Moser/McDonald Exam 2 Gov 312
Terms in this set (77)
How did a global conflict originating in Europe help bring about the American state and how did the 7 years war bring this about?
- Britains inability to properly fund their armies and defend their colonies is what caused America's Independence
- The 7 years war put BR in debt and to pay this debt BR tried to raise taxes, and this strained their relationship with their colonies
- This incentivized local rebellion
- Also colonist began to look to the west fornew land and required more troops.
2. How did France help to secure independence for the American colonies from Great Britain?
- They provided them with the money, weapons, and training necessary for them to fight the British
What role did the Declaration of Independence play in signaling to France that the American colonies were worth supporting in its drive for independence?
- The declaration of independence signaled that. the Americans were ready to burn their bridges with the English
- If the Americans were flaky they could just return to the BR and hurt the FR
- Committed the US to a deal with FR neither party would agree to a separate peace deal with the BR and each would gain BR territories
How did the Articles of Confederation and its concentration of power in the states shape American foreign policy?
- The loose unions led to internal weakness within their military and politics
- There could be another EU war because of conflict between states
- Foreign concerns led to the ratification of a treaty
- States could side and conspire with foreign enemies
Ex: BR raising tariffs on certain states
- John Jay in the Federalist papers warned of this problem
- Inability to call an army, tariff policy, and taxation caused problems that eventually led to the constitution.
How did war and the anticipation of war in Europe lead to constructing a constitution with a stronger national government capable of reining in state powers?
- They needed to bind the states together so they could do so with the constitution
- If there was a loose union or constitution they wold not be able to enforce foreign treaties on states that resist.
- JJ was worried state rivalries would invite EU countries to come in and interfere in US by taking sides against other states
How did Washington's Farewell Address set a precedent of isolationism for the United States? What was Washington's fear regarding international cleavages and American domestic politics?
- Washington feared that US participation could cause the US to over-exert their current abilities
- Focus inward on building strength
How did the threat posed by Napoleon influence the development of the United States (both through the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812)?
- The US took a more isolationist approach because of the wars in England
- Jefferson also wanted to limit the power of the Federal government.
- There was a shift in national security strategy to one of peace and neutrality (Isolationism)
- They focused on the economy and commercial expansion.
- Jefferson wanted to expand agriculture in the US
- The Louisiana purchase provided that
- Because of trade the US eventually enters into the Napoleonic war and things don't o well. Luckily because of complications in EU the treaty of Ghent restores things to their original status
What were the main principles of the Monroe Doctrine? Why did the U.S. assert such an ambitious foreign policy statement at this time? What was Great Britain's role in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine?
- The main principle was to declare that the western hemisphere was closed to new EU expansion
- One could keep old colonies but not gain new ones
- US did this because of LA countries independance movements could have been a problem for the US and EU movements against democracies.
- US utilized the BR navy to enforce
What were some of the political goals motivating Russian interference in the 2016 elections?
- The goals were:
1. Delegitimizing the American system of governance.
2. Stoke domestic political conflict along racial, partisan, religious, and regional lines
3. Undermine Clinton candidacy and her legitimacy in office (if she would have won)
4. Support Trump (also by attacking Rubio and Cruz)
Clinton presidency viewed as continuation of Obama presidency.
5. Obama hurt Russian economy with NATO negotiations and economic sanctions. Trump seemed more favorable towards economic rapport.
How did this cyber campaign exploit social networking sites to try to influence the election?
1. Created social media accounts to looks like American ones
2. Organize campaign rallies
Drive traffic to anti-Clinton websites
3. Identity theft to hack org. controlled social media websites
How did Western expansion in the mid-1800s contribute to the emergence of the United States as a global power? What forces promoted American expansionism in the middle of the 19th century?
- Manifest destiny the US annexed a lot of land throughout the 1840's and this provided the US with natural resources and a basis for growth
- New land provided economic opportunities which helped to keep the peace
- New Technologies such as the railroad lessened the cost of doing commerce.
- Their Ideological foundation of an ordained expansion also helped push expansion.
What made the American Civil War an international event? What differentiated Union diplomacy from Confederate diplomacy?
- It was important as the world was watching if democracies were able to really work
- Many countries declared neutrality because they could potentially shift the balance of who would be the person to win.
- SU and BR could not support the south as they had just abolished slavery
- Unions industry was more valuable to EU than Confederate at the time.
- BR had good stocks of cotton which was a confederate bargaining chi[
According to Fareed Zakaria (covered in lecture), why was America slow in expanding from a continental power to a global power?
- America was slow to expand because of the institutional consequences of civil war
- US was going through a re-construction period
- US was in debt because if war
- Economic state was small and the Gov. was fragile
According to Walter LaFeber and the Wisconsin School (covered in lecture), how did crucial business interests and the need for foreign markets contribute to the timing of American expansion in the 1890s?
- Shows how industrialization made the US act like many other powers because of deflation
- Over production caused America to look for different trade partners
How did the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip lead to the outbreak of World War I? What role did the threat of nationalist uprisings in the Austro-Hungarian empire play?
- Austria-Hungary went to war with Serbia because their nationalists movements threatened them and several small parts of the country might secede if they saw that the Serbians were able to Secede
- Russia called up troops so then Germany called troops on FR who then captures Paris and occupies Belgium who calls in BR who support FR and Belgium
Why did the United States enter World War I and what impact did its entrance have?
- They loaned money to Great Britain and also wanted to help shape the terms of peace.
- The thing that caused the US to enter WW1 was when Germany decided to use submarine warfare
-The US enters because of the provocation of the US because of the targeting of US trade. The arrival of US troops, American credit, and power makes the Germans stop fighting and opt for peace after the failure of their spring offensive
How did the outbreak of World War I illustrate the commitment problem?
- If Bosnian-Serbia was able to secede then Austria Hungary feared that parts of its own country could garner support from Bosnia Serbia.
- With the fear of secession, Austria-Hungary felt the need to take up arms to prove dominance while they still had great power.
. How did the Versailles Treaty, particularly the harsh terms imposed on Germany, contribute to World War II?
- The Versaille Treaty devastated the country of Germany; crashed the economy, starved the civilians it left people vulnerable to put their belief in anyone/thing that would promise better
- Easy for Hitler to rise to power; he gave civilians a group of people to blame for their troubles (Jews)
- Reparations & territorial clauses helped to destabilize the new Weimar democracy in Germany.
- Treaty causes a legally binding of the US Military force to the league of nations, which in turn surrenders congress' power to declare war (which they obviously don't want to give up their war declaration to the League of Nations). This began the US' road to isolationism.
How did American capital play an important role in keeping the reparations system afloat and the withdrawal of American capital contribute to the end of German reparation payments?
- Germans taking out loans from the US propped up the reparations system. Increases in American tariffs made it difficult for Germany to generate export revenues and to repay loans.
- Finally in 1928, as monetary policy tightens, America halted loans to Germany.
This ended the loop that was occurring, a system propelled and kept alive by the lifeblood of American capital.
- America would make loans to Germany, who would then in turn pays reparations to Britain, France, and Belgium, who would then in turn use those reparations to repay debts to American banks.
Thus, when American capital stopped flowing to Germany in 1928, the reparation deal quickly started to collapse, and the Versailles Treaty began to erode.
How did American policies contribute to the Great Depression? What were the political consequences of the Great Depression and how did they contribute to World War II?
- The Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy and pushed up interest rates on loans in 1928 because they felt stocks on Wall Street were accelerating too rapidly
- Another effect of this tighter policy was to halt loans to Germany. Also while the US was still lending to Germany the interest rate increase caused German banks to also have to hike up their prices.
- Hoover adopts Smoot-Hawley tariff increases in 1929, which impose new tariffs and trade barriers on Europe.
- Europe responds by imposing their own tariffs on American goods which in turn ushered in the collapse of global trade.
- FDR also takes the U.S. off Gold Standard in 1933 which fostered some of the inflation that caused the Great Depression.
- Nazi party gained power through democratic election based on economic policy. Hitler rose to power. He stopped reparation payments and used rearmament to fuel economy.
How did FDR get around an isolationist Congress and support the Allied powers (particularly the British war effort) against Germany?
- 1939: Congress repeals arms embargo of Neutrality Act("cash and carry")
- 1940: Destroyers for naval bases deal with the british by executive order (US didn't even need those bases)
- 1941: US Navy patrolling Atlantic and skirmishes with Germans(submarines),
- March 1941: Lend-Lease Act which gave FDR more authority to go around congress and supply arms to/finance Britain(gave $50billion to the allies). Also, He eased the population into it, really starting with the violence of Japanese against the US. He used executive maneuvers to go around the public/senate until Pearl Harbor, when public opinion changed
Why did wartime cooperation between the United States and Soviet Union so quickly collapse after World War II?
- A difference in goals as well as suspicion. U.S. goals were universal and ambiguous: maintain U.S. international engagement(liberal internationalist),
- promote democracy (free, fair elections), promote capitalism, and promote the United Nations and Collective Security through multilateralism.
- Soviet goals were concrete and territorial: Buffer zones, the sphere of influence. Stalin: "Whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system"
- There is also a history of mistrust and the paranoia of stalin
How did the outbreak of World War II illustrate the logic of the commitment problem?
- Because Germany could not commit to the terms of the agreement for the long term it seems that after World War 1 happened Germany just bided it's time and built up strength so that it would be able to demand more concessions.
- Therefore instead of going to war one time the world powers had to have 2 world wars. Germany was not better off in the future to committing to peace in the present because Germany did not have the capital to support their peoples and pay back loans.
- Because Germany knew that they would have to go back on their agreement it did not make sense for them to commit to peace at that time.
What does American strategic retrenchment in the interwar period suggest about the risks associated with an American pullback during the contemporary period?
- We can conclude that isolationism and retreating (retrenchment) from global conflicts only exacerbates the problems in the future
- As a great power, the US has a responsibility to maintain peace where it is able. If the US had not pulled out of Europe during the 1920's, Hitler may never have risen to power.
- While it made sense in the short run, this obviously had profound consequences in the long run.
- Pull back creates vacuum that creates military contest about who controls regions in the world. In 1920's it was in Europe, today this can be seen in East Asia.
- Same thing could happen in Syria if US pulls backs; who gets territory? Could give influence to Russia.
Describe the strategic and political considerations associated with the current conflicts over Afrin and Eastern Ghouta in the Syrian War. Who are the major participants in these regions and what are their political and military interests
- Afrin is a region that is conflicted between the YPG and the Turkish government.
- The US backs the YPG kurds to maintain their territory in Afrin, yet US allies, Turkey, has tried to push into the region, concluding that the YPG is linked with Kurdish terrorist groups in Turkey.
- The conflict in Eastern Ghouta is between the Syrian rebels and the Assad regime.
- Ghouta was the last place near the capital, Damascus, that was controlled by the rebels, and on February 19, Assad launched a bombing campaign on the city.
- This killed around 500 people and displaced many.
- Putin, who supports Assad, agreed to a 5 hour ceasefire to allow civilians to leave Ghouta. This was done after many attempts by the UN Security Council to pass for a ceasefire. The Russians kept delaying the council meetings so that they could continue to assist Assad with his chemical warfare and bombing over Ghouta.
9. How might Congress limit or constrain American military efforts in the Syrian War? What are the challenges associated with relying on the 2001 AUMF as the legal/constitutional foundation for the continuation of US troop deployments in Syria?
- Because ISIS has reportedly been defeated, the president can no longer justify keeping troops in the area based on the AUMF. Trump keeps troops there to deter Iranian intervention in the area, but not to defeat ISIS. While this may be just cause, it would require direct Congress approval. It is up to congress, therefore, to make this decision, but they are generally unwilling to sanction long term acts of war.
How did George Kennan view the Soviet threat? How did Kennan's definition of the Soviet threat naturally give rise to the containment strategy?
- Kennan viewed the Soviet threat as persistently antagonistic towards US and its allies, characterized the soviet threat which defined the mission of containment
The soviet threat was based on Marxist ideology and dictatorship.
- He believed that their need for an external enemy would always cause problems it was a part of their "DNA". The soviet threat was not actively aggressive (did not want war).
- They believed that they were on the right side of history and therefore were willing to be patient or temporarily retreat ("expansionary but cautious").
1) Demonized US
2) Provided Soviet leaders patience.
They behaved this way due to Marxist ideology and the belief that capitalism will inevitably fail due to gross inequality.
- Must wear the soviet threat down.
What were the causes and implications of the Truman Doctrine?
- The Truman Doctrine was a piece of US foreign policy that set a precedent for the rest of the Cold War. The Truman Doctrine argued that the US needed to be the indispensable nation to fill the power vacuum caused by the diminished power of the UK, the Truman Doctrine established anti-communism as the basis of US foreign policy, established US global leadership, set a precedent of US intervention in domestic conflicts
- Domino theory stated that when one state falls to communism, those around it are more likely to fall as well. This was an important justification for the Vietnam and Korean War, as it necessitated that the US intervene lest the global tide would begin to turn in communism's favor. The Truman Doctrine was caused by UK's diminished power in Greece, the threat of communism in Greece acting as a domino and spreading throughout Europe.
- The implications of the Truman Doctrine were that the US had to intervene and support governments trying to resist communism, established the US as the indispensable nation (had to get involved in foreign conflicts - could not be isolationist), and created the philosophical grounds for later intervention in Vietnam and Korea.
Why did the United States adopt the Marshall Plan? What were the policies goals and how did the policy play to American strengths and contribute to American prosperity? What other early Cold War crises led to a militarization of containment?
It connected security and economics. It gave economic aid to countries in need abroad, in order to curb countries away from radical governments. Built on US Power and tied the countries to the US dominated global market, allowing them to be export partners. Although it offered aid to Soviets, they saw it as an extension of imperialism as there were costs to economic aid - "sovereignty and independence"
The Marshall Plan was also called the European Recovery Program (ERP)
Other early Cold War crises that led to the militarization of containment:
The Czechoslovakian government wanted to participate in the Marshall Plan, but the Soviet Union would not allow it and thus engineered a coup. (a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.)
The Berlin Blockade: soviet union blocks the canals, railways, and roads that the western allies used to access the parts of Berlin that they took control of after WWII
Through well-placed spies within the Manhattan Project, Stalin managed to develop his own atomic bomb, taking away the U.S. monopoly over nuclear weapons.
China transforms into the world's most populous communist state.
The Korean War
What is the German security problem? What was the American solution to this problem? What was the Soviet solution? How was the German problem aggravated by Eisenhower's willingness to rearm Germany, potentially with nuclear weapons? Why was Berlin such an important signal of American commitment to protect Western Europe from Soviet aggression?
- Because of Germany's location, it is threatened and threatening, and challenges stability. It has a temptation to claim buffer states.
- US solution: partition and democratize Germany, and integrate it economically and militarily in western alliance. It tested US's commitment to Europe
- USSR solution: occupy and communize E. Germany. Integrate it economically and militarily in soviet-led bloc
Eisenhower knew the American public would not support a long term economic commitment to fighting off communism abroad, and thus, wanted to have a more multilateral approach.
- This included arming Germany with nuclear weapons, which the Soviet Union did not agree with and thus lead to the Cold War to "heat up" in 1958-1963.
German Empire emerged in late 19th century under Bismarck. Before this, Germany was broken up into many fragmented states; this was the consolidation of economic, political, and military power in central Europe.
Berlin provided proof that US support might facilitate recovery faster. If US conceded west Berlin to SU, Soviets might doubt US commitment to France, Belgium, etc., and might consider invading those countries; West Europeans might also doubt US and cut a side deal with the SU to remove them from a fight and assert their neutrality.
5. Why was containment so much more difficult in the Third World than it was in Europe?
- More connections to the western world
- Imperialism and colonialism marred the third world
- Did not have set in place compatible institutions
- The threat seemed closer in Europe as European countries were closer than the 3rd world
- Their cost of war could be extremely high because they were defending their homeland in comparison to the Americans
- Communism was also tied to independence movements
What is the case for an important role of Reagan's foreign policy in the end of the Cold War? How did the foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union differ in Reagan's first term and his second term?
- The case is that Reagan's foreign policy put pressure on the Soviet Union and that eventually ended the Cold War; Conservatives and Republicans would most likely agree with this.
- Reagan Foreign Policy I-Confrontation: rhetoric(renewed confrontation, "evil empire" speech); arms buildup (missile defense);
- Strategic Defense Initiative; The Reagan Doctrine: In his 1985 state of the union address, President Reagan pledged his support for anti-Communist revolutions in what would become known as the "Reagan Doctrine." In Afghanistan, the United States was already providing aid to anti-Soviet freedom fighters, ultimately, helping to force Soviet troops to withdraw.
- Reagan Foreign Policy II-Negotiation: cooling the rhetoric, embracing Soviet Reform; arms control
7. How did Gorbachev's foreign policy (his "New Thinking") differ from classic Soviet foreign policy? How did Gorbachev's refusal to use force to sustain communist rule in Eastern Europe contribute to the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union
- Gorbachev essentially ended Cold War by being the crucial "first mover," by initiating negotiations. He emphasized the mutual and collective security of global countries and universal values, enabling and accelerating the collapse of communism.
- Many say he was true source of changes, he incorporated "new thinking"- less hostility and aggression. He ended hegemony in
- E-Europe (Brezhnev Doctrine),
The Sinatra Doctrine: the Sinatra Doctrine was a doctrine established by Gorbachev that allowed states of the Warsaw Pact to deal with their own affairs themselves; named after Sinatra's song "My Way" to tell the Warsaw states to go their own way (self - determination) - contributing to the accelerating collapse of communism -> loss of empire and prestige
Glasnost: Slogan used by Gorbachev- meaning increased transparency of gov. remove threat of force (embolden reformists to accelerate USSR decline)
Collapse of regimes one after another - lose USSR legitimacy and allow reformists to have a road map
What is politics? What are the two central components of this definition?
- The use of authority to allocate scarce resources, means of coordinating social behavior
- authority: capacity to direct, using coercion and the presence of legitimate authority
- allocation: competition over scarce resources
- Scarcity: Everyone's demands for a certain resource cannot be satisfied and the conflict is over which groups have their needs met. Politics is about mediating who will get these resources
How does violence shape political order? Give an example of how the use of coercion by a legitimate authority helps to establish political order.
- Authority is only given to those whose powers is legitimate.
- It is seen that violence is often necessary for the enforcement of directives.
- Ex: McDonald stealing lunch money extorting money from children is not legitimate
- Ex: The police on 6th enforce the law and act as an Authority to promote commerce and protect people. If the Police were not there as a threat of physical force or a way to stop people from fighting people would bring guns and therefore 6th street would really dangerous and so then only people with guns would come through and businesses would lose money.
What is coercion dilemma? How does this same dilemma frame the problem of war and political order in the international order?
- Any government that is strong enough to create order can also create predation(forcible redistribution of resources, the political equivalent of armed robbery by some political organization).
- Furthermore, any government that over-uses force to establish political order risks the legitimacy of its authority over the people that it governs.
- Remember, Politics is a use of authority to allocate scarce resources, but that authority must be legitimate.
- Successful societies over the long run has solved this problem more or less via democracy in most cases.
What is stopping the strong leaders from using military to get whatever they want and retract on their promises, people would be too weak to stop them
- The system of democracy domestically, and the alliance organizations (NATO) abroad
Answer: well a government doesn't just wanna force its citizens to do its will. That would either cause domestic revolution or even an independent state to intervene.
According to Ikenberry (cited in lecture), why was the 2003 invasion of Iraq so problematic for the constraint of U.S. military power?
- It was problematic because the US entered Iraq without support of the allies or the UN, with Turkey even actively blocking US military advancement in the region .
So Ikenberry then argues that as the U.S failed to observe their self imposed limits (i.e. democracy, international organizations), their decision to use military force in Iraq could then threaten to unwind the larger political order of the Middle East. People argued whether the US military was sufficiently constrained or whether US was embarking on a broader political program of expansion in the Middle East.
What are some of the primary characteristics of a war?
War is a military contest among competing organizations; act of war is political act
It is the use of violence to secure political concessions or disarm adversary; Clausewitz says that violence is instrumental in that is the means to a larger political end
Just War Theory -
-Just cause- most commonly self-defense
- Armed conflict must be the last resort
- Undertaken by legitimate authority (states)
- Requires the right intention (similar to the first one). Just war must not be motivated by aggression, revenge, or acquisition of territory or some other material gain.
- Reasonable chance for success (not suicidal)
- Proportionality- anticipated benefits after engaging in war must be proportional to the anticipated harm that will be caused by that war.
jus in bello (a just conduct):
- Discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. Not permissible to kill intentionally those not engaged in fighting
- Proportionality (like jus ad bellum)- the amount of force used during a war should be proportional to the ends of the war. Unnecessary violence should be avoided (no harm to innocent children and women).
jus post bellum (a just aftermath)
- Jus post bellum (a just aftermath)- produces an acceptable aftermath for the defeated parties. The victors should not have free reign to do whatever they want with the defeated.
- A goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. Same principles as before are required here: such as discrimination and proportionality
Are combatants' actions in carrying out the war justified, so long as they adhere to jus in bello principles?
- In other words, is it ethically permissible for soldiers to kill combatants trying to defend themselves and others from unjust aggression, so long as they have received the orders from proper authorities and only attack those in uniform? (e.g. soldiers fighting for Nazi aggressors)
- One of the problems in sorting out the ethics of war is establishing individual moral responsibility. Who is morally responsible for action during war time? States or individuals/soldiers? What about the citizens in a democracy?
- The morality of the individual soldier is brought up when thinking about the causes of war and their responsibilities going forward. If a war is declared by a state on unjust terms, the soldier must still follow their responsibility to serve the state, and will thus have to carry out unjust fighting for an unjust cause, even if they are aware it is unjust (it may go against obvious moral logic).
How did NATO expansion contribute to the deterioration of relations between Russia and the United States?
NATO expansion imposed on Russia because they had less territory between them and the European Allies. Ukraine, a buffer state, tried to join the European Union, but Russia wanted to maintain influence over Ukraine to keep a buffer region between Russia and western Europe. Russia is resentful of the U.S. for expanding NATO because they felt the U.S. violated agreements made after the Cold War.
How did NATO expansion contribute to the deterioration of relations between Russia and the United States?
- NATO expansion imposed on Russia because they had less territory between them and the European Allies.
- Ukraine, a buffer state, tried to join the European Union, but Russia wanted to maintain influence over Ukraine to keep a buffer region between - Russia and western Europe. Russia is resentful of the U.S. for expanding NATO because they felt the U.S. violated agreements made after the Cold War.
What role did Ukraine and the Ukrainian independence movement play in the collapse of the Soviet Union?
ukraine=unique role and eventually lead to ukraine civil war
Ukrainian voters wanted independence in every region pushing president to withdraw from soviet union
Unions treaty designed to conserve policies across regions who withdrew
Agree to form territory boundaries and nuclear weapons given up
. Describe some of the conditions that led to the outbreak of the Ukrainian civil war in 2014.
Ukraine's movement towards European Union was an important trigger
Ukraine was traditionally within Russia's sphere of influence
What are some of the economic consequences associated with new tariffs on aluminum and steel? How might other countries respond? What role do national security considerations play in the proposed tariffs on aluminum and steel?
Tariffs will raise the prices of alum. and steel in the US for consumers for automobile, aerospace industries and reduce American jobs in those industries
Allied countries like Canada, who is the US's biggest trading partner, will be hurt
benefits China, who is not an ally of the US
Tariffs cut off US imports and can start a trade war, other countries raise tariffs on their products and make US imports more expensive as well
Legal authority: can impose new tariffs to protect industries essential for national security
How do great powers structure international politics after great power wars like World War I and World War II? Describe the main changes in the international system that occur in the aftermath of these wars and the peace settlement that follows.
- Define political membership of international systems and redraw territorial boundaries (statehood and sovereignty): ex, 1919 and 1991 new E Europe layout
- Shape regime type power: ex promotion of democracy after WW1
Influence distribution of military: ex restrictions on German military after WW1
Collective security organizations that could enforce the status quo: ex NATO, League of Nations
Define property rights among powers: ex, Putin salty as a response to territory layout of Europe
What were the main pillars of the peace settlement after World War I? How did President Woodrow Wilson influence the international system in 1919?
- They took land from germany, and - promoted democracy in the ceded areas; military restrictions and reparations for Germany
- Woodrow Wilson championed self-determination, the idea that people should be able to determine their own political fate, which meant setting up their own institutions of governance.
- Wilson also helped to spawn new support for democracy promotion by the US.
- US helped to create a precedence for the creation of international organizations, like the League of Nations and UN for collective security.
What were the main elements of the peace settlement after World War II and how did the United States influence the political order after 1945?
- Democratic promotion (Marshall plan)
- Germany and Japan rebuilding with western Ideals
- There was a new international promotion of globalization
wanted to avoid political vacuum
Wanted to move away from war and focus on agreements and diplomacy
- UN and NATO- would act quickly and with diplomacy and monitor in case something like nazi germany sprung up again
- The post-1945 settlement was different from post-1919 settlement because the victors took much more care in constructing an international economic settlement that supported their broader political goals: International
- Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), GATT (which became the World Trade Organization)- supported global economy to deter states from being poor and resorting to Communism.
How was the Cold War similar to a great power conflict and how did the end of the Cold War resemble a peace settlement following a great power war?
- The Cold War was NOT a great power war.
- Unlike hot wars of WWI and WWII, which witnessed direct military conflict between the great powers at the time,
- the Cold War did not experience any significant direct military conflict between US and Soviet Union.
- The end of the Cold War also resembled the end of other great power conflicts. Same type of changes occurred occurred after WWI and WWII.
- It ended with:
Map Change: Russia and Bohemia lost land
- Political Regime Change: communism collapsed globally
Military power shift: went from a 2 to 1 power system
- New enforcement mechanisms: Warsaw Pact collapsed, Nato expanded, leaving states that were formerly a part of Soviet Union like Russia.
- Russia suffered losses of: territory, hegemony, superpower status, wasn't invited to NATO. Which sucked (they used the analogy of our states becoming countries)
- It was also difficult to maintain this post cold war state, because Russia was in poor economic state and basically chaos, plus they found it difficult to integrate with western ideals.
- US gained: military hegemony (truman doctrine?), economic hegemony (more presence in europe), ideological hegemony (collapse of opponent, communism, and Cold War had spread democracy), became unipolar and unrivaled
What explains the absence of great power war since the mid-20th century?
- Nuclear Deterrence has reduced the desirability of large wars
- Globalization has opened up free markets and resources to everyone so wars are not necessary to gain access to themwealth now associated with comparative advantage (trading cheap goods produced abroad for expensive goods at home) instead of physical possession of resources (land, gold, etc.), war would halt these benefits
- Unipolarity refers to how the United States is the unparalleled super power in the world today. No one can match us quite yet, US is protected by oceans
Summarize the arguments made by Pavlovsky. What are some of weaknesses of the Russian state (or government) under Putin's leadership? How do these weaknesses complicate policymaking in Russia? How does Russian support of Ukrainian separatists illustrate these policy making challenges?
Begins with a critique of Putin's foreign policy and thinks the decision to annex Crimea is bad and to interfere in Syria stupid. He thinks that this was done because the Russian political system allows a lot of independence between advisors of key bureaucratic offices because there is so much autonomy from Putin. Despite an image as a strong leader Pavlosky thinks that Putin has made mistakes and failed to build an effective state apparatus.
Summarize the arguments made by Lukyanov. How do they illustrate the destabilizing consequences of shifts in the distribution of power among great powers?
Argues Russia reached breaking point after US support of revolutions in Georgia,Ukraine and Kiergistand and this support followed NATO expansion
When Ukraine tried to move closer to EU Russia pushed back and seize Crimea
Yes there was a brief moment of unipolarity although the US messed up by moving into neutral zones and the US mistook silence as indifference to the expansion of NATO
Consequently NATO expansion created a resentment against the US and Europe
NATO was no longer a defensive alliance but rather a way to expand US and
war in Serbia was the turning point of NATO and the wars in Afghanistan had solidified
There are many signals of an American decline with military and political blunders (i.e. Russia's intervention in Ukraine and Syria)
How did the peaceful end of the Cold War lead to more civil wars in the Third World?
- The absence of great power wars changed the locus of war from between states to within single states
- US and Soviet Union both supported various autocratic regimes; with the US and Soviets no longer at odds with one another, the support for these regimes diminishes.
- This incentivizes rebels to challenge such regimes.
Collapse of the Soviet Bloc led to the creation of many small countries, that had varying ethnic makeups
Why do states fail to come to a peace settlement even though it will make all parties better off than if they continue fighting? How can private information lead one state to overestimate its bargaining leverage and cause war?
- Private information coupled with incentives to misrepresent lead one side to offer insufficient concessions; other side opts to try and secure greater division of issue through war. Overestimation of bargaining leverage
- Overestimates its military strength and therefore refuses to make significant concessions to other side to avoid conflict. They are basically being too greedy and think they can win easily (low costs) and get everything they want
- Commitment problem: difficulties associated with contracting over time.You make a commitment and both agree although you fear what may happen in the future. Essentially the peace is not sustainable. This is a fear that a state is just asking for peace to build up strength to fight later
Commitment problem arises from the Government to stop the flow of demands and therefore the government may engage in war to quash these demands
What is the commitment problem and how does it contribute to continuation of conflict? What are the sources of the commitment problem?
- Dramatic shift in the distribution of military or political power between two competing sides
- Ethnic imbalances: minority groups tempted to secede; majority groups fight to preserve unity and access to resources in entire territory ; hutu//tutsi (cockroach) in Rwanda
- Income inequality: commitment problem: poor majority cannot commit not to seize assets of wealth minority once in power through nationalization or taxation. Wealthy minority sides with military, government; supports repression
How is civil war different from international war? What dilemmas associated with the commitment problem arise from the need for one side to disarm in a civil war? How can intervention from a third party (like the United States) help to resolve the commitment problem?
- Civil war is different because in order for the war to end, one side has to disarm themselves completely and be extremely vulnerable (to punishment).
- This leads to fear of this outcome and motivation to continue fighting until death basically.
-War also destroys institutions that may aid in keeping peace post-war. A third party could help by being an objective voice in the outcome of the losing side. Perhaps keeping them all from being killed or imprisoned, and setting up better laws to prevent the minority groups from having another upset.
*third party intervention is never objective
3rd party must have self-interest in upholding role as 3rd party, willing to use force if necessary, and can signal resolve to stay the course of intervention
In Civil War, one side has to disarm because military power cannot act. This is the commitment problem, and this is the fear of one side not fulfilling peace obligations and the threat of disarmament leads to a continuation
What is the moral hazard problem? How can this concept help to explain how the prospect of intervention from a third party (like the United States) might actually increase incentives to leave civilian populations vulnerable to attack and genocide?
- The moral hazard problem is that insurance encourages risky behavior. (Think of the example of the government bailing banks out, so the banks feel safer being more reckless with their money,
- because they know that in the future the government would have to bail them out again).
- So, if a losing side knows that there will be a third party coming to their aid, they may leave civilians unprotected as "bait" in order to speed up the third party feeling bad for them and coming to help them.
Simon & Stevenson
"In actuality, however, the main driver of the US pullback is not what's happening in Washington but what's happening in the region. Political and economic developments in the Middle East have reduced the opportunities for effective American intervention to a vanishing point, and policymakers in Washington have been recognizing that and acting accordingly. Given this, the moderate US pullback should be not reversed but rather continued, at least in the absence of a significant threat to core US interests."
Simon + Stevenson are offshore balancing and restraint; their context: focus on the shifting regional dynamics that mark a need for change.
US intervention in civil wars cannot win military victories and construct a stable political arrangement when there are multiple groups that can resist. So US should return to protect the status quo instead, avoiding transformation and sustained intervention.
Ex: In Saudi Arabia, US focuses on terrorists while locals try to undermine Assad and contain Iranian expansion (not competing motives)
"The United States should move beyond its standard counterterrorist repertoire and embrace a broader set of strategies. Energetic diplomacy could lessen the tensions that lead states to support violent groups. Investment in conflict-resolution programs could reduce the scale and scope of the civil wars on which jihadist groups feed. Building up the defense and governance capabilities of states such as Iraq and Yemen could help them fight jihadists, either alone or with US assistance. And even when the United States is unable to solve deeper problems, it can at least reduce or contain violence in the region."
Byman's context: US should stop lumping all terrorist groups together; he recognizes terrorist groups as indirectly threatening.
US should intervene before civil wars that strengthen terrorist groups. Intervention in the form of statebuilding to strengthen security and offer reform. Not democracy pushing, but conflict resolution.
Ex: ISIS/Habas/Hezbollah act like states and wage conventional war. Al Qaeda focuses on terrorist strikes and local sanctuary for fighters.
How did Rex Tillerson influence US foreign policy at the State Department?
- He wasn't as confrontational as the President (seemed to be talking Trump out of confrontational policies)
- Tillerson tried to run the state department like a business. He cut 'costs' by reducing the amount of personnel in the state department. However, these people had been with the state department for a very long time, and these cuts could lead to vacancies for years to come.
- Removed power from State department by taking away institutional knowledge.
- Many diplomatic positions in the State Department are still left open (can't really determine if this was because of Tillerson, Trump, or both)
- Supported negotiation with North Korea and made progress in this relationship - surprising that Trump fired him right before potential talks
Describe some of the factors that have held the US-Saudi alliance together for so long
- Saudi Arabia is an important historical ally of the US (because of oil)
- US fought the Persian Gulf War against Iraq to defend Saudi Arabia
- Relations worsened during Obama administration (over Iran nuclear deal, pivot to Asia), but have improved under Trump
Describe some of the most prominent domestic reforms in Saudi Arabia.
Expanding women's rights (allowing them to drive, relaxed clothing restrictions, equalize pay with men, integrate into labor force); cracking down on corruption; economic reforms to have a diverse economy with less dependence on oil. Moving power away from the religious police.
Prince MSB is putting these changes into place
What are some of the sources of the political conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia?
- Rising Iranian influence threatens and surrounds Saudi Arabia (Iran supports Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqi government, Houthi rebels in Yemen)
- Saudi Arabia is participating in Yemeni civil war as a response to expanding Iranian power
Iran's attempt towards nuclear weapons and the weak Iran Nuclear Accord (in Saudi Arabia's opinion)
Why has international intervention in the Syrian War failed to help end that military conflict?
- As there are shifts in power between the multiple sides, the weaker sides continue to fight as they are afraid of the concessions they may have to make in the future so they will continue to push and fight for their side to keep other nations in the conflict as the damage will be less than the risk of further concessions
. How have nuclear weapons influenced US foreign policy since 1945?
-The development of nuclear weapons changed US foreign policy since 1945 by originally wanting to develop (the best) nuclear weapons and then transitioning to a foreign policy strategy of preventing the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons in other states. The US also tries to prevent another nuclear attack.
Deterrence is when states pressure other states to not launch strikes by threatening to impose a retaliatory attack. Successful attempts rely purely on the threat rather than actions. This is why the Cold War remained cold because both sides were deterred by the nuclear weapon threat.
The target of the threat has to believe that the sender of the threat will actually use weapons if they do something they weren't supposed to.
Nukes aren't used, yet they are threats. So why are these threats believed if the threatener clearly would not want to carry out this threat?
They must have second strike capabilities, and the will to carry out threat
(Allies)example of South Korea: they were against us detering NK from possessing nukes because they would get swept up into fighting due to their location
How have nuclear weapons complicated the provision of national security?
- The richest countries in the world used to simply build up their militaries in order to protect civilians.
- The military would have to be decimated before civilians would get attacked.
- This changed slightly with airplanes but even those could be prevented, fought, and shot down. - Missiles are unlike anything before because once launched, it's highly unlikely any country would be able to stop such a quick traveling missile.
- Therefore, there is an immediate bypassing of military in order to attack civilians.
What is deterrence? What are the main elements of deterrence? How is deterrence different from defense?
- Deterrence is when states pressure other states to not launch strikes by threatening to impose a retaliatory attack.
- Successful attempts rely purely on the threat rather than actions. This is why the Cold War remained cold because both sides were deterred by the nuclear weapon threat.
The target of the threat has to believe that the sender of the threat will actually use weapons
- if they do something they weren't supposed to.
- Nukes aren't used, yet they are threats. So why are these threats believed if the threatener clearly would not want to carry out this threat?
- They must have second strike capabilities, and the will to carry out threat
- (Allies)example of South Korea: they were against us detering NK from possessing nukes because they would get swept up into fighting due to their location
- A state demonstrates credibility by
Making irrevocable (public) commitments,
Threats by sending bomber out etc (which leaves more to chance, delegates control, and makes it appear as if the threatener has more confidence regarding using the weapons
- Nuclear deterrence:
Prevents adversary from attack with credible threats to impose costly retaliatory attacks
National security through threats to use force rather than actual use of military force
How does the potential use of nuclear weapons change the nature of warfare? Under what conditions might nuclear weapons paradoxically make war less likely
- Again, countries cannot use the military to block attacks on civilians anymore with nuclear weapons. There can and would be a direct attack on large civilian populations and it would be rapid, immediate, and completely devastating.
- If both sides of the war possess secure second strike capabilities, then both sides are deterred from engaging in warfare. For example, the US and the Soviets avoided direct military confrontation because of the risk of it escalating into a nuclear war.
- Countries are more motivated to reach peace agreements and avoid direct military violence/action because of the fear that it will escalate.
What is mutually assured destruction (MAD)? What is a second strike capability and why is it essential to mutually assured destruction?
- Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): MAD depends on second strike capability. "Destruction of the enemy would be suicide for ourselves." It holds that both sides would face unacceptable destruction.
- If initiating war guarantees self-destruction then there is no goal important enough for a state to initiate military conflict.
Second strike capability: the ability for a country to launch a retaliatory strike.
- If the adversary attacks first, the country still has a sufficient number of nuclear weapons that cannot all be destroyed in that first strike
- Reading definition of SSC: the ability to survive a first-strike nuclear attack with sufficient nuclear warheads intact and operational to launch a counterattack that would be damaging enough to outweigh any benefits that would be gained from launching a surprise attack in the first place.
How is deterrence different from defense?
- Defensive capabilities involve the ability of an actor to limit the harm the an adversary can inflict on it. For example, walls protecting a city from invading armies, armies defending gates, etc.
- Deterrence isn't about a defensive quality but rather its punitive capabilities, which is the power to punish or harm. This includes invasion, nuclear strikes, etc. Punitive capabilities are generally offense/consequence.
In nuclear warfare, defensive capabilities would include anti-ballistic missile systems that could shoot down incoming missiles, while punitive abilities would be launching a nuclear counterattack.
What is extended deterrence and how does it affect the credibility of deterrent threats?
- Extended deterrence refers to instances where a country issues a retaliatory threat to protect other countries — allies or countries deemed vital to national security interests — from prospective aggression by a third party.
- This entails a significant problem of credibility because a state employing extended deterrence is signaling that it's willing to risk its own cities and citizens to protect another country.
What is the problem of credibility in nuclear deterrence? Explain why the effectiveness of deterrent threats depends on credibility.
Capabilities involve the physical means to carry out declared threats
If no one finds your answers to the following questions credible, then your threat of deterrence is invalid.
Do you have the will (resolve) to execute these threats?
Do you have the capability to execute these threats?
Will you surrender your own people/cities to execute these threats?
. How does a state demonstrate credibility in nuclear deterrence?
-A state demonstrates credibility by:
Making irrevocable (i.e. public) comments.
Threats by sending bomber out etc.
Which leaves more to chance, delegates control, and makes it appear as if the threatener has more confidence regarding the use of weapons
brinksmanship employs and manipulates risk to increase the credibility of a threat to use extreme force, in this case a nuclear attack
take actions that escalate a crisis with a nuclear armed adversary that are short of actually initiating military conflict
tripwire forces is to raise the stakes of an adversary's attack against a protected ally by guaranteeing that such an attack involved losses for the patron state offering protection. Ex, placing a small amount of troops in an ally's territory
How might national missile defense influence the stability of nuclear deterrence?
- The only way nuclear weapons actually influence the decision-making of state leaders is if they believe that their adversaries will actually follow through on their threats to use these incredibly destructive weapons.
- Nuclear threat are worthless unless they are credible. This condition leads to the problem of credibility because state leaders may reasonably question their adversaries' will to follow through on their nuclear deterrent threats because doing so would also entail the destruction of the issuer of the threat.
- National missile defense = satellite and missile technology that can destroy incoming ballistic missiles
Offense is considered better than defense because it's unlikely to successfully defend a large nuclear power
- Defense systems encourage riskier behavior because it acts as insurance against attacks (moral hazard)
- Strains relations and increases enemy aggressions
. What is nuclear proliferation? Why do states acquire nuclear weapons, sometimes at the risk of provoking severe international backlash?
the act of non-nuclear states acquiring nuclear weapons
States mainly attain nuclear weapons to ensure security
Early explanations to nuclear proliferation:
Soviet Union got nuclear weapons after US during Cold War
Then Britain and France followed for fear that US wouldn't be able to fully commit to protecting them if USSR striked
China followed suit which caused India to do so to counter it regional rival (china) and so on
Recent examples of nuclear proliferation:
North Korea in order to develop a nuclear deterrence against America efforts to change its current regime
States also obtain nuclear weapons because pressure to gain influence in political system; competition among political interest groups or bureaucracies
States obtain nuclear weapons due to pressures of international norms
last innat ut Q's
5. How would you characterize the grand strategy of the incoming National Security Advisor, John Bolton? What does his grand strategy orientation suggest about the grand strategy of President Trump?
-Primacy without democracy promotions/enforcement of US ideals onto foreign nations
6. What types of foreign policies is Bolton likely to advocate relative to Iran and North Korea?
-Advocated for preemptive strike against north korea, says nuclear power changes requirements of "imminent threat" (see Just War)
-Against the Iran Nuclear Accords, doesn't think its strong enough
-Was a supporter of the Iraq war
7. Why is the Trump Administration threatening to impose tariffs on Chinese imports? What sectors of the Chinese economy are likely to be targeted? How has China responded?
-There is a large trade deficit, plus intellectual property theft. Likely to target the high tech industries
-China threatened to impose $3 billion worth of tariffs
8. Which countries have secured exemptions from steel and aluminum tariffs? How are these exemptions politically and economically significant?
-Canada, EU, Argentina, Australia, South Korea, and Mexico. They are our allies but they are also the biggest source of steel and aluminum imports in the US, so there will be a limited economic effect