International Relations and Global Spending: Military, Healthcare, and Interests - Prof. A, Study notes of Geopolitics

Download International Relations and Global Spending: Military, Healthcare, and Interests - Prof. A and more Study notes Geopolitics in PDF only on Docsity! Monday, January 9, 2012  The aggregation of policy choices by leaders, legislatures, and businesses around the world o Start with the notion that we live in an increasingly globalized world  What are the kinds of policies and events that out leaders’ choices will create? o To sort it out, we’ll rely on theory (casual beliefs about how people and the world works) and facts. FACTSFACTSFACTS. o Not much of an argument, focus on facts and others’ views.  THE US HAS TWO BASIC FUTURES IN FP o internationalism – treaties of Westphalia in 1648 – which part of Christianity each country chooses to do on its own. THIS IS THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. o interventionism – US ought to intervene in the internal affairs of other states o main distinction comes down to views about two factors:  national sovereignty – supreme power or authority over a geographic area  assumptions about “blowback” or “balancing” – how you believe other people react to being pushed around o views have never really tracked well with party ID – not an explicitly political question, party leaders’ best efforts notwithstanding  isolationism? It was a possibility up until WWI, but while contemplating an internationalist or interventionist future, isolationism is no longer an option.  Walt Kelley – “we are confronted with insurmountable opportunities” – aka the problem is us.  The US today is the most productive and richest country in the world. Also the best armed. Wednesday, January 11, 2012  The US spends “bucketfuls of dough” o approx. half of the entire world’s spending on military expenses o a lot spent on healthcare as well – 8K per person per year (more than half which is private money) o all of this spending is causing a lot of opportunity cost  globalization is real o connections between individuals and states increasing  cost of communication has decreased significantly over time  mobile phone coverage is spreading in Africa in mold o world is becoming increasingly fragmented  number of borders is something that countries have fought over consistently  over 600 international borders -> increased corruption because it is an opportunity to shake out money  need to have access to the ocean if wanting to create new borders because of trade (need ports if you want access to trade, or else money is shaken down when going through other countries, aka corruption)  a lot more land-locked countries than before leads to corruption o **Factor-Price equalization dilemma (offshoot of Heckscher-Ohlin model) is real**  Overall trend of outsourced jobs = increasing  Productivity and real median family income growth increased 1947-2006  End of WWII (1947) = changed everything o technology change is speeding up  driving force behind the increasing interconnectedness  more insurmountable opportunities, all with benefits and dangers o three examples of disruptive tech change  GPS  Good: you have an accident, your car calls 911 and locates you for fire dept  Bad: GPS based autopilot can be used to direct a small plane filled w/ explosives  Ballistic missile technology is spreading  Good: cheaper satellite launches  Bad: our distance bases are, or soon will be, all truly vulnerable  Encryption tech and cheap communication  Good: allows secure communications  Bad: allows secure communications o Globalization is real -> so is the risk of US decline – we are “out-surrounded”  US share of world wealth is on the decline  US shares for exports as % world total is dropping at an extremely quick rate  Our indebtedness is growing  gross debt and public debt are pretty synced trend-wise  savings and domestic investment is declining Thursday, January 12, 2012 (FLS – Chapter 1 summary)  Framework (thesis) o Interests – goals that actors have (preferences over customs) o Interactions – way in which actors’ choices (strategies) combine to produce outcomes o Institutions – set of rules, known and shared, that structure interactions  Behavioral results o Bargaining – division of something they both want o Cooperation – common interest (must behave in coordinated way to reap benefit)  Levels of analysis o International level – representatives of states interacts o Domestic level – politicians, bureaucratic, etc o Transnational level – MNC, terrorists, etc  Realism (Hobbes, Machiavell, Morgenthau, and Waltz) o Assumptions (states = dominant actors) and anarchy (absence of central authority) o Take actions to maximize POWER (security and survival) o Difficult cooperation o States bow to interests and power  Liberalism (Locke, Kant, Smith, and Ricardo) o No dominant interests o Optimistic (cooperation) o Empowering people (democracy) makes war less likely  Constructivism (Katzenstein, Reggie, and Wendt) o Interests are constructed through social interaction o Institutions have profound effects o Interests and institutions are not fixed  Zone of peace and prosperity will emerge with domestic order based on law and democracy Thursday, January 19, 2012  Lecture Review o What are the preferences/interests of the United States?  More money  More influence  Less danger o How might these preferences be incompatible?  More money and more influence do not necessarily lead to less danger  Zero-sum game – for one gain, there is one loss o Who is the median voter?  Theorem on a single policy dimension  Policy would converge to the middle person on a range of citizens o How do states pursue their interests?  Force  Money (inducements) o Offensives realists  Optimistic about utility of force and cumulatively of resources  Pessimistic about the constraining power of int’l and domestic institutions  Pessimistic about the long term prospects of the US  Policy goal: preserve the status quo – US hegemony/”the essential nation” o Defensive realists  Believe that fear of power leads to balance against force  Pessimistic about utility of force (except defensively)  Rules/institutions don’t matter (international and domestic level)  Policy goal: off-shore balancing to preserve status quo  No respect for sovereignty o Neo-liberal institutionalists  Internationalist liberals  Sovereignty at nation state level is key  International order will be maintained through international institutions  Aid will be given unconditionally o Neo-conservatives  “Neo-cons” focus on the rights of individuals  State sovereignty is a right that comes with obligations, not an entitlement  Obligations: delivering goods and protecting individuals  Sovereignty of individuals is the inalienable right  Every human being shares belief about individual sovereignty  Zone of peace and prosperity will emerge with domestic order based on law/democracy  Chapter 2: Resource Scarcity: Oil, the lubricant that corrodes o Competition for access to scarce resources can foster conflict o What will be scarce in the future? Both exhibit increasing demand/decreasing supply  Water  Petroleum – consumption is around 83 million barrels; production is 85 million barrels (very tight market) o Possessors maximize the benefit of their possession o Methods of solving resource conflict  Increase supply  Decrease demand: efficiency  Substitution: adequacy uncertain  Power struggle as countries try to secure access to energy security o Effects  Economic: rate and duration of growth  Transportation (essential for global trade: comparative advantage eroded by transportation costs)  Petroleum producing countries – “petrolists” (bribe populations into accepting undemocratic rule in exchange for economic benefits)  Over half of world’s known petroleum reserves located in Middle East  Chapter 14: International Migration: The US-Mexican Border o Regular: legal entry, often encouraged to augment workforce  Often skilled: brain drain o Irregular: enter illegally or overstay visas  Often unskilled: perform tasks that are ‘dirty, difficult, or dangerous’  Some may be criminals who pursue international trafficking, etc  Opponents don’t distinguish from economic immigrants o Refugees: forcibly displaced people o Global trend  Increasing numbers from underdeveloped countries to developed  Burden shifting from developed world (developed population aging) o US-Mexican border  Part of developing to developed trend  10-20 million people depending on source  Economic lure: income in Mexico about 30 percent that is in the US  NAFTA effect: subsidized corn floods Mexican market forcing farmers to seek work o Concerns cited – elicit activity (trafficking), demands on social services, terrorism  Chapter 15: Failed and failing states, the case of Pakistan o Failed state: collapse of legitimate authority and the inability to replace that authority o Many degrees of failure  Fragile state – susceptible to crisis  Crisis state – deterioration toward state failure  Full state failure - loss of physical control of territory, failure of government decision making, breakdown of public services, inability to act internationally o Failed state index: 12 factors (equally weighted): social, economic, and political, which create a scale from 1-10 o Degree of failure: crime, no market, suffering , etc o Surrounding states: refugees, criminally, safe haven for terrorism Monday, January 23, 2012  Once we decide we want to be involved, one question pops up: o How much control over events can we hope to realistically have?  Or, what is all our military power for good?  Otto Bismark – Chancellor of Germany during its creation  “leaders are like ship captains – they pilot the ship, but they do not control the weather”  Not every port can be reached even in the best of times o For lack of proper ship o Inadequate supplies o Unfavorable trade winds o Lack of confidence/patience by crew  In bad weather, sometimes no port can be gained o Ultimately, we must realize that not every war can be won, not every fight is worth fighting  The truly great leaders recognized this: discretion is frequently the better part of valor  Two views or principles of what, when, and how driven by theories of war/force  Weinberger/Powell doctrine o Only commit forces if occasion is deemed vital to our national interest o The commitment should only be made with the clear intention of winning o It should be carried out with clearly defined political and military objectives o Success and failure must be continually reassessed and force adjusted if necessary to achieve success o It should have the support of the American People and their elected representatives in Congress o It should be a last resort o Powell’s formative experiences – Vietnam  Doesn’t want that happening again o Objectives become more difficult to evaluate in modern wars  Schelling signaling strategy (Albright do-ability doctrine) – a model of interventionist politics built on coercion o Basic idea –  Force as a signal of resolve, not as a means to defeat/force opponent per se  By inflicting pain on the opponent, we try to convince them that it’s not worth their while to pursue the policies that we object to o Problems with coercive diplomacy?  Assessment is almost impossible  Trying to measure resolve: what’s in opponent’s head  What’s the best way to demonstrate resolve: o Inflicting pain o Bearing costs  Two types of war  Total o Ex. WWII  Limited o If opponent opts for former, so must you, else not fight  One conclusion for both views - war as proactive policy tool less useful than once was o What of the people that would move to the superpower?  Uncontrolled immigration (often the result of internal instability) bad  Obviously can’t let all in that would care to come  Controlled immigration good: take in best, brightest, and ambitious  Unlike Europe and Japan, the US has springing population b/c of poorly controlled immigration  Issues by region: sources of fear o At home: sliding wages for average (unskilled and semi-skilled) workers o East Asia:  China and Taiwan  N Korea instability: nuke/missile programs o South Asia:  Pakistan instability: nuke/missile programs  India/China competition o W Europe:  Financial integration  Balkans – area of extreme concern b/c cause of WWI  Russian fragmentation and nuclear materials o Latin America:  Economic collapse  Drug wars  Migration o Mideast:  Arab/Israeli conflict  Nuclear proliferation  Iraq  Terrorism  Rising tide of intolerant Islam o Africa?  Source of so many resources for the global food chain, but not feared  Before policy choices, think of goals/interests o Goals in hand, recognize:  Most events cannot be anticipated much in advance  (like weather forecasting – 3 days ok, 3 weeks bad) o Therefore need principles:  Internationalism  Respect for borders  But bad things happen within  Interventionism  Make the world a better place  Focus on domestic problems  Politics and political science o Policy agendas under our belt, the nitty gritty details o Politics – distribution of rules o “oh, x for ‘it’ instead of y, x didn’t deserve it, it was all so ‘political’”  Non-market based distribution of goods and services  Often seen as a suboptimal distribution from perspective of many (losers?) o power is critical to understanding political relationships  concept of the ‘political’ – zero sum competition for limited resources  the big cahuna: politics o how do leaders acquire and allocate scarce resources?  Eg, pursue their interests?  Often no financial market to help allocation decision  Zero sum settings (land)  Positive sum (trade, rules…) o Three kinds of political interactions  Coercive (power using many means)  Cooperation (sharing)  Coordination (info) o Institutions help shape or facilitate  What is scarce? o The big three:  Factors of production (PolEcon)  Land, labor, capital  Security (realists)  Rights, liberties, autonomy  Rules (internationalists)  Agendas setting power  Access: to rule makers  Enhancing and enforcing cooperation  Solving distributional and public goods problem  Books about IR seldom discuss preferences of interests o Odd because preferences are the root of IS controversies o Preferences motivate leaders’ domestic and intl interactions  Provide direction for bargaining and negotiation o Configuration of preferences helps to explain changes in IR, as well as periods of constancy  Problems of standard approaches: each assumes common preferences o Realism assumes states maximize power or national security  Assume all nations motivated by the same preference  w/o regard for identity, values, ideas, cultures, ideology  realism unable to explain problems that do not challenge national survival o liberalism assumes all value freedom and wealth equally  in fact, many prefer order over opportunity  stability over wealth o constructivism assumes interests determined by common identities  more about interests o describing does not equal judging or endorsing preferences  describing the goals of actors o ex ante versus ex post preferences and judgements  if outcome known with certainty, same choice ex ante?  Would hitler start WWII knowing how it would end? o Cognition problems in sorting out others’ interests  We assume others want what we want – HUGE PROBLEM  We judge others failings as weakness (attribution error)  Discount inconvenient info (cognitive consistency)  We assume past is prologue (lessons of history)  An example of policy driven by interests: values and American foreign policy o Puzzle: America joining WWI in 1917  US joins war to make “world safe for democracy”  US motivated by goals far removed from power and security (Neo-Con goals)  US departure from WWI even more puzzling  US senate is key actor  US behavior far removed from realist view  War had been fought to stalemate  Two alliances:  Triple entente – Britain, France, Russia  Dual alliance – Germany and Austria-Hungary  American entrance into the conflict broke the stalemate b/w the two alliances  Wilson’s call to action was grounded in idealism  US security not threatened in any obvious way  Lusitania sinking was not direct threat  Not taken that way by Wilson  Zimmerman telegram laughable o US enters war out of principle (Similar to Lincoln)  To promote/protect rights/civility between nations  To advance freedom of choice and self-determination  Not about acquiring power or security Tuesday, January 31, 2012  Factor price equalization – as wages become higher in developing countries, the value of wages in developed countries will decrease because the value of wages overall will balance out  Conflicts o Iteration – repetition – same partners work together multiple times  Don’t piss us off or we’re through o Linkage – conditional  Two different issues, but two states come together to fix both issues  GAME THEORY o Prisoner’s dilemma, works with nuke profileration deals, free trade, terrorism, etc.  Cooperation game  Models the situation where although both players would benefit from cooperation, they would get more payoff to defect, therefore that’s where the equilibrium lies o Chicken  Straight vs swerve  Works out best with equilibrium by one going straight and one swerving o Battle of the sexes  Coordination game  Higher payoff from choosing the same strategy o Stag hunt  Coordination game