5 Written questions
5 Matching questions
- What does the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) require from its signatories?
- How does Liberalism reject the international view of Realism?
- What was the aftermath of the financial crisis?
- How about the Australia Group?
- How has the US discouraged Asia from achieving its own independent security measures?
- a Liberals think that realists have a stunted vision that cannot include improvements in relations between states. But, they argue that if we apply the principles of Liberalism, there a possible way out from the anarchic world.
- b a. It was established in 1984 in response to the production of chemical weapons (CW) during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran and Iraq had been able to run CW programs through foreign trade.
b. The Australia Group therefore makes sure that countries do not intentionally or inadvertently assist trading partners develop a CW program. Like the Zangger Committee, it uses a "trigger list" of 54 precursor chemicals related to CW, and which also would apply to biological weapons (BW).
c. It also serves as a forum for countries to discuss experiences in implementing and enforcing CBW export controls.
d. After 9/11, the Australia Group also added "catchall controls," which cover items not listed in the trigger lists. These "catchall controls" attempt to control intangible transfers of technology directed towards countries already in possession of a CW or BW program.
- c • doubts about the Asian model and the future
• strong securitization against globalization and a strong demand for a regional response
• revealed a contradiction between domestic political legitimacy, and global economic rules and norms that undermined distinctive national development projects
- d a. The CWC is in essence a call for the total disarmament of chemical weapons. It requires its signatories therefore to have eliminated all chemical weapons, and complete transparency regarding chemical weapons facilities, technologies, etc., within 10 years. Verification measures are also very severe, allowing inspectors much leeway in their intrusiveness, and allow short-notice inspections.
- e • balancing power falls to China alone thus little desire for security regimes such as ASEAN to play a more central role
• projects nuclear non-proliferation in a strong way
• cultivates Japan as a military dependant
• traditionally opposed Asian multilateral security initiatives.
5 Multiple choice questions
- --a) It started attacking the US as a force interfering with regionalism.
b) It started chastising Japan for its non-regionalist attitude (perhaps its encouragements of US presence in Asia)
c) It started combining the concepts of culture and security, particularly in contrast to globalization. The formula of Chinese thinking could be drawn up as regionalism vs. globalization (see the listed points on p.146) with the purpose of expelling globalization from the Asian model.
- -- Buck-passing is most attractive in a balanced multipolar system because, with roughly equal capabilities, each great power individually can hold off an aggressor, and is therefore capable of accepting the buck.
-- In an unbalanced system, when one state is markedly more powerful than its neighbours, those neighbours are too weak to accept the buck, so everyone will have a strong common interest in balancing against the powerful state.
- --Chinese writings about regionalism described a gradual process with signs of multipolarity and cultural heterogeneity under a framework of political deference to ASEAN.
- -- It is neither seen, nor attempts to portray itself, as a military power in Asia.
-- Its impace is more political and perhaps psychological; it is, after all, the worlds largest democracy and rivals China both in size and economic potential.
- Possibility of first strike might be reasonable sometimes.
No secure retaliatory arsenals, which are essential for retaliation.
Accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons, which might occur due to structural deficiencies.
5 True/False questions
What can be seen as the causes of the financial crisis? → -- Provides a framework for broader Northeast Asia multilateral cooperation in the future.
-- Most parties agree that a more formalized mechanism must evolve in order to implement the agreement, provide necessary security assurances, and monitor compliance, as well as facilitate whatever aid packages are associated with the final accord.
How does Karl address these pessimistic arguments? → • Whatever its operational feebleness as a regional security regime, ARF was a symbolically important move in tying together Northeast and Southeast Asia. However, because of ASEAN the ARF was much better at tying northern powers to SE Asia than the reverse
• cultivated new ideas of peace laid the framework for building a stronger regional security regime
What are the problems that pessimism has traditionally suffered from? → Deductive logic: History is used for illustration rather than theory building.
Ethnocentric bias: 3rd World country leaders are seen as less responsible and more prone to use nuclear weapons.
How does the US-Japan Alliance take part in the Japan-China security dilemma? → By basing themselves in Japan, and defending Japan from potential enemies, the Americans take away any justification for a re-armament of Japan. This prevents a security dilemma between Japan and China from spiralling out of control. However, by asking for a more active Japanese role in the Alliance, the Americans may actually cause instability.
What are NICs? How does Hyman make use of this concept? → Leaders who see their nations in starkly "us against them" terms are labelled "oppositional," in contrast to those "sportsmanlike" leaders who see the world in a less dichotomous light. Leaders who regard their nations as equal or superior to the external "other" are referred to as "nationalists," while those who have a lower regard for their nations' international standing are known as "subalterns." This matrix yields four ideal-type NICs: sportsmanlike nationalists, sportsmanlike subalterns, oppositional nationalists, and oppositional subalterns. Hymans makes use of this concept by arguing that irrational, emotional actors are responsible for the big decision of nuclear proliferation and other leader types are not predisposed to pursue nuclear weapons.