기말고사 1  12 월 17 일 목요일 10:30  중간고사와 유사한 포맷  이번 주 목요일 일정  Review Session ( 질문만 받음 )  출석체크 없음

Paradox of America’s World Power What is the main paradox? Tensions between institutional braches, state actors, non- state actors, international actors, and the international system often render foreign-policy making “incremental,” “conflicting,” and “inefficient”  “Sub-optimal” foreign policy decision? (James Fearon) Five aspects of the paradox 2

I. American Exceptionalism National style unique to each country  Geographical independence and separation Independence (political and economic) from outside actors  Fewer class divisions than European powers of the time “American Exceptionalism” (“Manifest Destiny”)  Moral, ethical, and political superiority to other nations Good versus evil dichotomy (the “Evil Empire” by Reagan)  Tension between what we do vs. who we are 3

II. Institutional Branches US System as “Checks and Balance,” “Separate Institutions Sharing Powers”  Constitutional, Historical, Strategic Dimensions  Congress (power of the purse, advice and consent power)  Presidency (crisis manager)  Courts (policy making)  Bureaucracy (turf war) 4

III. Pervasive Civil Society Forces outside government  Public opinion, the media, interest groups, and intergovernmental organizations Increasing relevance and power of NGOs  Economic institutions that regulate trade, aid, and commerce (e.g., WTO, NAFTA, OECD, World Bank)  Security/military institutions (e.g., NATO, UN)  Multinational corporations (political party and campaign donations, working connections in government) 5

IV. The “Knowledge Gap”: Real? Why? 6

7

V. US Primacy: “Empire” vs. “Hegemon” The fact is that the United States is more dominant and has a more widespread presence in the world than any other country Primacy: strength in and control of a world system Unipolar system: post–Cold War global power structure  “Imperial overstretch” or “Hegemonic stability”  question of “willingness vs. capacity” (The Twenty Years’ Crisis, : by E. H. Carr) “unilateralism” vs. “multilateralism” approach “guns” versus “butter” debate “isolationist” vs. “internationalist” conflict 8

“How well Do International Relations Theories Explain American Foreign Policy?” Kenneth Waltz (1979, 71-72) “A systems theory of international politics deals with forces that are in play at the international, and not at the national level… An international political theory does not imply or requires a theory of foreign policy any more than a market theory implies or requires a theory of the firm.”  Do you agree? Do we have any other approaches other than traditional IR theories?

Walter Russell Mead (2002): Four Perspectives  Instead of a simple dichotomous realism vs. liberalism perspective, what about four schools of thoughts to better understand American foreign policymaking?  Internationalists tradition  Hamiltonian School  Wilsonian School  Isolationists tradition  Jeffersonian School  Jacksonian School 10

Walter Russell Mead (2002): Four Perspectives  Internationalists tradition Hamiltonian : “Trade brings peace as well as profits.” Almost all presidents pursue free trade policies. The Obama administration’s focus on export as an engine for economic recovery Wilsonian : “Promoting universally American values and democracy rather than economic interests Wilson: “making the world safe for democracy” FDR: The “Arsenal of Democracy” Speech (Dec 1940) “We must be the great arsenal of democracy. “ The Bush Doctrine: “Wilsonianism in boots” 11

Walter Russell Mead (2002): Four Perspectives  Isolationists tradition Jeffersonian : “Protecting America’s unique values by avoiding foreign policy adventures and curtailing the federal government” Nation-building abroad vs. nation-building at home “The Vietnam Syndrome” Jacksonian : “Opposing interventions, but ready to fight to total victory for America’s own interests abroad” Unilateralism tradition in American history 12

Mead (2002): Hamiltonians (20 분 15 초부터 )  The Hamiltonians are people who think the United States needs to become the same kind of great power in the world that Britain was at its peak. We need to have a strong economy.  The federal government should be working hand-in-glove with large corporations and great business interests to advance their interest in overseas trade. We should try to build a global order of trade and economic relations that keep us so rich that we can afford to do what Britain used to do, which is to keep any one country from getting too strong in Europe and Asia to affect our vital interest, to threaten us.  And when a country threatens to take over, either Europe or Asia, then we should build up a coalition against them and bring them down, either by peace or war. That's been a vision that has moved a lot of people. George Washington to some degree had this view of American foreign policy. 13

Mead (2002): Jeffersonians  The Jeffersonian view, which says the United States government should not go hand-in-glove with corporations. That will undermine democracy. It'll get us involved with despots abroad. We'll be supporting evil dictators because some American corporation has economic interest that is advanced by this.  And, also, this is going to undermine democracy at home. So you look at somebody like Ralph Nader as a Jeffersonian, who sees the WTO as a corporate, big-government plot against democracy at home and democracy abroad.  Hamiltonian goal of a grand, global order gets us involved in conflicts with people overseas. We're involved in the Middle East, so people hate us in the Middle East, so they come and attack us as on September 11th. "If we'd never set foot in the Middle East, we wouldn't have these problems," say Jeffersonians. That's the logic of antiwar movements, and we've certainly seen a lot of Jeffersonian [values] over the generations. 14

Mead (2002): Wilsonians  Wilsonians hold the belief in the United Nations, international law. The United States should be pushing our values around the world and turning other countries into democracies whether they like it or not.  And the U.S. should also work multilaterally in institutions. We should be supporting things like the International Criminal Court, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  And we should not be unilateralist in our approach. We should put human rights ahead of trade, and so on. 15

Mead (2002): Jacksonians  When Andrew Jackson was a general in 1818, he was fighting a war against the Creek Indians in Georgia. Because Florida at the time was still under Spanish rule and there were two Englishmen in Florida selling arms to the Indians, who were then attacking U.S. forces in Georgia. Jackson took the U.S. Army across the international frontier into Spanish territory without any permissions (or any U.N. resolutions). He went in there, arrested the two Brits, brought them back to the United States, tried them before a military tribunal and hanged them. And this did cause outrage in Europe. They said "These people have no respect for international law." But it made Jackson so popular in the U.S. that his election to the presidency was just a matter of time after  On December 7th, 1941, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and suddenly the polls change. Jacksonians: when somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death. And Jacksonians, when it comes to war, don't believe in limited wars. They don't believe, particularly, in the laws of war. You don't worry about casualties on the other side. That's their problem. 16