ESSENTIALS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Name: ESSENTIALS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Uploaded: 2017-07-13T05:37:05+00:00
Duration: PTM31S9
Channel: Austen Bridges
Description: ESSENTIALS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

ESSENTIALS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Chapter 8 War and Strife

War: The Data 14,500 armed struggles in history, depending on how we define war Approximately 3.5 billion deaths Since 1816, between 224 and 559 international and intrastate wars War incidence has declined after 1991. Number of battlefield deaths has declined by 80% since 1991.

Is War Inevitable? Realist Answers
War can be managed but never eliminated due to human nature. States exist in an anarchic system, with no overarching authority to provide security or settle disputes. States are thus insecure and must rely on self-help to find security. Insecurity can lead to the “security dilemma.”

Irony of the Security Dilemma
As one state seeks to ameliorate its insecurity, it seeks power. Once state A gains power, it inadvertently makes state B insecure. State B then seeks more power, which it might not have otherwise done. As state B gains power, state A again becomes insecure and seeks more power.

Irony of the Security Dilemma
RESULTS: Vicious circle of power accumulation Permanent condition of tension

Liberals: Is War Inevitable?
Anarchy is a structural restraint. States can learn to cooperate because of self-interest in the benefits of peace. International institutions act as cooperation enablers by reducing transition costs and increasing cheating costs—“cooperative competition.”

Liberals: Is War Inevitable?
Benefits of cooperation will push more states to become democratic. More liberal, democratic states = more peace

Radicals: Transcending War
Capitalism turns human nature toward greed and relentless, destructive competition. The state supports repressive forces of capitalism at the expense of the majority of people, both domestically and worldwide (imperialism). War will exist so long as capitalism exists. War can be eliminated through the triumph of socialism, which fosters sharing of resources and labor.

Constructivists: Reducing War
Threats are socially constructed. Implications of material objects are socialized as threatening. Different types of socialization can lead to different outcomes. Example: United Kingdom versus Iran owning nuclear weapons

Causes of War Individual Level of Analysis
Individual(s)—realists and liberals Personal characteristics of leaders Misperceptions Communications failures

Causes of War Individual Level of Analysis
Individual(s)—realists and liberals Characteristics of the masses St. Augustine—act of self-preservation Niebuhr—war is inherent to humans War as the unusual event

Causes of War State Level of Analysis
State and society—liberal and radical views Struggles over internal structures and characteristics of states cause war. Liberals—democracy restrains leaders, provides outlets for opposing viewpoints.

Causes of War State Level of Analysis
Disagreement about effect of capitalist structure Liberals say those states avert war, prefer trade. Radicals say this leads to competition among social groups, stagnation, collapse, or the search for external markets in diversionary war.

International System as the Cause of War
International system—realist and radical views Anarchy, no final arbiter of disputes System in state of nature (Hobbes) Realists—war is caused by states challenging international hierarchy due to Changing state capabilities Changing distribution of power among states

International System as the Cause of War
Radicals—dominant states need to expand, leading to war over resources.

Explaining Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait
Individual Level Saddam Hussein was insecure and ruthless, misinterpreted U.S. intentions, and miscalculated Saudi Arabia’s interests. State Level Iraq had historic claims on Kuwait and it was in Iraq’s national interest to seize Kuwaiti oil fields; authoritarian governments are more likely to choose war as the means to settle disputes.

Explaining Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait
International Level Iraq believed invasion would not invoke a response, UN Security Council lacked the cohesion to act, and Arab League would not condemn other Arab states’ actions.

In 2008, Russia increased its military presence in South Ossetia, where tensions with Georgia soon erupted into armed battle. AP Photo

War over South Ossetia, 2008 Individuals
Promises of Saakashvili election—sought to bolster Georgian pride Putin promised force and aggressive diplomacy State/Society: no democracy

War over South Ossetia, 2008 International
Russia sought to keep out competitors and maintain its position as the regional power. Georgia sought the greater power’s protection.

Categorizing Wars Interstate war—between states, as they have recognizable leadership and locations and formal militaries Intrastate/civil war—between factions within state over control of territory or institutions; many have international repercussions; can last decades; high human costs

Categorizing Wars Total war—massive loss of life, widespread destruction; many participants, including multiple powers; all available weapons utilized; civilians and military targeted Limited war—may be limited by goals pursued, type of weapons used, amount of resources used; targets

From the perspective of the U. S
From the perspective of the U.S.-led NATO forces, the war in Afghanistan has been a limited war in which these states have not committed their entire armed forces to the conflict. Nonetheless, for many Afghan citizens, the fighting has been devastating. Thomas Grabka/laif/Redux

The total civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo turned into an interstate war as neighboring states were drawn into the conflict after it began in Images of child solders and human rights abuses have captured international attention, but UN peacekeeping forces have been unable to end the fighting. AP Photo

Explaining the Decline of Total War
Memories of World War II Nuclear war too costly Development of security communities Realists: rise of U.S. hegemony Liberals: democratic peace, economic interdependence, international organizations Constructivists: people socialized into attitudes, values, and beliefs in peace

How Wars Are Fought Conventional warfare—weapons can be limited in time and space; precise targeting; easily available Problems: chemical weapons; indiscriminate Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—nuclear, chemical, biological Problems: radiation, indiscriminate

How Wars Are Fought Unconventional warfare—ignores conventions of war
Guerilla warfare, revolutionary guerilla warfare, asymmetric conflicts, terrorism

Going Nuclear: The View from Iran
Iran has an “inalienable right” to develop nuclear energy technology for peaceful purposes via Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Oil and gas will run out and refining capacity is very limited; thus, an alternative energy source is needed. But Iran’s legitimate security threats from neighboring countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel) plus fear of U.S. invasion may push nuclear development.

Going Nuclear: The View from Iran
Iran’s decision was propelled by U.S. invasion of Iraq and its identification of Iran as part of “axis of evil,” even after post-9/11 intelligence information suggested otherwise. Based on historic U.S. interference in Iran’s domestic politics, the population supports government policy.

SIPA/Newscom

Asymmetric Conflicts: Battle Tactics
Asymmetric warfare—between parties of unequal strength; weaker party seeks to neutralize opponent strengths by exploiting weaknesses Guerilla war—a “small war” often inspired by nationalism Revolutionary guerilla war—defeat technologically superior and well-equipped foe by exploiting weaknesses; civilians protect guerillas; traditional warfare concepts eliminated; win hearts and minds of the people

Terrorism as Asymmetric Warfare
Elements of terrorism Act is political by nature or intent Committed by non-state actors Combatant or non-combatant targets Use unconventional means at unpredictable places and intervals

Terrorism as Asymmetric Warfare
Motivated by political, religious, or economic goals Seek to instill fear to attain goals

In 2004, terrorists associated with Al Qaeda detonated bombs on commuter trains in Madrid, killing 191 people and wounding hundreds, if not thousands. Terrorism has a long history, but in the past decade attacks have become more lethal. AP Photo

Terrorism’s Transformation since the 1990s
Attacks have become more lethal. Choice of weapons has become more diverse. More efficient infrastructure for terrorist networks Example: electronic money laundering; funding via illegal activities; Internet recruiting

Terrorism’s Transformation since the 1990s
Wider range of groups: nationalist, radical religious, neo-Nazi, left-wing and right-wing State sponsors, such as Cuba, Iran, North Korea

Responses to Terrorism
International level: conclusion of 12 conventions designed to punish hijackers; protect infrastructure, diplomats, and nuclear materials; and block financial transfers State level: information sharing among states; monitoring of financial flows; USA PATRIOT Act

Just War Tradition— Jus ad Bellum
Just conditions for going into war Just cause: self-defense; defense of others; massive violation of human rights Declaration of intent by appropriate authority Have intentions of ending abuses and establishing a just peace

Just conditions for going into war Must have exhausted all other alternatives Forces must be removed quickly after objectives are achieved.

Just conduct in war Distinguish between combatants and noncombatants Noncombatants protected from harm Violence proportionate to ends Undue human suffering avoided Individual responsibility for actions taken

Banning Landmines— Evolution of Norms
International campaign began in 1992 Spearheaded by non-governmental organizations (NGOs); coordinator was Jody Williams Argued weapons are indiscriminate and have an unfair destructive impact on innocent noncombatants From arms control issue to human rights issue Constructivists: demonstrates impact of norms and socialization in altering behavior of state and nonstate actors

Key Questions about Humanitarian Intervention
How massive do human rights abuses have to be before intervention is just? Who decides when a humanitarian intervention is necessary? The United Nations? A coalition within the region? Any powerful state? Is the humanitarian intervention occurring for legitimate reasons or as an excuse to achieve other objectives?

Key Questions about Humanitarian Intervention
Do states have a responsibility to protect (R2P)? How can some interventions be justified while other situations cannot?

Can Military Intervention Stop Genocide?
YES—Genocide Convention approves state action Force is the sufficiently fast response Warns others Coupled with humanitarian aid, most effective

Can Military Intervention Stop Genocide?
NO—Rarely involve state’s national interests Complex organization, costly Can be misinterpreted as neocolonialism Nearby countries better informed but unprepared Not effective deterrent, nonmilitary aid more effective over long term

Realist Approaches 1: Managing Insecurity
Balance of Power—states, as rational actors, make decisions to increase their own capabilities and undermine those of others Use of alliances to balance power both internationally and regionally (external balancing) Increase military and economic capabilities to counter potential threats (internal balancing)

Realist Approaches 1: Managing Insecurity
Balance of Power Emphasis on relative versus absolute gains Most important technique for realists

Approaches to Managing Insecurity

Problems of Managing Insecurity with Balance of Power
The balance of power favors the status quo. When fundamental change occurs, the appropriate response may provide balance. When power transitions are occurring, balance of power is problematic.

Realists believe that balancing power is the most important way to manage insecurity. During the Cold War, the NATO and Warsaw Pact alliances maintained a balance of power. With the end of the Cold War, NATO has taken on new functions. Oliver Hoslet/epa/Corbis

Changes in NATO with Decline of the Soviet Threat
Increase in membership to 28 states 2009: Croatia, Albania Enhance operational capabilities with new technology Create a rapid reaction force for crises Diversify tasks Engage in out-of-area operations

NATO’s Successful Transformation
Realists—achieved relative gains over Russia and increased Western security Liberals—strengthened democracy in post- communist states; institutional membership increased security, improved economic and diplomatic cooperation, and opened the door to other institutions; institutionalized dialogue with Russia Constructivists—confirmed independent identity of post-communist states; shows acceptance of, and means to, further norms

Realist Approaches 2: Managing Insecurity through Deterrence
Goal Prevent the outbreak of war by credible a threat of the use of force. Assumptions Decision makers are rational. The threat of destruction from nuclear warfare is too great. Alternatives to war are available.

Deterrence in Practice
States must build arsenals for a credible threat. If an alliance, such as NATO, is part of that threat, the alliance must prove its cohesion. Information about the threat must be communicated. Leaders must be able to make rational decisions.

Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century
The rise of nonstate actors decreases the possibility that deterrence will work. Nonstate actors do not hold territory, so a threat to destroy territory is not effective. The presence of flexible, geographically spread groups makes eliminating networks difficult.

Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century
Willingness to use suicide terrorism undermines deterrence logic U.S. nuclear primacy may mean deterrence against the United States is impossible.

Liberals Managing Security 1: Collective Security
Assumptions of Collective Security Wars are caused by aggressive states. Aggressors must be stopped. Aggressors are easily identified. Aggressors are always morally wrong. Aggressors know ahead of time that the international community will act against them.

Weakness of Collective Security in Practice
There is lack of commitment by some nations to act in concert. Never works against permanent members of UN Security Council due to veto power Difficulty of identifying aggressor It’s difficult to determine whether the aggressor is always wrong.

Arms Control and Disarmament
Assumptions Fewer weapons means greater security. Regulate arms proliferation (arms control) or reduce amount of arms and types of weapons (disarmament) Costs of security dilemma are reduced. Major agreements include bilateral, regional, and global treaties covering conventional, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT )
Signed in 1968; in force since 1970;189 signatories States without nuclear weapons agree not to acquire or develop them. States with nuclear weapons promise not to transfer technology to non-nuclear states and to eventually dismantle their own. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is “guardian” of the NPT, by means such as inspection teams and information gathering.

Limitations of NPT Nuclear states outside the treaty
Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan Inspections by IAEA can be difficult to conduct and inspectors have been asked to leave. States can pull out of the treaty: North Korea Liberals acknowledge complete disarmament of all types of weapons is unlikely (due to cheaters), but pursue incremental disarmament.

Challenges to State-Centered View of Security
More intrastate violence and advancing technology means that contain war are becoming less likely. Role of more private actors Piracy Outsourcing security tasks to private companies “Soldier-employees” do not always have national ties to “state-employer.”

Private security contractors, such as these Blackwell employees, were hired by the U.S. government to perform various tasks in the 2003 Iraq war and its aftermath. These tasks included protecting high-profile officials, transporting troops and materials, and engaging in occasional combat operations. The role of private contractors in international security raises numerous questions about lines of authority and responsibility. Ali Haider/epa/Corbis

Rethinking Security Are we moving from state (national security) to human security? Human security includes Economic and social well-being Literacy Adequate health care Clean environment General personal safety

German warship, Germany's naval building program in the early 1900s did much to hasten World War I. But was it intended to intimidate Britain, advance a German colonial project, merely accessorize Germany's rising power, or resolve a looming social conflict between aristocratic and middle classes in Germany? Hulton Archive/Getty Images

The "Long Tom" gun at Mafeking during the Boer War
The "Long Tom" gun at Mafeking during the Boer War. The twin discoveries of diamonds and gold in the tiny Boer republics of Orange Free State and Transvaal in the late nineteenth century formed the basis of J. A. Hobson's theory that capitalism was responsible for this disastrous colonial war. Reinhold Thiele/Getty Images

Georgian tanks in a convoy during the Russian-Georgian conflict in Russian Federation foreign policy has been clearly revealed in a series of interventions—most not involving armed conflict—intended to keep former Soviet republics weak. This policy can be explained either by reference to the many times, historically, Russia has been invaded or by a long-standing Russian cultural tendency to confuse being menacing with being powerful. Vano Shlamov/AFP/Getty Images

A group of marines in Korea struggle down a road, carrying a helpless patient, to be evacuated by U.S. planes in The Korean Conflict counts as a turning point in the history of contemporary warfare, because of the hesitancy of either side to escalate the fight to the point of achieving a traditional victory. Each side feared an escalation that might cross the nuclear threshold and lead to uncontrollable destruction and a third world war. The three-year fight was nevertheless extremely costly in terms of lives. Thus, "limited" refers to aims and means more than costs and casualties. Hulton-Deutsch Collection/Corbis

Civil wars were once thought to be less destructive than interstate wars, but wars such as the one that has raged for years in the Democratic Republic of Congo have shown themselves to be extremely costly in terms of human lives (both quantity and quality). Here, Congolese soldiers board a UN convoy truck in November 2008. STR/Reuters/Corbis

Bulletin of the French Federation of the Algerian Communist Party proclaiming Algeria's independence, Algeria won independence from a relatively wealthy and technologically sophisticated France. Ominously, resistance to France mixed nationalist and religious motivations, forcing the French into a choice between a never-ending conflict and withdrawal. Photos 12/Alamy