AFTER THE COLD WAR: FROM GEOPOLITICS TO GEOECONOMICS
“MISSING” How accurate the factual detail? Role of Chilean military and/or Pinochet? Degree of U.S. complicity? Why so fearful the powerful? Could such a thing happen today? Why or why not? Where or where not?
REQUIRED READING Smith, Talons, chs. 9-10
AFTER THE COLD WAR: THE GLOBAL ARENA Collapse of the Soviet Union U.S. military primacy: the “unipolar moment” Economic multipolarity: Europe, Japan, others? Transnationalization and non-state actors A “third wave” of democratization?
ON “GLOBALIZATION” Factors: End of Cold War=reduction of political barriers Communication technologies Transnational enterprises: production chains and consumer markets Movement of people and goods, legal and illegal Features: Inexorability, inevitability Politics the result of economics Inclusion vs. exclusion? Claim: no ideology
THE 1990s: GEOECONOMICS AND “INTERMESTIC” ISSUES Ideological consensus (or “end of history”?) Implausibility of revolution Fragmentation of “Third World” The rise of “intermestic” issues: Free trade Drugs and drug “wars” Immigration
GEO-ECONOMICS: RULES OF THE GAME (i) 1. Presumably “peaceful” competition 2, Positive-sum, not zero- or negative-sum 3, Goal: increase or guarantee share of economic benefits—without destroying (or even defeating) rivals 4. Repeated iterations 5. Strategy: Maintenance of global “stability” 6. Tactic: formation of “open” blocs
RULES OF GAME (ii) Competitive arenas: State roles: Consumer markets, natural resources (energy, water, etc.) Technology Financial markets State roles: Direct participation Shaping of incentives Legitimacy on basis of “market discourse” Regional integration: Strong seek to perpetuate primacy Weak seek to avoid exclusion Thus asymmetrical bargaining Hub-and-spoke configurations