Globalization of International Relations PDF

Chapter 1 The Globalization of International Relations NASA THE MIDDLE EAST AS SEEN FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION, 2010. Learnin...

Chapter 1 The Globalization of International Relations NASA THE MIDDLE EAST AS SEEN FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION, 2010. Learning Objectives 1.1 Describe the properties of the collective action problem and how each core principle addresses the problem. 1.2 Evaluate whether states are still the key actors in international relations. 1.3 Identify at least three commonalities between states in the global North and states in the global South. 1.4 Explain at least two differences between the Cold War era and the post–Cold War era. 35 M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 35 01/04/20 10:36 PM  36 Chapter 1 The Globalization of International Relations 1.1 Globalization, International Relations, and Daily Life Describe the properties of the collective action problem and how each core principle addresses the problem. International relations is a fascinating topic because it concerns peoples and cultures throughout the world. The scope and complexity of the interactions among these groups make international relations a challenging subject to master. There is always more to learn. This book is only the beginning of the story. international relations (IR) The Narrowly defined, the field of international relations (IR) concerns the relation- relationships among the world's ships among the world’s governments. But these relationships cannot be understood state governments and the in isolation. They are closely connected with other actors (such as international orga- connection of those relationships nizations, multinational corporations, and individuals), with other social structures with other actors (such as the United Nations, multinational corporations, and processes (including economics, culture, and domestic politics), and with geo- and individuals), with other social graphical and historical influences. These elements together power the central trend in relationships (including economics, IR today—globalization. culture, and domestic politics), and Many events in recent years reflect the ever-growing interconnections of the with geographic and historical world. Conflicts in seemingly far-off places like Libya and Syria have brought thou- influences. sands of refugees to the shores of Europe and the United States. The global economic recession of 2008–2009, which began with a collapse of the U.S. home mortgage mar- ket, spread quickly to other nations. Highly integrated global financial markets cre- ated a ripple effect across the globe that has influenced nearly every economy in the world. For the United States and many European countries, it has taken nearly a decade to return to employment and economic growth levels seen before the eco- nomic crisis. Globalization brings many positive benefits to our daily lives: Global trade net- works allow an individual to order a new phone, have it assembled in one country, shipped through another, to be delivered to that individual’s door within a few days. Global connectivity allows instant access to friends, family, and news within seconds nearly anywhere in the world. These interconnections were slower, less common, and very costly even 30 years ago. As technology advances, the world is shrinking year by year. Better communication and transportation capabilities constantly expand the ordinary person’s contact with people, products, and ideas from other countries. Globalization is internationalizing us. It is also true that many individuals around the world have become uneasy with how these interconnections shape their daily lives. The 2016 vote by citizens of Great Britain to leave the European Union (EU), known as Brexit, reflected misgivings of many in that country about their lack of control over policies involving trade and immigration that came with membership in the EU. Many have held that the 2016 election of Donald Trump in the United States demonstrated the American public’s concern over globalization, including job losses from trade, concern over immigration, and the desire to prioritize America’s interests over global concerns. Events that seem far off and disconnected can directly influence our daily lives. The prospects for getting jobs after graduation depend on the global economy and international economic competition. Those jobs are also more likely than ever to entail international travel, sales, or communication. And the rules of the world trad- ing system affect the goods that students consume every day, such as electronics, clothes, and gasoline. In addition to feeling the influence of globalization and international relations on our daily lives, individual citizens can influence the world as well. Often, interna- tional relations is portrayed as a distant and abstract ritual conducted by a small group of people such as presidents, generals, and diplomats. Although leaders do play a M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 36 01/04/20 10:36 PM  1.1 Globalization, International Relations, and Daily Life 37 major role in international affairs, many other people participate. College students and other citizens participate in international relations every time they vote in an elec- tion or work on a political campaign, buy a product or service traded on world mar- kets, and watch the news. The choices we make in our daily lives ultimately affect the world we live in. Through those choices, every person makes a unique contribution, however small, to the world of international relations. The purpose of this book is to introduce the field of IR, to organize what is known and theorized about IR, and to convey the key concepts used by most IR scholars to discuss relations among nations. This first chapter defines IR as a field of study, intro- duces the actors of interest, and reviews the geographical and historical aspects of globalization within which IR occurs. 1.1.1 Core Principles The field of IR reflects the world’s complexity, and IR scholars use many theories, concepts, and buzzwords in trying to describe and explain it. Underneath this com- plexity, however, lie a few basic principles that shape the field. We will lay out the range of theories and approaches in Chapters 2 through 4, but here we will present the most central ideas as free from jargon as possible (see also the Seeking the Collec- tive Good feature). IR revolves around one key problem: How can a group—such as two or more countries—serve its collective interests when doing so requires its members to forgo their individual interests? For example, every country has an interest in stopping global warming, a goal that can be achieved only by many countries acting together. Yet each country also has an individual interest in burning fossil fuels to keep its economy going. Similarly, all members of a military alliance benefit from the strength of the alli- ance, but each member separately has an interest in minimizing its own contributions Seeking the Collective Good Introduction In explaining how countries behave in IR, a central concept is the “collective goods problem.” This recurring problem results when two or more members of a group share an interest in some outcome of value to them all but have conflicting individual interests when it comes to achieving that valued outcome. For example, the world’s countries share a desire to avoid global warming, but each one benefits from burning fossil fuels to run DoD/Sipa USA/Newscom its economy. If a few members of a group fail to contribute to a collective good, the others will still provide it and the few can “free ride.” But if too many do so, then the collective good will not be provided for anyone. For instance, if too many countries burn too much fossil fuel, then the whole world will suffer the ef- fects of global warming. Within domestic societies, governments solve collective Aftermath of Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico, 2017. Global climate goods problems by forcing the members of society to contribute stability is a collective good. to common goals, such as by paying taxes. In international affairs, no such world government exists. Three core principles— dominance, reciprocity, and identity—offer different solutions to Seeking the Collective Good box feature. Each box will discuss the collective goods problem. These principles underlie the how the world’s states deal with an important issue in IR using actions and outcomes that make up IR. one (or more) of the core principles. Examples include stopping To help tie together a central topic in a chapter with the core genocide (Chapter 7), enhancing world trade (Chapter 8), and principles used throughout the book, each chapter contains a slowing global warming (Chapter 11). M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 37 01/04/20 10:36 PM  38 Chapter 1 The Globalization of International Relations in troops and money. Individual nations can advance their own short-term interests by seizing territory militarily, cheating on trade agreements, and refusing to contribute to international efforts such as peacekeeping or vaccination campaigns. But if all nations acted this way, they would find themselves worse off, in a chaotic and vicious envi- ronment where mutual gains from cooperating on issues of security and trade would disappear. This problem of shared interests versus con- flicting interests among members of a group goes by various names in various contexts—the prob- Mike Stocker/TNS/Newscom lem of “collective action,” “free riding,” “burden sharing,” or the “tragedy of the commons.” We will refer to the general case as the collective goods problem, that is, the problem of how to provide something that benefits all members of a group regardless of what each member contributes to it. In general, collective goods are easier to provide TOUCHED BY WAR IR affects our lives in many ways. Here, a wife kisses her in small groups than in large ones. In a small group, husband's coffin at his memorial service. U.S. Army Sgt. La David Johnson the cheating (or free riding) of one member is harder was killed in a military operation in Niger in 2017. to conceal, has a greater impact on the overall collec- tive good, and is easier to punish. The advantage of collective goods problem A small groups helps explain the importance of the great power system in international secu- tangible or intangible good, created rity affairs and of the Group of Twenty (G20) industrialized countries in economic matters. by the members of a group, that is The collective goods problem occurs in all groups and societies, but it is particu- available to all group members larly acute in international affairs because each nation is sovereign, with no central regardless of their individual contributions; participants can gain authority such as a world government to enforce on individual nations the necessary by lowering their own contribution measures to provide for the common good. By contrast, in domestic politics within to the collective good, yet if too countries, a government can force individuals to contribute in ways that do not serve many participants do so, the good their individual self-interest, such as by paying taxes or paying to install antipollution cannot be provided. equipment on vehicles and factories. If individuals do not comply, the government can punish them. Although this solution is far from perfect—cheaters and criminals sometimes are not caught, and governments sometimes abuse their power—it mostly works well enough to keep societies going. Three basic principles—which we call dominance, reciprocity, and identity—offer possible solutions to the core problem of getting individuals to cooperate for the com- mon good without a central authority to make them do so (see Table 1.1). These three principles are fundamental across the social sciences and recur in other disciplines such as the study of animal societies, child development, social psychology, anthropology, and economics as well as political science. To further explain each principle, we will apply the three principles to a small-scale human example and an IR example. DOMINANCE The principle of dominance solves the collective goods problem by establishing a power hierarchy in which those at the top control those below—a bit like a government but without an actual government. Instead of fighting constantly over who gets scarce resources, the members of a group can just fight occasionally over position in the “status hierarchy.” Then social conflicts such as who gets resources are resolved automatically in favor of the higher-ranking actor. Fights over the domi- nance position have scripted rules that minimize, to some extent, the harm inflicted on the group members. Symbolic acts of submission and dominance reinforce an ever- present status hierarchy. Staying at the top of a status hierarchy does not depend on dominance A principle for solving strength alone, though it helps. Rather, the top actor may be the one most adept at collective goods problems by forming and maintaining alliances among the group’s more capable members. Domi- imposing solutions hierarchically. nance is complex and not just a matter of brute force. M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 38 01/04/20 10:37 PM  1.1 Globalization, International Relations, and Daily Life 39 In international relations, the principle of dominance underlies the great power system, in which a hand- ful of countries dictate the rules for all the others. Sometimes a so-called hege- mon or superpower stands atop the great powers as the dominant nation. The UN Security Council, in which the world’s five strongest military powers hold a veto, reflects the domi- nance principle. Ji Haixin / Imaginechina via AP Images The advantage of the dominance solution to the collective goods prob- lem is that, like a government, it forces members of a group to contrib- ute to the common good. It also mini- mizes open conflict within the group. However, the disadvantage is that this stability comes at a cost of con- stant oppression of, and resentment by, the lower-ranking members in the PLENTY OF FISH IN THE SEA? Collective goods, such as healthy-global fisheries, depend status hierarchy. Also, conflicts over on group members cooperating to preserve the good. Yet, while members want to protect the position in the hierarchy can occa- collective good, they also have an individual incentive to over-use the good. One of these sionally harm the group’s stability fishing boats, shown in a Chinese harbor in 2018, might want to catch a few extra fish and well-being, such as when chal- thinking their few extra will not matter. But if all of these boats adopt that behavior, over- lenges to the top position lead to seri- fishing will result. Thus, the boats need to cooperate to protect the fish stocks (the collective good). In many issue areas, such as global warming, the international community of nations ous fights. In the case of international is similarly interdependent. However, the provision of collective goods presents difficult relations, the great power system and dilemmas as players seek to maximize their own share of benefits. the hegemony of a superpower can provide relative peace and stability for decades on end but then can break down into costly wars among the great powers. RECIPROCITY The principle of reciprocity solves the collective goods problem by reciprocity A response in kind to rewarding behavior that contributes to the group and punishing behavior that pur- another’s actions; a strategy of sues self-interest at the expense of the group. Reciprocity is very easy to understand reciprocity uses positive forms of leverage to promise rewards and and can be “enforced” without any central authority, making it a robust way to get negative forms of leverage to individuals to cooperate for the common good. threaten punishment. But reciprocity operates in both the positive realm (“You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”) and the negative (“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”). 1 A disad- vantage of reciprocity as a solution to the collective goods problem is that it can lead to a downward spiral as each side punishes what it believes to be negative acts by the other. Psychologically, most people overestimate their own good intentions and underestimate the value of the actions of their opponents or rivals. To avoid tit-for-tat escalations of conflict, one or both parties must act generously to get the relationship moving in a cooperative direction. In international relations, reciprocity forms the basis of most of the norms (habits, expectations) and institutions in the international system. Many central arrangements in IR, such as World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, explicitly recognize reci- procity as the linchpin of cooperation. For instance, if one country opens its markets to another’s goods, the other opens its markets in return. On the negative side, reciproc- ity fuels arms races as each side responds to the other’s buildup of weapons. But it also allows arms control agreements and other step-by-step conflict-resolution mea- sures, as two sides match each other’s actions in backing away the brink of war. 1RobertAitkin Bertram(1885). A Homiletic Encyclopaedia of Illustrations in Theology and Morals, 7e. Published by Funk & Wagnalls. M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 39 01/04/20 10:38 PM  40 Chapter 1 The Globalization of International Relations IDENTITY A third potential solution to the collective goods problem lies in the iden- tities of participants as members of a community. Although the dominance and reci- procity principles act on the idea of achieving individual self-interest (by taking what identity A principle for solving you can, or by mutually beneficial arrangements), the identity principle does not rely collective goods problems by on self-interest. On the contrary, members of an identity community care about the changing participants’ preferences interests of others in that community enough to sacrifice their own interests to benefit based on their shared sense of others. The roots of this principle lie in the family, the extended family, and the kin- belonging to a community. ship group. But this potential is not limited to the close family; it can be generalized to any identity community that one feels a part of. As members of a family care about each other, so do members of an ethnic group, a gender group, a nation, or the world’s scientists. In each case, individual members accept solutions to collective goods prob- lems that do not give them the best deal as individuals because the benefits are “all in the family,” so to speak. A biologist retiring at a rich American university may give away lab equipment to a biologist in a poor country because they share an identity as scientists. A European Jew may give money to Israel because of a shared Jewish iden- tity, or a computer scientist from India may return home to work for lower pay after receiving training in Canada in order to help the community he or she cares about. Millions of people contribute to international disaster relief funds after tsunamis, earthquakes, or hurricanes because of a shared identity as members of the community of human beings. In international relations, identity communities play important roles in over- coming difficult collective goods problems, including the issue of who contributes to development assistance, world health, and UN peacekeeping missions. The rela- tively large foreign aid contributions of Scandinavian countries, or the high Cana- dian participation in peacekeeping, cannot be explained well by self-interest but instead arise from these countries’ self-defined identities as members of the interna- tional community. Even in military forces and diplomacy (where dominance and reciprocity, respectively, rule the day), the shared identities of military professionals and of diplomats—each with shared traditions and expectations—can take the edge off conflicts. And military alliances also mix identity politics with raw self-interest, as shown by the unusual strength of the U.S.-British alliance, which shared interests alone cannot explain as well as shared identity does. Nonstate actors, such as nongovernmental organizations or terrorist networks, also rely on identity politics to a great extent. The increasing roles of these actors— feminist organizations, churches, jihadists, and multinational corporations, for example—have brought the identity principle to greater prominence in IR theory in recent years. AN EVERYDAY EXAMPLE To sum up the three core principles, imagine that you have two good friends who are in a romantic relationship. They love each other and enjoy each other’s company, but they come to you for help with a problem: When they go out together, one friend likes to go to the opera, whereas the other friend enjoys going to boxing matches.2 Because of your training in international relations, you quickly recognize this as a collective goods problem, in which the shared interest is spending time together and the conflicting individual interests are watching opera and watching boxing. (Of course, you know that the behavior of states is more compli- cated than that of individuals, but put that aside for a moment.) You might approach this problem in any of three ways. First, you could say, “Well, I know one of you has more money because of a bet- ter job, so I think that one should get to decide each time.” This would be a domi- nance solution. It could be a very stable solution, if the less-wealthy friend cares 2This scenario is adapted from the game theory example “Battle of the Sexes.” M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 40 01/04/20 10:38 PM  1.1 Globalization, International Relations, and Daily Life 41 more about spending time with their true love than they care about boxing. It would be a simple solution that would settle all future conflicts. It would give one party everything they want, and the other party some of what they want (love, company, a stable relationship). This might be better for both of them than spend- ing all their evenings arguing about where to go out. On the other hand, this solu- tion might leave the less-wealthy friend permanently resentful at the unequal nature of the outcome. They might feel their love diminish over time by a longing for respect and nostalgia for boxing. They might even find another romantic inter- est who likes boxing. Second, you could say, “Look, instead of fighting all the time, why don’t you establish a pattern and trade off going to boxing one time and opera the next.” This would be a reciprocity solution. You could help the couple set up agreements, accounting systems, and shared expectations to govern the implementation of this seemingly simple solution. For example, they could go to boxing on Friday nights and opera on Saturday nights. But what if opera season is shorter than boxing sea- son? Then perhaps they would go to opera more often during its season and boxing more often when opera is out of season. What if one of them is out of town on a Friday night? Does that night count anyway or does it earn a credit for later? Or does the one who is in town go out alone? What if the opera-loving friend hates boxing but the boxing-loving friend only mildly dislikes opera? Do you set up a schedule of two operas for each boxing match to keep each side equally happy or unhappy? Clearly, reciprocity solutions can become very complicated (just look at the world trade rules in Chapter 8, for example), and they require constant moni- toring to see whether obligations are being met and cheating avoided. Your friends might find it an irritant in their relationship to keep close track of who owes whom a night at the opera or at a boxing match. Third, you could say, “Who cares about opera or boxing? The point is that you love each other and want to be together. Get past the superficial issues and strengthen the core feelings that brought you together. Then it won’t matter where you go or what you’re watching.” This would be an identity solution. This approach could powerfully resolve your friends’ conflict and leave them both much happier. Over time, one partner might actually begin to prefer the other’s favorite activity after more exposure—leading to a change in identity. On the other hand, after a while self- interest could creep back in because that loving feeling might seem even happier with a boxing match (or opera) to watch. Indeed, one partner can subtly exploit the other’s commitment to get past the superficial conflicts. “What’s it matter as long as we’re together,” they say, “and oh, look, there’s a good boxing match tonight!” Some- times the identity principle operates more powerfully in the short term than the long term: The soldier who volunteers to defend the homeland might begin to feel taken advantage of after months or years on the front line, and the American college stu- dent who gives money once to tsunami victims may not want to keep giving year after year to malaria victims. Table 1.1 Core Principles for Solving Collective Goods Problems Principle Advantages Drawbacks Order, Stability, Oppression, Dominance Predictability Resentment Incentives for Downward Spirals, Reciprocity Mutual Cooperation Complex Accounting Sacrifice for Group, Demonizing an Identity Redefine Interests Out-Group M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 41 01/04/20 10:38 PM  42 Chapter 1 The Globalization of International Relations AN IR EXAMPLE Now consider the problem of nuclear proliferation. All countries share an interest in the collective good of peace and stability, which is hard to achieve in a world where more and more countries make more and more nuclear weapons. If individuals in a particular country acquire dangerous weapons, the government can take them away to keep everyone safe. But in the society of nations, no such central authority exists. For example, North Korea tested its first nuclear bomb in 2006, and has continued to test larger weapons-defying UN resolutions. One approach to nuclear proliferation legitimizes these weapons’ ownership by just the few most powerful countries. The “big five” with the largest nuclear arsenals hold veto power on the UN Security Council. Through agreements like the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Proliferation Security Initiative, the existing nuclear powers actively try to keep their exclusive hold on these weapons and pre- vent smaller nations from getting them. This is a dominance approach. In 2003, when the United States thought Iraq’s Saddam Hussein might have an active nuclear weap- ons program, as he had a decade earlier, it invaded Iraq and overthrew its govern- ment. Similarly, in 1982, when Iraq had begun working toward a nuclear bomb, Israel sent jets to bomb Iraq’s nuclear facility, setting back the program by years. One draw- back to these dominance solutions is the resentment they create among the smaller countries. Those countries point to an unenforced provision of the NPT stating that existing nuclear powers should get rid of their own bombs as other countries refrain from making new ones. And they ask what gives Israel the right to bomb another country, or the United States the right to invade one. They speak of a double standard for the powerful and the weak. Reciprocity offers a different avenue for preventing nuclear proliferation. It is the basis of the provision in the NPT about the existing nuclear powers’ obligation to disarm in exchange for smaller countries’ agreement to stay nonnuclear. Reciproc- ity also underlies arms control agreements, used extensively in the Cold War to manage the buildup of nuclear bombs by the superpowers and used currently to manage the mutual reduction of their arsenals. Deterrence also relies on reciprocity. The United States has warned North Korea against selling its bombs (an action that would be in North Korea’s short-term self-interest), threatening to retaliate against North Korea if any other actor used such a bomb against the United States. And when Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003, the international commu- nity offered it various rewards, including the ending of economic sanctions, in exchange. The identity principle has proven equally effective, if less newsworthy, against nuclear proliferation. Many nations that have the technical ability to make nuclear weapons have chosen not to do so. They have constructed their national identities in ways that shape their self-interests to make nuclear bombs undesirable. Some, like Sweden, do not intend to fight wars. Others, like Germany, belong to alliances in which they come under another nation’s nuclear umbrella and do not need their own bombs. South Africa actually developed nuclear weapons in secret but then disman- tled the program before apartheid ended, keeping the bomb out of the hands of the new majority-rule government. Nobody forced South Africa to do this (as in domi- nance), nor did it respond to rewards and punishments (reciprocity). Rather, South Africa’s identity shifted. Similarly, Japan’s experience of the catastrophic results of militarism, culminating in the destruction of two of its cities by nuclear bombs in 1945, continues generations later to shape Japan’s identity as a country that does not want nuclear weapons, even though it has the know-how and even the stockpile of pluto- nium to make them. Collective goods problems fascinate social scientists, and especially scholars of IR, precisely because they have no easy solutions. In later chapters, we will see how these three core principles shape the responses of the international community to various collective goods problems across the whole range of IR issues. M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 42 01/04/20 10:38 PM  1.1 Globalization, International Relations, and Daily Life 43 1.1.2 IR as a Field of Study IR is a rather practical discipline. There is a close connection between scholars in col- leges, universities, and think tanks and the policy-making community working in the government—especially in the United States. Some professors serve in the government (for instance, political science professor Condoleezza Rice became national security adviser in 2001 and secretary of state in 2005 under President George W. Bush), and sometimes professors publicize their ideas about foreign policy through newspaper columns, blog posts, or TV interviews. Influencing their government’s foreign policy gives these scholars a laboratory in which to test their ideas in practice. Diplomats, bureaucrats, and politicians can benefit from the knowledge produced by IR scholars. Theoretical debates in the field of IR are fundamental but unresolved. It will be up to the next generation of IR scholars—today’s college students—to achieve a better understanding of how world politics works. The goal of this book is to lay out the cur- rent state of knowledge without exaggerating the successes of the discipline. As part of political science, IR is about international politics—the decisions of gov- ernments about foreign actors, especially other governments. To some extent, how- ever, the field is interdisciplinary, relating international politics to economics, history, sociology, and other disciplines. Some universities offer separate degrees or depart- ments for IR. Most, however, teach IR in political science classes, in which the focus is on the politics of economic relationships or the politics of environmental management, to take two examples. (The domestic politics of foreign countries, although overlap- ping with IR, generally make up the separate field of comparative politics.) Political relations among nations cover a range of activities—diplomacy, war, issue areas Distinct spheres of trade relations, alliances, cultural exchanges, participation in international organiza- international activity (such as global tions, and so forth. Particular activities within one of these spheres make up distinct trade negotiations) within which issue areas on which scholars and foreign policy makers focus attention. Examples of policy makers of various states face issue areas include global trade, the environment, and specific conflicts such as the conflicts and sometimes achieve Arab-Israeli conflict. Within each issue area, and across the range of issues of concern cooperation. Policy Perspectives OVERVIEW International policy makers confront a variety of about the trade-offs between your options. What are the risks problems every day. Solving these problems requires difficult and rewards in choosing one policy over another? Do alternative decisions and choices. Policy Perspectives is a box feature in options exist that could address the problem effectively within each chapter that places you in a particular decision-making the given constraints? Does one option pose bigger costs in the perspective (for example, as the prime minister of Great Britain) short term but fewer in the long term? Can you defend your and asks you to make choices concerning an important interna- decision to colleagues, the public, and other world leaders? tional relations issue. How will your choice affect your citizens’ lives and your own Each box contains four sections. The first, Background, political survival? provides information about a political problem faced by the As you consider each problem faced by the decision leader. This background information is factual and reflects real maker, try to reflect on the process and logic by which you situations faced by these decision makers. have reached the decision. Which factors seem more impor- The second section, Domestic Considerations, reflects on tant and why? Are domestic or international factors more the implications of the situation for domestic politics within the important in shaping your decision? Are the constraints you leader’s government and society. How will the lives of ordinary face based on limited capability (for example, money or military citizens be affected? power), or do international law or norms influence your deci- The third section, Scenario, suggests a new problem or cri- sion as well? How do factors such as lack of time influence sis confronting the leader. Although these crises are hypotheti- your decision? cal, all are within the realm of possibility and would require You will quickly discover that there are often no right difficult decisions by the leaders and their countries. answers. At times, it is difficult to choose between two good The fourth section, Choose Your Policy, asks you to make a options; at other times, one has to decide which is the least choice responding to the Scenario. With each decision, think bad option. M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 43 01/04/20 10:38 PM  44 Chapter 1 The Globalization of International Relations in any international relationship, policy makers of one nation can behave in a coopera- tive manner or a conflictual manner—extending either friendly or hostile behavior toward another nation. IR scholars often look at international relations in terms of the conflict and cooperation The types mix of conflict and cooperation in relationships among nations. of actions that states take toward It is also possible to define the scope of the field of IR by the subfields it encom- each other through time. passes. Some scholars treat topics such as the chapters in this book (for example, inter- national law or international development) as subfields, but here we will reserve the term for two macro-level topics. Traditionally, the study of IR has focused on questions international security A subfield of of war and peace—the subfield of international security studies. The movements of international relations (IR) that armies and of diplomats, the crafting of treaties and alliances, the development and focuses on questions of war and deployment of military capabilities—these are the subjects that dominated the study of peace. IR in the past, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, and they continue to hold a central position in the field. Since the Cold War, regional conflicts and ethnic violence have received more attention, while interdisciplinary peace studies programs and feminist scholarship have sought to broaden concepts of “security” further. international political economy The subfield of international political economy (IPE), a second main subfield of IR, (IPE) The study of the politics of concerns trade and financial relations among nations and focuses on how nations have trade, monetary, and other economic cooperated politically to create and maintain institutions that regulate the flow of inter- relations among nations, and their national economic and financial transactions. Although these topics previously centered connection to other transnational forces. on relations among the world’s richer nations, the widening of globalization and multi- lateral economic institutions such as the World Trade Organization have pushed IPE scholars to focus on developing states as well. In addition, they pay growing attention to relations between developed and developing nations (often labeled North-South rela- tions), including topics such as economic dependency, debt, foreign aid, and technology transfer. Also newly important are problems of international environmental manage- ment and of global telecommunications. The subfield of IPE is expanding accordingly. The same principles and theories that help us understand international security (discussed in the first half of this book) also help us understand IPE (discussed in the second half). Economics is important in security affairs, and vice versa. Theoretical knowledge accumulates by a repeated cycle of generalizing and then testing. For a given puzzle, various theories can explain the result (though none per- fectly) as a case of a more general principle. Each theory also logically predicts other outcomes, which can be tested empirically. A laboratory science, controlling all but one variable, can test theoretical predictions efficiently. IR does not have this luxury because many variables operate simultaneously. Thus, it is especially important to think critically about IR events and consider several different theoretical explanations before deciding which (if any) provides the best explanation. 1.2 Actors and Influences Evaluate whether states are still the key actors in international relations. The principal actors in IR are the world’s governments. Scholars of IR traditionally study the decisions and acts of those governments in relation to other governments. The international stage is crowded with actors large and small that are intimately interwoven with the decisions of governments. These actors are individual leaders and citizens. They are bureaucratic agencies in foreign ministries. They are multina- tional corporations and terrorist groups. But the most important actors in IR are states. 1.2.1 State Actors state An inhabited territorial entity controlled by a government that A state is a territorial entity controlled by a government and inhabited by a popula- exercises sovereignty over its tion. The locations of the world’s states and territories are shown in the reference map territory. at the front of this book. Regional maps with greater detail appear there as well. M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 44 01/04/20 10:38 PM  1.2 Actors and Influences 45 A state government answers to no higher authority; it exercises sovereignty over its territory—to make and enforce laws, to collect taxes, and so forth. This sovereignty is recognized (acknowledged) by other states through diplomatic relations and usually by membership in the United Nations (UN). The population inhabiting a state forms a civil society to the extent that it has developed institutions to participate in political or social life. All or part of the population that shares a group identity may consider itself a nation (see Nationalism in Chapter 5). The state’s government is a democracy to the extent that the members of the population control the government. In political life, and to some extent in IR scholarship, the terms state, nation, and country are used imprecisely, usually to refer to state governments. (Note that the word state in IR does not mean a state in the United States.) With few exceptions, each state has a capital city—the seat of government from which it administers its territory—and often a single individual who acts in the name of the state. We will refer to this person simply as the “state leader.” Often he or she is the head of government (such as a prime minister) or the head of state (such as a presi- dent, or a king or queen). In some countries, such as the United States, the same per- son is head of state and government. In other countries, the positions of the president or royalty, or even the prime minister, are symbolic. In any case, the most powerful political figures are the ones we mean by “state leaders,” and these figures are the key individual actors in IR, regardless of whether these leaders are democratically elected or dictators. The state actor includes the individual leader as well as bureaucratic organizations such as foreign ministries that act in the name of the state. (What the United States calls departments are usually called ministries elsewhere. U.S. secretaries are ministers and the State Department corresponds with a foreign ministry.) The international system is the set of relationships among the world’s states, international system The set of structured according to certain rules and patterns of interaction. Some such rules are relationships among the world’s explicit; some are implicit. They include who is considered a member of the system, states, structured by certain rules and patterns of interaction. what rights and responsibilities the members have, and what kinds of actions and nation-states States whose responses normally occur between states. populations share a sense of The modern international system has existed for only 500 years. Before then, national identity, usually including a people were organized into more mixed and overlapping political units such as city- language and culture. states, empires, and feudal fiefs. In the past 200 years, the idea has spread that nations—groups of people who share a sense of national identity, usually including a language and culture—should have their own states. Most large states today are such nation-states. But since World War II, the decolonization process in much of Asia and Africa has added many new states, some not at all nation-states. A major source of conflict and war at present is the fre- quent mismatch between perceived nations and actual state borders. When people identify with a nationality that their state government does not represent, they may fight to form their own state and thus to gain sovereignty over their territory and affairs. This substate nationalism is only one of several trends that undermine the present sys- STR/Newscom tem of states. Others include the globalization of economic processes, the power of telecommuni- cations, and the proliferation of ballistic missiles. The independence of former colonies and, POWERS THAT BE States are the most important actors in IR. A handful of more recently, the breakup into smaller states of states are considered great powers and one a “superpower.” Here, world large multinational states (the Soviet Union, Yugo- leaders of Britain, the United States, China, and Germany pose for a photo at slavia, and Czechoslovakia) have increased the the start of the G20 meetings, 2017. M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 45 01/04/20 10:38 PM  46 Chapter 1 The Globalization of International Relations number of states in the world. The exact total depends on the status of a number of quasi-state political entities, and it keeps changing as political units split apart or merge. The UN has 193 members in 2018. The population of the world’s states varies dramatically, from China and India with more than 1 billion people each, to microstates such as San Marino with 32,000. With the creation of many small states in recent decades, the majority of states have fewer than 10 million people each, and more than half of the rest have 10 million to 50 million each. But the 16 states with populations of more than 80 million people together contain about two-thirds of the world’s population. States also differ tremendously in the size of their total annual economic activity— gross domestic product (GDP) The gross domestic product (GDP)3—from the nearly $19 trillion U.S. economy to the econ- size of a state’s total annual omies of tiny states such as the Pacific island of Tuvalu ($37 million). The world economy economic activity. is dominated by a few states, just as world population is. Figure 1.1 lists the 15 largest countries by population and by economy. Each is an important actor in world affairs, especially the nine in the center that are largest in both population and economy. A few of these large states possess especially great military and economic strength and influence, and are called great powers. They are defined and discussed in Chapter 2. The most powerful of great powers, those with truly global influence, have been called superpowers. This term generally meant the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and now refers to the United States alone. Some other political entities are often referred to as states or countries, although they are not formally recognized as states. Taiwan is the most important of these. It Figure 1.1 Largest Countries, 2017–2018 Source: World Bank data. GDP estimates for 2017, population for 2018. 3GDP is the total of goods and services produced by a nation; it is very similar to the gross national product (GNP). Such data are difficult to compare across nations with different currencies, economic systems, and levels of development. In particular, comparisons of GDP between rich and poor coun- tries should be treated cautiously. GDP data used in this book are mostly from the World Bank. In Chapter 12, we discuss other ways to measure GDP that take into account the relative price of goods purchased in a country. This can be important since the price of goods such as food can vary widely between countries, giving the same economic activity a different value depending on the country. See Feenstra, Robert C., Robert Inklaar, and Marcel P. Timmer. The Next Generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review 105 (10), 2015: 3150–82. GDP data are for 2017 unless otherwise noted. M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 46 01/04/20 10:38 PM  1.2 Actors and Influences 47 operates independently in practice but is claimed by China (a claim recognized for- mally by outside powers) and is not a UN member. Formal colonies and possessions still exist; their status may change in the future. They include Puerto Rico (U.S.), Bermuda (British), Martinique (French), French Guiana, the Netherlands Antilles (Dutch), the Falkland Islands (British), and Guam (U.S.). Hong Kong reverted from British to Chinese rule in 1997 and retains a somewhat separate identity under China’s “one country, two systems” formula. The status of the Vatican (Holy See) in Rome is ambiguous, as is that of Palestine, which in 2012 joined the Vatican to be the UN’s two nonmember observer states. Including such territorial entities with states brings the world total to about 200 state or quasi-state actors. Other would-be states such as Kurdistan (Iraq), Abkhazia (Georgia), and Somaliland (Somalia) may fully control the territory they claim but are not internationally recognized. 1.2.2 Nonstate Actors National governments may be the most important actors in IR, but they are strongly influenced by a variety of nonstate actors (see Table 1.2). These actors are also called nonstate actors Actors other than transnational actors when they operate across international borders. state governments that operate First, states often take actions through, within, or in the context of intergovern- either below the level of the state (that is, within states) or across state mental organizations (IGOs)—organizations whose members are national govern- borders. ments. IGOs fulfill a variety of functions and vary in size from just a few states to the whole UN membership. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries intergovernmental organization (IGO) An organization (such as the (OPEC), the World Trade Organization (WTO), military alliances such as the North United Nations and its agencies) Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and political groupings such as the African whose members are state Union (AU) are all IGOs. governments. Another type of transnational actor, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), nongovernmental organization are private organizations, some of considerable size and resources. Increasingly NGOs (NGO) A transnational group or are being recognized, in the UN and other forums, as legitimate actors along with entity (such as the Catholic Church, states, though not equal to them. Some of these groups have a political purpose, some Greenpeace, or the International a humanitarian one, some an economic or technical one. Sometimes NGOs combine Olympic Committee) that interacts efforts through transnational advocacy networks. There is no single pattern to NGOs. with states, multinational corporations (MNCs), other NGOs, Together, IGOs and NGOs are referred to as international organizations (IOs). By one and intergovernmental count there are more than 50,000 NGOs and 5,000 IGOs. IOs are discussed in detail in organizations (IGOs). Chapters 7 and 10. Multinational corporations (MNCs) are companies that span multiple countries. The interests of a large company doing business globally do not correspond with any one state’s interests. MNCs often control greater resources, and operate internation- ally with greater efficiency, than many small states. They may prop up (or even create) friendly foreign governments, as the United Fruit Company did in the “banana repub- lics” of Central America a century ago. But MNCs also provide poor states with much- needed foreign investment and tax revenues. MNCs in turn depend on states to Table 1.2 Types of Nonstate Actors Type Who Are They? Examples IGOsa Intergovernmental Members are national United Nations, NATO, Organizations governments Arab League NGOsa Nongovernmental Members are Amnesty International, Organizations individuals and groups Lions Clubs, Red Cross MNCs Multinational Corporations Companies that ExxonMobil, Toyota, span borders Walmart Others Individuals, Cities, Bono, Iraqi Kurdistan, Constituencies, etc. al Qaeda aNote: IGOs and NGOs together make up International Organizations (IOs). M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 47 01/04/20 10:38 PM  48 Chapter 1 The Globalization of International Relations provide protection, well-regulated markets, and a stable political environment. MNCs as international actors receive special attention in Chapters 9 and 13. Various other nonstate actors interact with states, IOs, and MNCs. For example, the terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, have demonstrated the Firat Yurdakul/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images increasing power that technology gives terrorists as nonstate actors. Just as Greenpeace can travel to a remote location and then beam video of its environ- mental actions there to the world, so too can the Islamic State place suicide bombers in world cities, coordinate their operations and finances through the Internet and the global banking system, and reach a global audience via social media outlets like YouTube and Twitter. “Global reach,” once an exclusive capa- bility of great powers, now is available to many oth- ers, for better or worse. IN THE ACTION Nonstate actors participate in IR alongside states, Some nonstate actors are substate actors: They although generally in less central roles. Nongovernmental organizations exist within one country but either influence that (NGOs) are becoming increasingly active in IR. Here relief workers from a country’s foreign policy or operate internationally, or Turkish Islamic charity group distribute clothes and shoes to Rohingya both. For instance, the state of Pennsylvania is children in a refugee camp in Bangladesh, 2017. The children fled from a entirely a U.S. entity but operates an Office of Inter- violent military crackdown, which many have labeled ethnic cleansing, in national Business Development to promote exports their home country of Burma (Myanmar). and foreign investment, with 15 offices worldwide. The actions of substate economic actors—companies, consumers, workers, investors— help create the context of economic activity against which international political events play out and within which governments must operate. In this world of globalization, of substate actors and transnational actors, states are still important. But to some extent they are being gradually pushed aside as com- panies, groups, and individuals deal ever more directly with each other across borders and as the world economy becomes globally integrated. Now more than ever, IR extends beyond the interactions of national governments. Both state and nonstate actors are strongly affected by the revolution in informa- tion technologies now under way. The new information-intensive world promises to reshape international relations profoundly. Technological change dramatically affects actors’ relative capabilities and even preferences. Telecommunications and computer- ization allow economics, politics, and culture alike to operate on a global scale as never before. The ramifications of information technology for various facets of IR will be developed in each chapter of this book. 1.2.3 Levels of Analysis The many actors involved in IR contribute to the complexity of competing explana- tions and theories. One way scholars of IR have sorted out this multiplicity of influ- ences, actors, and processes is to categorize them into different levels of analysis (see Table 1.3). A level of analysis is a perspective on IR based on a set of similar actors or processes that suggests possible explanations to “why” questions. IR scholars have proposed various level-of-analysis schemes, most often with three main levels (and sometimes a few sublevels between). The individual level of analysis concerns the perceptions, choices, and actions of individual human beings. Great leaders influence the course of history, as do individ- ual citizens, thinkers, soldiers, and voters. Without Lenin, it is said, there might well have been no Soviet Union. If a few more college students had voted for Nixon rather than Kennedy in the razor-close 1960 election, the Cuban Missile Crisis might have M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 48 01/04/20 10:38 PM  1.2 Actors and Influences 49 Table 1.3 Levels of Analysis Many influences affect the course of international relations. Levels of analysis provide a framework for categorizing these influences and thus for suggesting various explanations of international events. Examples include: Systemic Level North-South gap Religious fundamentalism Information revolution European imperialism World environment Global telecommunications Norms Technological change Worldwide scientific and Distribution of power Wars business communities Balance of power Military alliances IGOs Trade agreements Domestic Level Nationalism Dictatorship Gender Ethnic conflict Domestic coalitions Economic sectors and industries Type of government Political parties and elections Military-industrial complex Democracy Public opinion Foreign policy bureaucracies Individual Level Great leaders Psychology of perception and decision Citizens’ participation (voting, Crazy leaders Learning rebelling, going to war, etc.) Decision making in crises Assassinations, accidents of history ended differently. The study of foreign policy decision making, discussed in Chap- ter 3, pays special attention to individual-level explanations of IR outcomes because of the importance of psychological factors in the decision-making process. The domestic (or state or societal) level of analysis concerns the aggregations of indi- viduals within states that influence state actions in the international arena. Such aggrega- tions include interest groups, political organizations, and government agencies. These groups operate differently (with different international effects) in different kinds of soci- eties and states. For instance, democracies and dictatorships may act differently from one another, and democracies may act differently in an election year from the way they act at other times. The politics of ethnic conflict and nationalism, bubbling up from within states, plays an increasingly important role in the relations among states. Within govern- ments, foreign policy agencies often fight bureaucratic battles over policy decisions. The systemic (or interstate) level of analysis concerns the influence of the interna- tional system upon outcomes. This level of analysis therefore focuses on the interac- tions of states themselves, without regard to their internal makeup or the particular individuals who lead them. This level pays attention to states’ relative power posi- tions in the international system and the interactions (trade, for example) among them. It has been traditionally the most important of the levels of analysis. Most scholars also include forces that transcend the interactions of states in the systemic level. The evolution of human technology, of certain worldwide beliefs, and of humans’ relationship to the natural environment are all processes at the systemic level that influence international relations. This level includes factors such as the pro- cess of transnational integration through worldwide scientific, technical, and business communities (see Chapter 10). Another pervasive systemic influence is the lingering effect of historical European imperialism—Europe’s conquest of Latin America, Asia, and Africa (see History of Imperialism, 1500–2000 in Chapter 12). Levels of analysis offer different sorts of explanations for international events. Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, has adopted a conciliatory tone toward the U.S. after several nuclear tests and heated media exchanges with President Trump. The per- sonal chemistry between Kim and Trump has partly helped bring these unlikely “friends” to two summits in 2018 and 2019, albeit no substantial agreements reached. At the domestic level, crippling economic sanctions are believed to have motivated Kim to forge a peace-loving image to the world. President Trump is similarly under pressure to show to Americans that he is a deal-maker in international relations when his other attempts are largely unsuccessful. In a larger context, winning international M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 49 01/04/20 10:38 PM  50 Chapter 1 The Globalization of International Relations support to ease the economic sanctions as a result of a possible nuclear deal and improved public image on the world stage is definitely in the minds of the North Korean leadership. As for the U.S., making a friend out of a foe in a strategic location can only strengthen American argument for Pivot to Asia to counter China and Russia. Although IR scholars often focus their study mainly on one level of analysis, other levels bear on a problem simultaneously. There is no single correct level for a given “why” question. Rather, levels of analysis help suggest multiple explanations and approaches to consider in explaining an event. They remind scholars and students to look beyond the immediate and superficial aspects of an event to explore the possible influences of more distant causes. Note that the processes at higher levels tend to operate more slowly than those at lower levels. Individuals go in and out of office often; the structure of the international system changes rarely. 1.2.4 Globalization globalization The increasing Globalization encompasses many trends, including expanded international trade, integration of the world in terms of telecommunications, monetary coordination, multinational corporations, technical communications, culture, and and scientific cooperation, cultural exchanges of new types and scales, migration and economics; may also refer to refugee flows, and relations between the world’s rich and poor countries. Although changing subjective experiences of space and time accompanying this globalization clearly is very important, it is also rather vaguely defined and not well process. explained by any one theory. One popular conception of globalization is “the widen- ing, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life....”4 But at least three conceptions of this process compete. One view sees globalization as the fruition of liberal economic principles. A global marketplace has brought growth and prosperity (not to all countries but to those most integrated with the global market). This economic process has made traditional states obsolete as economic units. States are thus losing authority to supranational institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union (EU), and to transnational actors such as MNCs and NGOs. The values of technocrats and elite, edu- cated citizens in liberal democracies are becoming global values, reflecting an emerg- ing global civilization. The old North-South division is seen as less important because the global South is moving in divergent directions depending on countries’ and regions’ integra- tion with world markets. A second perspective is skeptical of these claims about globalization. Such skep- tics note that the world’s major economies are no more integrated today than before World War I (when British hegemony pro- vided a common set of expectations and Xu Xiaolin/Getty Images institutions). The skeptics also doubt that regional and geographic distinctions such as the North-South divide are disappearing in favor of a single global market. Rather, they see the North-South gap as increasing with globalization. Also, the economic integration THINK GLOBALLY As the world economy becomes more integrated, markets and of states may be leading not to a single production are becoming global in scope. This container port in Shanghai ships world free-trade zone but to distinct and goods to and from all over the world, 2013. rival regional blocs in America, Europe, and 4Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. Global Transformations: Poli- tics, Economics and Culture. Stanford, 1999: 2. M01_GOLD0325_12_GE_C01.indd 50 01/04/20 10:38 PM  1.2 Actors and Influences 51 Asia. The supposed emerging world civilization is disproved by the fragmenting of larger units (such as the Soviet Union) into smaller ones along lines of language, reli- gion, and other such cultural factors. A third school of thought sees globalization as more profound than the skeptics believe, yet more uncertain than the view of supporters of liberal economics. These “transformationalists” see state sovereignty as being eroded by the EU, the WTO, and other new institutions, so that sovereignty is no longer an absolute but just one of a spectrum of bargaining leverages held by states. The bargaining itself increasingly involves nonstate actors. Thus, globalization diffuses authority. State power is not so much strengthened or weakened by globalization but transformed to operate in new contexts with new tools. While scholars debate these conceptions of globalization, popular debates focus on the growing power of large corporations operating globally, the disruptive costs associated with joining world markets (for example, job loss and environmental impacts), the perception of growing disparities between the rich and the poor, and the collusion of national governments in these wrongs through their participation in IOs such as the WTO and the IMF. Policies to expand free trade are a central focus of anti- globalization protesters (see Chapter 8). Street protests have turned host cities into besieged fortresses in Seattle (1999); Washington, DC (2000 IMF and World Bank meet- ings); Quebec (2001 summit working toward a Free Trade Area of the Americas); and Genoa, Italy (2001 G8 summit), where protesters engaged police in battles that killed one person. At the 2005 Hong Kong WTO meeting, protesters blocked nearby roads and some even tried to swim across Hong Kong harbor to disrupt the meeting. Although the protests have become less violent, annual WTO meetings are still the targets of antiglobalization protesters from around the globe. This antiglobalization rhetoric grew in strength in 2016, when British voter