Global Trends Past Paper PDF

Bahir Dar University Faculty of Social Sciences Department of Political Science and International Studies Course: Global Trends By: Begashaw M. (MA in Political Science)  Chapter one: Understanding International Relations Key Concepts Nation  A nation...

Bahir Dar University Faculty of Social Sciences Department of Political Science and International Studies Course: Global Trends By: Begashaw M. (MA in Political Science)  Chapter one: Understanding International Relations Key Concepts Nation  A nation constitutes a community of people joined by a shared identity and by common social practices.  According to Heywood, nations are historical entities that evolve organically out of more similar ethnic communities and they reveal themselves in myths, legends, and songs.  Nation is a community that has common language, religion and culture, history, live in the same geographical area.  The nation was combined with a state ‗forming a compound noun – the nation-state  Nation-state occurs when nation and state match. When a nation has the country of its own, has its own state. By: Begashaw Mitiku (MA in Political Science)  In common parlance, the words ‗nation, ‘state ‘and country ‘are used interchangeably and this is not correct. Nation is a cultural entity, state is a political entity, country is geographical entity Nation comprises people having common cultural and social practices but state may comprise peoples of different culture, language, religion… For instance, the word the ‗United Nations is a misnomer since in reality it is an association or a society of states-instead of nations. In international politics, it is also common but incorrect to refer the ‗Chinese , the ‗Americans and the ‗Russians as ‗nations. Nationalism is having of strong feeling towards one‘s own nation. Nationalism is a feeling of the people to determine their own fate- self-determination.  The cause of nationalism may be inequality and injustice, lack of the right to self-determination, lack of recognition as a distinct national group, colonization, chauvinism. It is the most influential force in international affairs that caused the outbreak of revolutions and wars across the globe. It is noted as a factor for the collapse of age-old empires, marker for new borders, for the emergence of new states and it is used to reshape and reinforce regimes in history. The break-up of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. The break up of Soviet union in the early 1990s The break up of Eastern Roman Empire The break up of Austro-Hungarian empire The outbreak of WWI & II The outbreak of French (1789) and American (1776) revolutions  Nationalism may have liberal or aggressive sentiment Liberal sentiment The revolutions that took place in Britain‘s North American colonies in 1776, and in France in 1789, provided models for other nationalists to follow. ‗We the People of the United States ‗– the first words of the Preamble to the US Constitution – was a phrase which itself would have been literally unthinkable in an earlier era. In France, the king was officially the only legitimate political actor and the people as a whole were excluded from politics. In addition, the power of the aristocracy and the church remained strong, above all in the countryside where they were the largest landowners. In the revolution of 1789, the old regime was overthrown and with it the entire social order.  The French nation was from now on to be governed by the people, the nation, and in accordance with the principles of liberté, égalité et fraternité– liberty, equality and brotherhood. African nationalism for independence OF THE 20th century. Aggressive nationalism The aggressive face of nationalism became increasingly prominent from the late nineteenth century onwards, as European powers indulged in the ‗Scramble for Africa’ in the name of national glory and their ‗place in the sun‘. Aggression and expansion were also evident in the forms of pan- nationalism that developed in Russia and Germany in the years leading up to WWI. An extreme example of this can be found in the case of the German Nazis, whose ‗Aryanism’ portrayed the German people (the Aryan race) as a ‘master race’ destined for world domination, backed up by virulent anti-Semitism.  Nationalism can therefore be seen as a major contributory factor explaining the outbreak of both world wars. The build up to WWII was similarly shaped by nationalist-inspired programmes of imperial expansion pursued by Germany, Japan and Italy. Yet it was only with the conclusion of the First World War in 1918 that self-determination was acknowledged as a right. Power Relational definition: power is A‘s ability to get B to do something it would not otherwise do. Ethiopia‘s ability to get Egypt to do something, America‘s ability to get Ethiopia to do something… The ability of one actor to influence another actor or actors in a manner not of their choosing. Material (capability) definition. Power can be understood in terms of capability; that is, as an attribute, something that states or other actors ‗possess‘. The traditional approach to power in international politics is to treat it in terms of capabilities. Power is therefore an attribute or possession.  Such an approach has, for instance, been reflected in attempts to list the ‗elements‘ or ‗components‘ of national power. The most significant of these usually include the size and quality of a state‘s armed forces (Military strength) its per capita wealth and natural resources, (Economic development) the size and skills of its population (Population), its land mass and geographical position (Geography) and so on. It is the currency of international politics. As money is for economics, power is for international relations (politics). It is the blood line of international relations. Anarchy Anarchy is a situation where there is absence of authority (government) be it in national or international/global level. Within a country ‗anarchy‗ refers to a breakdown of law and order, but in relations between states it refers to a system where power is decentralized and there are no shared institutions with the right to enforce common rules. An anarchic system is one that lacks a central government (or international sovereign) that regulates and controls the b/r of states. An anarchical world is a world where everyone looks after themselves and no one looks after the system as a whole. An anarchical world is a world where everyone looks after themselves and no one looks after the system as a whole. Instead, states had to rely on their own resources or to form alliances through which the power of one alliance of states could be balanced against the power of another alliance. It is a self-help system. Sovereignty The ultimate/highest authority in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of law and order. implies that there is no power and authority which is beyond and above that of the state Since a state is sovereign, it determines its own form of government, economic systems, domestic and foreign policies, and on all matters of its own. Sovereignty is another basic concept in international relations and it can be defined as an expression of: (i) a state‘s ultimate authority within its territorial entity (internal sovereignty) and, (ii) the state‘s involvement in the international community (external sovereignty). In short, sovereignty denotes double claim of states from the international system, i.e., autonomy in foreign policy and independence/freedom in its domestic affairs. Understanding International Relations It traditionally focused on interactions between states. However, this conventional view has been broadened over the years to include relationships between all sorts of entities, including international organizations, multinational corporations, societies and citizens However, this is a far too simplistic and narrow perspective of international relations It concerns about the broader interactions among states and non-state actors across national boundaries It refers to political, economic, cultural and other relations among states of the world. Prof. Charles Schleicher defines international relations as the relation among States. It refers to external relations among nations, states and peoples. Today, international relations could be used to describe a range of interactions between people, groups, firms, associations, parties, nations or states or between these and (non) governmental international organizations.  International relations can be peaceful or conflictual. These interactions usually take place between entities that exist in different parts of the world – in different territories, nations or states. IR is not just a field of academic study we all participate in and contribute to International Relations on a daily basis. the decisions we make in our daily lives have an effect, however small, on the world in which we live. International relations is not merely a field of study at university but is an integral aspect of our (increasingly international) everyday lives. We now live in a world where it is impossible to isolate our experiences and transactions from an international dimension.  No individual, people, nation or state can exist in splendid isolation or be master of its own fate; but none, no matter how powerful in military, diplomatic or economic circles, even a giant superpower, can compel everyone to do its bidding. equally, IR has a significant impact on our lives. IR/politics is inescapable. The study of International Relations enables us to explain why international events occur in the manner in which they do and gives us a greater understanding of world in which we live and work Studying international relations enables students and professionals to better comprehend the information we receive daily from newspapers, television and radio.  International relations emerged as an academic discipline in the years following the First World War. The tragedy of the First World War encouraged early IR thinkers to focus on finding ways to build a more peaceful world. Originally, the study of international relations (a term first used by Jeremy Bentham in 1798) was seen largely as a branch of the study of law, philosophy or history, political science. The First World War had a tremendous impact on the study of International Relations. It was only after the War that teaching of the subject of International Relations was initiated in the various universities in the United Kingdom, United States of America, and Switzerland. The teaching of the subject as a formal academic discipline started with the founding of international professorship in the UK. In 1919, Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Relations was established at Aberystwyth, the University of Wales (now Aberystwyth University). Later, such courses were offered in some other universities as well. Actors in International Relations Actor refers to a person or an entity who has the power and authority to influence the global process. They are players/participants in international relations State actors and Non-state actors State actors Principal actors of the world politics are states, but they are not the only actors. State actors include presidents, prime ministers, diplomats, militaries, bureaucrats and elected leaders considered the primary actor; influence the international process through domestic and foreign policy. The international system consists of nation-states, international organizations, and private actors. Non-state actors Intergovernmental Organizations IGOs provide means of cooperation and multiple channels of communication among states. It is commonly known that the main functions of IGOs are rule making and agenda setting. IGOs include UN, IMF, AU, WB, EU, The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) IGOs such as the UN and the EU have the capacity to impose sanctions on erring member states. IGOs create, monitor and enforce international norms and rules among member states. IGOs may change norms of international relations and preferences of nation-states. NGO are established not by nation-states, but by certain group of individuals, businessmen and other societal forces. non-profit and politically independent privately established; and their actions are motivated by the public interest; They have become ―crucial participants in the international policy process. Like their counterparts that operates at domestic level and lobby in their respective countries, they lobby at international and transnational levels. International Red Cross, International Red Crescent, and Amnesty International (AI) are the most well-known and influential NGOs among humanitarian international organizations that monitor human rights worldwide. Multinational Corporations (MNCs) They are large corporations having branches and subsidiaries operating on a worldwide basis in many countries simultaneously. They are very effective in directing foreign policy of states, including that of the most powerful ones, and they set agenda for international politics. They have become a major factor in national economic decision-making process. One of the measures of the influence of MNCs is the extent of the resources they control. National Liberation Movements (NLMs) National liberation movements (NLMs) have been playing an effective role in international politics for decades, especially in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Some NLMs became the most important actors of many international problems. One of the most well known examples of NLMs that played and is still playing a significant role in international politics is the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Since the late 1960s, PLO has been playing the key role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Arab states have been considered PLO and its longtime leader Yasser Arafat as the legitimate representatives of Palestinians. Terrorist Groups Individuals and groups engage in terrorism for different political, economic, social, religious, cultural, and even personal reasons (Mickolus, 1995: 98). Their goals are to publicize their grievances and aspirations to international community by hijacking, assassination, kidnapping and attacking on embassies. International terrorism is ―the most conspicuous and threatening form‖ of low-intensity violence. Terrorism has moved from the national to transnational level and from plane hijacking to a wider range of terrorist techniques since the 1960s. While some states orient their policies by supporting terrorist groups, some other states change their foreign policies by taking counter- terrorist measures. One way or another, all states are influenced by terrorist activities; therefore, no country tends to ignore terrorism.  Terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, ISIS, al-Shabab and Boko Haram are notorious for their destructive and dastardly acts. Similarly, Eminent Individuals, media, and Diaspora Communities have their own impact on international ralations Levels of Analysis in International Relations A level of analysis refers to levels of articulations to understand highly complex events and problems in international relations. Different levels provide different perspectives to understand the dynamics of international relations. From the 1950s onwards, more and more IR scholars endeavored to specify the focus of their analysis more clearly. The most prominent example was Kenneth Waltz‗s Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (1959) which introduced an analytical framework for the study of IR that distinguished between what he referred to as different ‗images‘ of an issue: the individual, the state and the international system. Being clear about our level of analysis can prevent us from indulging in analytical ‗cherry-picking‗, that is to say, from randomly gathering evidence across different levels in pursuit of an answer to our research questions. Applying rigor in our analysis is also important. The Individual Level of Analysis Here we would look at the behaviors, motivations, beliefs and orientation of the individual in affecting a particular international phenomenon. If looking at the actions of individuals, we would likely also need to engage with the implications of human nature. This can be seen in the psychology and emotions behind people‗s actions and decisions, their fears and their visions as well as their access to information and capacity to make a difference. They are also an important factor in the analysis of foreign policy, whenever particular mindsets and perceptions of political leaders and key actors might influence their decisions and behavior. We look at the behaviors, motivations, beliefs and orientations of the individual in affecting a particular international phenomenon.  The analysis of individuals might focus on either their personalities or on their perceptions—how they make sense of their world and the events occurring within it. In studying the foreign policy of states, attention is given to activities or statements or writings of leaders. The study of personality traits, beliefs, and values as the factors that explain foreign policy decisions. Individual leaders‘ role about the causes and consequences of a particular phenomenon. Its unit of analysis - key individual leader and statesman State Level of Analysis analysis examines the foreign policy behavior of states in terms of state characteristics. The state level of analysis focuses on factors internal to the state as those that compel states to engage in specific foreign policy behaviors. This enduring focus on the state, and therefore, on the state level of analysis, is referred to as the relative ‗state-centrism‗ of the discipline. the main focus remains on the state as the dominant unit of analysis. state structure, political system. their historical ties and experiences, economic standing military capability, Political culture, Public opinion The main focus remains on the state as the dominant unit of analysis. It requires a careful consideration of what kinds of states we are looking at (how they are ordered politically), their geographical position, their historical ties and experiences and their economic standing. System level of analysis analysis examines state behavior by looking at the international system. In this level of analysis, the international system is the cause and state behavior is the effect. This could include developments that are even outside the immediate control of any particular state or group of states, such as the global economy, transnational terrorism or the internet. Change in the international system will cause change in state behavior. Global circumstances are seen to condition the ability and opportunity of individual states and groups of states to pursue their interests in cooperative or competitive ways. Our international system is anarchic. unipolarity, bipolarity or multipolarity. Takes in to consideration the global circumstances. Takes in to consideration the balance of power between states and how that determines what happens in global politics. The Structure of International System Any attempt to understand the structure of power in global politics requires a sound grasp of the term ‗polarity‘. Toje views polarity as ‗the distribution of power among the actors in the international system. It is all about how many great powers coexist in international society. International Relations scholars maintain that political power is usually distributed into three main types of systems namely: (i) uni- polar system, (ii) bipolar system and, (iii) multipolar system. These three different systems reflect the number of powerful states competing for power and their hierarchical relationship. Unipolarity In a uni-polar international system, there is one state with the greatest political, economic, cultural and military power and hence the ability to totally control other states. A system in which single dominant state, sometimes called a hegemon, possess the most political influence.  On the other hand, in both bipolar and multipolar systems there is no one single state with a preponderant power and hence ability to control other states. Best example – the United States after the end of the Cold War Bipolarity Two poles of power, two states with a preponderant power. One typical historical example where the world was under bipolar system is the cold war period. the states in such systems are forced to balance each other‗s power. In the case of the bipolar system, for instance, there are two dominant states (super powers) and the less powerful states join either sides through alliance and counter alliance formations. The problem with bipolar system is that it is vulnerable for zero-sum game politics because when one superpower gains the other would inevitably lose. Multipolar system a system in which several states possess considerable degree of influence It usually reflects various equally powerful states competing for power. Multipolar system is the most common throughout history. It is not necessary for states to change their relationship with zero-sum game. In such system, it is possible to bring change without gaining or losing power. During the period around World War I it was a typical world system. Theories of International Relations Theories of international relations allow us to understand and try to make sense of the world around us through various lenses, each of which represents a different theoretical perspective. Liberalism Liberalism in IR was referred to as a ‗utopian‘ theory and is still recognized as such to some degree today. Liberalism depicts optimism by arguing that human beings are good, cooperation is possible and conflict can be resolved peacefully. States are not the only actors. In terms of liberalism, its proponents argue that organizations are valuable in assisting states in formulating decisions and helping to formalize cooperation that leads to peaceful outcomes. Immanuel Kant developed the idea in the late eighteenth century that states that shared liberal values should have no reason for going to war against one another.  In Kant‘s eyes, the more liberal states there were in the world, the more peaceful it would become, since liberal states are ruled by their citizens and citizens are rarely disposed to desire war. Democratic peace theory, which posits that democracies do not go to war with each other, for the very reasons Kant outlined. liberals have faith in the idea that the permanent cessation of war is an attainable goal. Taking liberal ideas into practice, US President Woodrow Wilson addressed his famous ‗Fourteen Points‗ to the US Congress in January 1918 during the final year of the First World War. He suggested that ‗the prospects for the elimination of war lay with a preference for democracy over aristocracy, free trade over autarky, and collective security over the balance of power system. In the early years, from 1919 to the 1930s, the discipline was dominated by what is conventionally referred to as liberal internationalism.  A system of ‗collective security‗ was advocated to replace antagonistic alliance systems with an international order based on the rule of law and collective responsibility. Collective security is a concept that aggression against a state should be defeated collectively because aggression against one state is aggression against all; basis of the League of Nations and the United Nations. The creation of the League of Nations after the end of the First World War was the culmination of the liberal ideal of international relations. The League would function as the guarantor of international order and would be the organ through which states could settle their differences through arbitration. However, when the League collapsed due to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, its failure became difficult for liberals to comprehend, as events seemed to contradict their theories.  Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937, Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and Germany marched into Czechoslovakia and other European countries from the 1930s onward – all with impunity. Liberals also argue that international law offers a mechanism by which cooperation among states is made possible. Realism  Carr‗s ‗Twenty Years‗ Crisis‗, published in 1939, was the text which positioned what he called utopianism in opposition to realism.  Carr called for a ‗science‘ of international relations, one which would move away from what he saw as the wishful thinking of liberal internationalism.  By presenting the fact–value distinction, that which separates the ‗what is‗ from the ‗what ought to be in dichotomous or oppositional terms  Carr‘s text called for a move away from utopian doctrine which, he suggested, was based on an unrealistic negation of power and its impact on international politics.  States are unitary actors.  Realists believe states partake in international organizations only when it is in their self-interest to do so.  Realism depicts pessimism by arguing that human beings are bad, conflict is inevitable and war is the most prominent instrument of resolving conflict.  Realists believe conflict is unavoidable and perpetual and so war is common and inherent to humankind.  Realists argue that values are context bound, that morality is determined by interest, and that the conditions of the present are determined by historical processes. Realists claim individuals act in their own self-interests. For realists, people are selfish and behave according to their own needs without necessarily taking into account the needs of others. Hans Morgenthau, a prominent realist, is known for his famous statement ‗‘all politics is a struggle for power‘ This demonstrates the typical realist view that politics is primarily about domination as opposed to cooperation between states.  In Morgenthau‘s view, ‗political man is a selfish animal, and all human behavior tends towards the control of others. All realists would concur with the slogan ‗to ensure peace, you must prepare for war.’ The realist paradigm is centered upon military capabilities. As a result, battles over power are rooted in human nature and as such are central to politics. Realists describe IR as a system where war and conflict is common and periods of peace are merely times when states are preparing for future conflict. Realism as a school of thought centers on the view that the international system is ‗anarchic‘, in the sense that it is devoid of an all-encompassing authority. Where domestic society is ruled by a single system of government, the international system of states lacks such a basis and renders inter- national law non-binding and ultimately ineffectual in the regulation of relations between states.  Where liberal internationalism had been openly normative and prescriptive in orientation, the realism expressed by Morgenthau purports to be scientific and explanatory. Morgenthau, like other realists, hence assumes a clear separation of fact and value, of theory and practice. Where Morgenthau‘s realism concentrates on the attributes and behavior of states within the international system, Waltz focuses on the international system itself and seeks to provide a structuralist account of its dynamics and the constraints it imposes on state behavior. The international system is, for Waltz, anarchical and hence perpetually threatening and conflictual. What is of interest to Waltz is not the set of motives which may determine state behavior, but the imperatives of the international system and the distribution of capabilities within it.  When they examine history they see a world that may change in shape, but is always characterized by a system of what they call ‗international anarchy‘ as the world has no sovereign to give it order. Ultimately, states can only rely upon themselves for security. The international system is a self help system. Structuralism/Marxism Marxism is an ideology that argues that a capitalist society is divided into two contradictory classes – the business class (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat). The proletariats are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie who control their wages and therefore their standard of living. Marx hoped for an eventual end to the class society and overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. concentrated on the inequalities that exist within the international system, inequalities of wealth between the rich ‗North‗ or the ‗First World‗ and the poor ‗South‗ or the ‗Third World‗. Marxism sees structure in terms of core and periphery Inspired by the writings of Marx and Lenin, scholars within what came to be known as the structuralist paradigm focused on dependency, exploitation and the international division of labor which relegated the majority of the global population to the extremes of poverty, with the complicities of elite groups within these societies.  Marxists would argue that any international body, including the United Nations, works to promote the interests of the business class. After all, the United Nations is composed of (and was built by) states who are the chief protagonists in global capitalism – the very thing that Marxism is opposed to. Likewise, the United Nations can be said to be dominated by imperial (or neo-imperial) powers. From the perspective of IR, this approach gave rise to dependency theory and the idea that the wealthy countries benefited at the expense of the poorer and less powerful countries that they colonized and exploited. A state‘s national interest is therefore determined by the interest of its bourgeoisie, making the state a mask for its socio-economic elite. Unlike Liberals, Marxists have no faith in the ability of regimes and international organizations to improve the condition of proletarians in international society. Constructivism Unlike scholars from other perspectives, constructivists highlight the importance of values and shared interests between individuals who interact on the global stage. Alexander Wendt, a prominent constructivist, described the relationship between agents (individuals) and structures (such as the state) as one in which structures not only constrain agents but also construct their identities and interests. His famous phrase ‗anarchy is what states make of it‗ (Wendt 1992) sums this up well. Another way to explain this, and to explain the core of constructivism, is that the essence of international relations exists in the interactions between people. After all, states do not interact; it is agents of those states, such as politicians and diplomats, who interact. As those interacting on the world stage have accepted international anarchy as the defining principle, it has become part of our reality.  However, if anarchy is what we make of it, then different states can perceive anarchy differently and the qualities of anarchy can even change over time. To understand constructivism is to understand that ideas, or ‗norms‗ as they are often called, have power. constructivist approach emphasizes on the impact of ideas, identities, and perceptions. States have identities and those identities define their behavior in the international system. Hence, Norms, identities and perceptions are crucial factors in shaping the behavior of international actors. Critical Theories Critical approaches refer to a wide spectrum of theories that have been established in response to mainstream approaches in the field, mainly liberalism and realism. In a nutshell, critical theorists share one particular trait – they oppose commonly held assumptions in the field of IR that have been central since its establishment. Thus, altered circumstances call for new approaches that are better suited to understand, as well as question, the world we find ourselves in. Critical theories are valuable because they identify positions that have typically been ignored or overlooked within IR. They also provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been marginalized, particularly women and those from the Global South.  Critical theorists who take a Marxist angle often argue that the internationalization of the state as the standard operating principle of international relations has led ordinary people around the globe becoming divided and alienated, instead of recognizing what they all have in common as a global proletariat. For this to change, the legitimacy of the state must be questioned and ultimately dissolved. In that sense, emancipation from the state in some form is often part of the wider critical agenda. In contrast to liberals and constructivists, who value the United Nations to an extent, critical theories offer different perspectives. Marxists would argue that any international body, including the United Nations, works to promote the interests of the business class.  After all, the United Nations is composed of (and was built by) states who are the chief protagonists in global capitalism – the very thing that Marxism is opposed to. Likewise, the United Nations can be said to be dominated by imperial (or neo-imperial) powers. The United Nations, then, is not an organization that offers any hope of real emancipation for citizens. Even though it may appear humanitarian, these actions are merely band-aids over a system of perpetual state-led exploitation that the United Nations legitimizes. Post-colonialism Post-colonialism differs from Marxism by focusing on the inequality between nations or regions, as opposed to classes. The effects of colonialism are still felt in many regions of the world today as local populations continue to deal with the challenges created and left behind by the former colonial powers. Post-colonialism centers on the persistence of colonial forms of power and the existence of racial prejudice and discrimination. Postcolonial theorists often view the doctrine of human rights as an example of western cultural imperialism, even though they may accept the broad notion.  As a result, more focus within the discipline was placed on including the viewpoints of those from the Global South to ensure that Western scholars no longer spoke on their behalf. Postcolonial scholars are, therefore, important contributors to the field as they widen the focus of enquiry beyond IR‘s traditionally ‗Western‗ mindset. Finally, post-colonialists would argue that the discourse perpetuated by the United Nations is one based on cultural, national or religious privilege. They would suggest, for instance, that, as it has no African or Latin American permanent members, the Security Council fails to represent the current state of the world. Post-colonialists would also point to the presence of former colonial powers on the Security Council and how their ability to veto proposals put forward by other countries perpetuates a form of continued indirect colonial exploitation of the Global South.