) UN Charter / Human rights (made “repression” to enforce imperialism illegal)

Changing global norms against colonial imperialism Cold War made colonialism a propaganda disadvantage for NATO: So US pushed independence and nationalism (as alternatives to communism) EG: Vietnam Consequence: When elites organized for ‘independence’ it was usually granted Exceptions: **The French in Vietnam and Angola

Cold War context Independence leaders had two development models: Capitalism (US/UK) Communism (Soviet/Chinese models) Capitalist model Advantages: Economic assistance Security/stability Disadvantages: Model suggests century-long development process Gave little room for state in the economy (and local elites usually wanted to control economy)

Cold War context Communist model Advantages: Soviet model offers possibility of rapid industrialization Communism gives big room for state Disadvantages: Less economic assistance Possible less security (allying against powerful West) Often domestic politics determined model choice

Cold War context Consequence: US and USSR both interfered illegally in the domestic politics of developing nations (violations of Westphalian principles) US (CIA): tried to promote pro-capitalist elites to power USSR (KGB): tried to promote communists to power

Impact of Decolonialization on Global Politics By 1965: UNGA had become a forum for “third world” issues related with development 1945: 51 members in UNGA (mostly Europe and Americas) 1975: 165 members if UNGA “Non-alignment movement” “Group of 77” Tended to advocate for global wealth transfers, etc

XXI. Global Historical Survey
Far East Japan: US Commander Perry 1854 Japan never colonized Unequal treaty China Always marketers dream Opium Wars Imperial period: US “open door” policy Republican Period: End of imperialism Similar for Turkey

Far East China Civil War & Communist victory Taiwan → US defense of Taiwan and Japan Chinese “war” with Soviets (ideological and nationalist) 1971: US “Triangulation” policy China turns to capitalism 1990s: China joins WTO (US FP agreement) but continues to “cheat”; play mercantilism

Far East Indochina French colony After WWII French chose to fight Vietnamese to hold colony After Communist Revolution in China 1949, US began financial help, but pressuring for independence 1954 French lose: Dien Bien Phu Eisenhower: “domino theory” (US fear of spread of communism) North / South; US gradual war US withdrawals : Genocide & war, etc. 1990+: part of global community

India & Pakistan Gandhi & passive resistance to British imperialism Muslims want own country (but populations are mixed) 1947 UK announces withdrawal Agreement: each state will go where its maharaja wants to go (to “India” or “Pakistan” [Bangladesh is part of Pakistan]) Problem: Hindu Harry Sing is leader of predominantly Muslim Kashmir. Sing chooses India India/Pakistani Partition: thousands murdered 1948 war (Pakistan infiltrates tribesmen to attack Kashmir) Ceasefire line (still in dispute today)

India & Pakistan 1965 war: Pakistan attacks and loses 1971 Bangladesh flood Bangladesh candidates win national election Pakistan refuses; represses Bangladesh Bangladeshi refugees spill into poor India India fights ; “Bangladesh” joins the world 1974: India has “peaceful” nuclear explosion 1998: Pakistan becomes nuclear power Pakistani support for Taliban / Pashtun tribe Post 911: Pakistani playing all sides ****Two Potential Global Disasters: Indo-Paki nuclear war Pakistan state failure; **nukes go to terrorists Bring in discussion of afghanistan/taliban for next year

Africa (Independence ) ?: Period of high hope Late 1960s: autocracies/coups 1975-today: lost decades Military cleptocratic dictatorships Minimal “cold war” involvement Civil wars; child soldiers; genocides Exceptional cases: Kenya / Tanzania South Africa / Apartheid

Israel & the Arabs 5th Century AE: Greek/Israeli Civilizations 1st century: Israelis scattered by Romans Many went to Europe “Ashkenazi” (esp. Russia & Poland) Many spread through Middle East “Sephardi” (esp. Iraq and Yemen) “Diaspora” communities In Europe oppressed Deep in Jewish culture: returning

Israel & the Arabs Arabs Turkish “colonialism” long-term Saudi Arabia / Iran always independent Some UK/French colonies Late 19th c.: Ottoman Palestine overwhelmingly Arab, but: 10-30,000 Jews in Palestine from antiquity

Israel & the Arabs Late 19th c.: Rise of Zionism in Europe; initial settlements Own state seen as solution to Jewish suffering Secular / urban educated elites Kibbutz socialist/idealist movement LAND PURCHASED from Arab landowners Kibbutzim strategically located for defending future borders of Israel

Israel & the Arabs WWI 1916 UK promises the Arabs independence if they rise up against the Ottomans (McMahan Correspondence) 1917 UK promises the Jews a homeland in Palestine (Balfour Declaration) Palestine (along with Jordan & parts of Iraq) becomes British League of Nations mandate (administered by UK, but not ‘colony’) (the French got Lebanon & Syria) In prep. for independence. British broke their promise to the Arabs!

Israel & the Arabs Interwar Period Thousands of Jews leave Europe for Palestine 1936: Arab Uprising 1936: Brits ban further Jewish migration; context: Arab uprising Impending war with Hitler Post WWII: Displaced persons camps Where do the survivors go? Illegal immigrations to Palestine British announce withdrawal from Palestine May 15

Israel & the Arabs May 14: Jews of Israel declare independent state of Israel US/USSR recognize immediately USSR because Stalin thinks Jews are socialists US decision is Pres. Truman’s; has Jewish friend Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt all attack Israel

Israel & the Arabs

Israel & the Arabs Israel Wins War US did not support Israel and even refused to sell arms to Israelis (or any belligerent) New Israeli borders at 1949 ceasefire (recognized around the world today, about 2/3 of Palestine) Jordan annexed took Westbank Egypt annexed Gaza **Arabs refuse to make peace (only cease-fire) (Israel offering peace at its new (current) borders)

Israel & the Arabs Arabs decide to wait and get stronger But Israel got stronger faster Roots of Today’s Refugee Problem Est. 700,000 Arab Palestinians fled impending war Palestinians were not forced to flee by Jews, but: Massacre by Jewish terrorist group Irgun/Stern Caused mass exodus of Palestinians, who expected to return . . . Arab states refused to make Palestinians citizens So Palestinians became permanent wards of the UN Refugee Agency Today: 4 million

Israel & the Arabs Palestinians who stayed in their homes in new Israel remained unmolested and became full Israeli citizens (today about 20% of the population) Arab states expelled their own Jewish populations, mostly with repression, rioting and bombings (mostly in Yemen and Iraq) Approx. 900,000 Approx. 680,000 settled in Israel (initially in refugee camps) Became citizens Today estimated at 40% of Israelis

Israel & the Arabs SUM: Approx % of Israelis today are: Non-Jewish Arabs that never left Jewish Arabs that Arab govs. forced from their homes in the Arab world ***NOT ZIONISTS from Europe

Israel & the Arabs 1950s to 80s 1950s: Israeli-French alliance 1956 Nasser Suez War 1960s: Support for Israel becomes US domestic issue Note: US veto in UNSC Syria/Egypt tilting towards Soviets Arab states create PLO PLO adopts terrorism 1967 War: New Refugees 1973 War

Israel & the Arabs 1950s to 80s 1977 Rise of Israeli religious “right” Settlements begin (roads ‘around’ Arab villages) Water issues, seem imperial 1979 Peace with Egypt: US pays both in perpetuity $$ 1982 Israeli-US alliance 1982 War in Lebanon 1987: Intifada begins

Israel & the Arabs 1990s to Today 1993: PLO renounces terror / temp. peace agreement; formation of Palestinian govt Peace Israel-Jordan Syria talks but then resists Rise of Hamas (Islamist terrorists) / Suicide bombing Final peace agreement not reached PROBLEM: Israeli right refuses talks after bombing; Arab right knows this, so keeps bombing? Dec. 2000: Arafat refuses final settlement on “repatriation” issue Land settlements with exchanges

Israel & the Arabs Today CORE ISSUES: Status of Jerusalem Right of Return Problem: Israeli identity as a Jewish state Even Israeli “right” now prefers Palestinian state over annexation with land swaps The Wall Hamas vs. Palestinian Authority Gaza & rockets / Israeli quarantine

Israel & the Arabs Today People who side with Israel emphasize Hamas terror People who side with the Arabs emphasize collateral damage of Israeli counter strikes / quarantine SAD FACTS: Israel will never accept right of return Conflict/injustice for Palestinians will continue until they give up on right of return US aid to Israel cannot stop: it’s the Congress Wouldn’t change things anyway

Latin America Before Cold War Napoleonic Wars US “Monroe Doctrine” British hegemony GOVs: Military Dictatorships Democratic model: US US interventions in CA & Caribbean US actions not “imperial/colonial” 1933 to 1953: “Good Neighbor Policy”

Latin America 1953 to 1989: “Cold War” interventionism Guatemala Cuba / Che Guevara Alliance for Progress: land reform & FBI Chile Nicaragua 1990s end of Cold War Democracy in OAS Immigration issues e) Nicaragua (my story)

Latin America Overall: US motivation was Cold War containment: compare with Mexico 1930s and Haiti 1990s Alliance for Progress: land reform and today’s democracy Today all LA democratic except Cuba Venezuela: conflict is rhetorical, not real

XXII. Oil in World Politics
Early History 1880s: US originator – Pennsylvania and Texas Traditional problem: too much supply Early 1900s: First large oil discovery outside US, in Iran Major investments follow (roads and so on)

Early History Early 1900s: Churchill switches UK navy from coal to oil Oil-based ships faster Strategic problem: UK has coal, but no oil Solution: UK creates British Petroleum Co. (BP; called then Anglo-Iranian, AI) as steady source of supply from Iran BP UK gov-owned but private/independent (EG: 1973 BP did not serve UK’s interests) Strategic implications: UK must protect Suez canal!

1920s -40s: US companies begin prospecting in ME To market oil in Europe (ME oil cheaper then US oil in Europe) Informal “Red Line” understanding of UK & US companies: UK companies get concessions in Iraq/Iran US companies get concessions in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait The “seven sisters”: Mobil, Gulf, Shell, BP (AI), Chevron, Texaco, Exxon (Esso)

1920s -40s: Traditional arrangement kingdom/seven-sister contract: Kingdoms grant “concessions”; companies “rent” oil fields and pay royalties “Vertical integration”: oil company produced, marketed, and distributed oil Bargaining power favored companies Too much competition among kingdoms seeking concessions Overall oil glut Compared with today: sheiks earned small share: 10/90 (10% kingdoms; 90% oil companies)

Early Cold War 1950: Saudi Arabia pressuring Aramco (consortium of US companies operating in Saudi Arabia) for revision to 30 / 70 US govt supported revision; wants strong economy in Saudi Arabia; Saudi Arabia gets 30 / 70 (US govt agrees not to sue Aramco) Saudi Arabia and Iran traditional competitors Iranians now want revised deal with BP US govt supports Iran; wants strong economy in Iran; pressures UK to accept 50 / 50

Early Cold War BP offers Iranian PM Mossadagh 50/50, but now cannot sign any agreement with BP, as BP widely hated in Iran So instead Mossadagh confiscates BP-owned property (“nationalization”) and refuses to compensate owners

Early Cold War Problem for Iranians: how can they produce, market and distribute the oil? BP refuses to produce/market/distribute Iranian oil Iranian economy collapses Mossadagh faced enormous domestic opposition (from religious leaders and others) UK wants to launch coup; US says no 1953: Mossadagh moved towards the communists, plans anti-Shah coup US now alarmed and approves UK plan for counter coup Mossadagh overthrown by CIA/M5 & Shah placed in power

Early Cold War New oil arrangement: Iranian oil remains nationalized BP out How to produce, distribute and market Iranian oil? WESTERN companies did NOT want to be involved in Iran So US govt encouraged a consortium to “contract” nationalized Iranian oil (US oil companies resisted involvement) 50/50 principle 1954: Iran company “takes over” consortium Iranian govt contracts (out-sources) production

Early Cold War 50/50 becomes new norm in ME region (whether concession nor contracting arrangement), then: 1957: Italian owned co. breaks ‘Seven Sister’ with 75/25 in Iran Afterwards 75/25 becomes new norm

Suez Crisis 1956 History of Suez Canal 1870s: Built by French company, 44% owned by Egyptian govt. 1875: Egypt govt sells its share to the UK govt After WWII: canal becomes important waterway of Europe’s oil from ME Only because ME oil cheaper to produce and transship to Europe than US oil

Suez Crisis 1956 Nasser confiscates canal (with no compensation) Soviets offer pilots and technicians to run it UK & France do not want to disrupt the (oil) traffic US opposes any use of force for retaking the property 1956 Nasser commits act of war against Israel Blocks Israeli port of Eilat (also helping rebels in Algeria and supporting raids into Israel) Israel NOT an ally of the US; FRN is Israel’s ally UK/FRN perceive Nasser as a Mussolini-like bully Syria blocks pipeline (from Persian Gulf to Med Sea) 24 hrs – shows importance of canal

Suez Crisis 1956 UK/FRN form secret deal with Israel: Israel will attack and occupy Sinai Peninsula (to open Israeli port of Eilat); UK/FRN will occupy canal for claimed purpose of “stability” But when UK/FRN paratroopers land (after Israel attacks) it is obvious the UK/FRN are really intent on re-taking canal Nasser sabotages canal by sinking ships in it UK/FRN failed to achieve objective of keeping canal open Result: oil supply to Europe cut-off

Suez Crisis 1956 US admonishes UK/FRN for using force for economic gain Refuses emergency re-supply of oil from Latin America Imposed sanctions on UK/FRN Refuses to allow IMF help to run on Pound US votes with Soviets in UN condemning UK and FRN UK/FRN withdrawal from canal, only then does US enact emergency oil supply to its allies

Suez Crisis 1956 IMPACTS: Nasser becomes “big hero” in Arab world (why not the US?) British expelled from region (Jordan/Iraq) US becomes more active hegemon in ME NEW CLEAR GLOBAL RULE: No fighting wars from confiscated property Europe clearly vulnerable to ME oil and canal Italians invent big tankers that can move the oil around Africa cheaply (means Europeans not so dependent on Egypt)

The Oil Weapon 1880s – 1960s: Too much oil in world markets “oil glut” 1960s: for environmental reasons the US switches from coal to cleaner oil to produce electricity Causes “glut” to end By 1970: OPEC producers improve their position: Can now begin influencing prices

The Oil Weapon ’73 October War: Arabs dole out oil according to positions on Israel (“the oil weapon”) UK, France, Japan – ALL CAVE! (quickly try to disassociate themselves from the US & Israel) Only the Dutch & US stay resolute and vote on principle – and they pay for it Japan and UK soon turn back to US (French become worse) Under ME OPEC threats, UNGA votes “Zionist” resolution condemning Israel (revoked in 1991) With embargo, OPEC quadruples prices Greatest victims: LDCs (crippling balance of payments) MDCs get the petrodollars in their banks ??Did the US hegemon ever consider military intervention? ?Why not? A  Must hurt econ + violate intl law

Nationalization / Commodification of Oil Recall: Old Seven Sisters were “vertical”: oil company obtained concession for oil fields, and produced, marketed and distributed all extracted oil Suez Crisis made clear: under US hegemony wars cannot be fought for property 1960s-70s: popular Marxian theory rejected FDI 1970s nationalizations (confiscations) of private investments on oil production facilities ($billions) Sept. 1973: Libya confiscates 51% of Occidental By 1975: Last concessions were Kuwait, SA & Venezuela Kuwaitis paid pennies SA took all Aramco assets in SA, Aramco would continued to market/dist (but SA compensated)

Nationalization / Commodification of Oil Seven Sisters turn to exploring in MDCs (safer investments) Results: major finds in North Sea/North America Today: MNC oil production is no longer “vertically integrated”: companies do not produce and distribute oil; rather, oil is a global commodity Instead, energy companies (large & small) bid for a variety of service contracts

Wars for Oil 1990: Invades and annexes Kuwait to obtain its oil 1991: UN forces Hussein out Hussein agrees on: UN inspectors UN sanctions regime 2003 War: Issue is compliance with UN inspectors Hussein: multiple N-player game Bush Admin too dumb to see it / 1% doctrine Bush Admin manipulation of American voters Claimed Hussein was behind 911 attack

Wars for Oil 2003 War legal? NO: Use of force not authorized by UN (France, Russia and China vetoed) YES: Legal status equal to Kosovo conflict Iraq’s Oil Today? No one ever took any Iraqi oil, which remains nationalized (owned by the Iraqi people) The 13 service contracts made so far are the most favorable for any producer in history (<1/99) (but still not oil law) Big oil companies not interested in bidding for these contracts 3rd largest reserves; 13th producer, due to lack of FDI

Wars for Oil Iraq today is a sovereign democratic state No US combat troops in Iraq Iraqi GDP is 6-7 times higher than in 2002 The “Oil Curse”: oil export dependency associated with: Corruption Ethnic conflict (EG: Iraq and the oil law) Autocracy War Economic stagnation EXCEPTIONS: Oil in MDCs (US, UK & Norway)

XXIII. Global Trade Issues
Recall norm of “normal trade relations” Recall changes in prevailing economic philosophies (no one really knows the best path to riches) MDCs “More Developed Countries” LDCs “Less Developed Countries” FDI: Foreign direct investment Primary goods (minerals & agricultural) Secondary goods (manufacturing) Tertiary goods (services)

Traditional Issues 1950s to 1980s LDCs produce mostly primary “monocultural” Colonial legacy But tariffs lowest on manufacturing/services Bad for LDCs? (hard to export primary goods) Good for LDCs? (dependency on primary exports is not good – primary products generally get cheaper over time) Farmers in Europe, Japan, and US resist lowering tariffs in primary goods “Marxist” economists advocated no FDI and “nationalization” EG: Turkey rejected EU!

Traditional Issues 1950s to 1980s MDCs giving LDCs special trade advantages in manufactured goods Africa (has free access to US market) Caribbean Basin Initiative (has free access to US market) Aid (land reform) US insures investors in LDCs

Current Issues Most LDC leaders now reject Marxian theory; embrace: FDI (example Cuba) Privatization New reverse issue: sovereignty Because most nations now seek FDI, problem of ‘race to the bottom’ Not a problem in MDCs But nationalism in LDCs MDCs want law/property rights protection Patents / copyrights

Rise of manufacturing in LDCs Today most “LDCs” export some manufactured products EG: Turkey The US now imports more manufactured goods from LDCs than from other MDCs Many MDCs are exporting fewer manufactured goods EG: US autos / steel / cloths . . . Many MDCs never stopped exporting agricultural goods EG: The US

Decreasing global inequality Great advances in LDCs (India, China, Brazil, Asian Tigers) 2 Billion people have advanced . . . LDCs have comparative advantage in low wages Mexico’s wages just 11% of US workers China’s wages just 3% of US workers So globalization is reducing the incomes of many workers with less formal education in the MDCs

Decreasing global inequality Africa the major exception Fact: 2005 first year with fewer than 10 million baby deaths Prices of oil/wheat/rice way up Why? Answer: Many of billions of people are now: Eating more meat (consumption in LDCs up 33% 1997 to 2007) Buying/driving cars

IMF Voting system based on contributions : “Keynesian” period Goal: stimulate demand IMF decided currency support issues : 1980s debt crises from OPEC and petro-dollars IMF adopts new role as broker between private banks and indebted nations “Neo-liberal” period “Washington Consensus” Goal: monetarist price stability (Milton Friedman) Strategy: “shock” an economy back into balance

IMF f) Problems: IMF conditionalities caused reduced govt services “One size fits all” (Stiglitz) IMF too powerful due to FDI (Stiglitz) 2002+: New voting system favors LDCs. EG: US has 16.8% [contributes 17.1%]) Venezuela has 1.21% (about ¼ Germany’s!) Reduced conditionalities Reduced emphasis on monetarist price stability

IMF d) New emphases on: Good governance (EG: banks in Turkey) Women’s education Redistribution Environment

G-20: New Rulers of the Global Economy? Old: G7+ US-CAN-JAP-UK-FRN-ITY-GYM 1995: + Russia New: 19 Countries plus the European Union Membership includes geographical balance and population (High GDP countries not in: Spain, Netherlands, Taiwan, and Poland) Represents about: 90 percent of the world's GNP 80 percent of world trade (including within EU) Two-thirds of the global population

G-20: New Rulers of the Global Economy? 2009 Agreed: Much tighter regulation over financial institutions Try to reduce barriers to agricultural exports Try to reduce the immense imbalances between: Export-dominated countries like China and Japan (which must promote domestic consumer spending) Debt-laden countries like the United States (which now must reduce its trade deficit and address its huge budget deficit) US has long been the world’s most willing consumer: the amount Americans consumers spend in one year is greater than the entire G.D.P. of China, India, Canada and Russia — combined!

G-20: New Rulers of the Global Economy? G-20 Members: Australia Argentina Brazil Canada China France Germany India Indonesia Italy Japan Mexico Russia Turkey Saudi Arabia South Africa South Korea UK US EU

Introduction to International Relations

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Introduction to International Relations"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Introduction to International Relations

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Introduction to International Relations"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback