(All PS 203 Notes)

Objectives of Course

1)  Introduce major concepts of world politics.
2)  Give you a framework for analyzing contemporary events.
3)  Improve your writing and critical thinking skills.
4)  Compel you to interact with the material.
5)  Stimulate you into becoming a more informed & more involved citizen.  
	At a minimum, to read a newspaper or other news source regularly.  

Course Requirements

1)  Regular attendance, both in lectures and quiz sections.  Quiz section 


      accounts for 30% of your grade.
2)  A short paper (3-5 pages) on an assigned topic, due 1/24 (20%).
3)  Two in-class exams:  a midterm and a cumulative final.  The date of 
      the midterm is 2/9.  The midterm counts for 20% of your grade, &
      the final counts for 30%.

Required Texts

John Rourke, International Politics on the World Stage (JR)
  -- 	conceptual, some history, current
	Atlas at the beginning; study it this week & refer to it throughout 
	the course.
Helen Purkitt (ed.), World Politics 91/92  (WP)
  --  	articles on contemporary events
	Not covered directly in lectures, but should be discussed in 
	section.  You are responsible for this material for the paper 
	assignment and for both exams.
For Wed., read JR Chapters 1 & 2.


Why Study World Politics?

Not something "out there"; affects you in many ways.
  -- 	international trade:  exports create jobs; 
	consumer goods (especially now w/ trade deficit)
  -- 	monetary exchange rates:  tourism;
	weak dollar reduces trade deficit, but we pay higher prices for 
	imported goods (our goods are cheaper for others).
  -- 	war:  you could be drafted (registration is required);
	Persian Gulf War could have been another Vietnam;
     	nuclear war still a possibility, esp. proliferation.
  -- 	military spending:  your job, esp. if you are in engineering,
	computers, or the physical sciences.
	Each job directly affects three others.
	Money spent on military is taken from other potential uses.
	Federal deficit:  you will be paying for Reagan military 
	build-up for much of your life ($2 trillion for military in 8 
	years; deficit for those years = deficit bet. 1945 & 1980).
  -- 	As largest debtor nation, US may be forced to adopt
	some of Latin America's structural adjustment policies.
  -- 	Resources:  oil shocks of 1970's showed dependency of 
	industrialized countries on certain developing countries.
  -- 	Environment:  Chernobyl = international problem;
	endangered species; acid rain, ozone depletion; tropical 
	deforestation.  Climate change is biggest problem.
	Global problems required global solutions.

Moving beyond narrow self-interest:

How many of you are bothered by the fact that millions of people die of 
starvation every year?   

How many of you hope to have children some day?  Presumably, then, you 
care about the kind of world your children will live in.
  -- 	Your answers suggest that you are not only concerned with your 
	own self-interest, defined narrowly, but that you have a broader
 	conception of your own interests which includes, at least to 
	some extent, the interests of others.
  -- 	My proposition:  In a highly interdependent, global society, it 
	is impossible not only to be a well-informed citizen, but even 
	to be a fully ethical human being, without some degree of an 
	international consciousness -- particularly for relatively 
	affluent, well-educated people like ourselves.

How to study world politics:  Major themes 

1)  Conflict (war, econ & pol competition) and cooperation 
	(treaties, regimes -- expanding)
2)  Axes of world division:  E-W and N-S; affluence & poverty
3)  Globalization and fragmentation 
	(state being pulled from above & below)
4)  Changing nature of power:  nuclear >> major war obsolete;
	media images; econ. strength increasingly important.
5)  Reality modified by perception:  
  -- 	perceptions distort reality; action is based on perception.

What political scientists do:

1)  Look for patterns.
2)  Look for explanations.
3)  Construct generalizable theories & models.
4)  Goals:  description, prediction, prescription.
5)  Methods:  logic, observation, quantitative analysis.
6)  Foci: power(realism), social relations(idealism), wealth(Marxist)

Paradigms in the study of world politics 

Realism:  Nation-state is primary actor; nations have conflicting 
	interests; basic human drive for power; power is relative; 
	the international system is anarchic.  Tends to emphasize 
	mil power.

Idealism:  Anarchy includes norms and society; pursuit of ethical 
	policy is in the national interest; contemporary 
	interdependence requires a world order that transcends anarchy 
	and sovereignty.  
	Overlaps with liberalism, which emphasizes economic cooperation.

Marxism:  Economic classes, not nation-states, should be primary unit 
	of analysis.  Like realism, conflict is central, but like 
	liberals, emphasis is on economics.  (Not in Rourke).


Methodological Approaches to the study of world politics

Scientific:  testing of hypotheses, clear-cut independent and dependent 
	variables, often uses quantitative methods, concerned with 
	generalizations, believe their work is value-free.  Also 
	called behavioralism.

Interpretive:  does not use quantitative methods, generalizations, if 
	any, tend to be limited, skeptical of "value-free" research.

Read Chaps. 1 & 2 in Rourke; Unit One in Ogden.
Next time:  Evolution of the World Political System.

CRITIQUES OF REALISM: GROTIANS & MARXISTS I. Challenging realism's core assumptions A) Anarchy * Anarchy mitigated: norms, institutns., intl. law B) Maximize power * What is power? Military: troops, guns, nuclear weapons Economic: technology, Cultural: education, media Nye: Hard (carrots & sticks) vs. soft (appeal of ideas) In an information age, soft power may be more impt. C) State-centric (sovereignty) *Non-state actors International organizations (IOs) Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) Multinational corporations (MNCs) D) States: rational, unitary (analogous to firms) * States not unitary or rational Domestic actors: agencies, parties, int. groups, indivs * Rationality? It is culturally specific. Realist policy prescriptions (paradigms shape our responses) -- Distribution of power predicts broad patterns of behavior A. Realpolitik: power balancing (bipolar or multipolar) or follow-the-leader (hegemonic) B. Focus on "high politics": traditional security issues C. Act w/ prudence (not ethics) II. Grotians/Interdependence (Bull) Hugo Grotius=17th C. Dutch, father of intl. law A. Anarchy mitigated; states exist in society Norms, institutions, intl. law comprise social web B. Interdependence >> relationships are costly to break 1. Sensitivity to other sts. policies EX: Mexican currency devaluation >> migration to U.S. 2. Vulnerability EX: OPEC oil price increases; Chernobyl C. Emphasis is trade & intl. law: harmony of interests 1. Realists skeptical of intl. law But states do accept intl. law, & almost always obey it. Intl law is not violated more often, or to a higher degree, than the law of other systems. 2. Treaties: arms control, functional cooperation (commerce, communications, transportation, environment, health, human rights) **In this modern age of satellite communications, worldwide transportation, & global economic & ecological interdependence, intl. law has become indispensable. D. State-centric (like realism, unlike the cosmopolitan & post-internationalist models) E. Implies mutuality, unlike Marxist models, but not equality 1. Power tied to asymmetrical vulnerability *TASK: Groups of 4, 2 realists & 2 Grotians. Imagine you are U.S. arms control negotiators in charge of talks with Russia on nuclear weapons & conventional arms. How do the positions of the realists & the Grotians differ? 5 minutes III. Marxism & Dependency Theory A. Economic focus 1. Like realism, power is central but = wealth B. Classes (not states) are primary actors C. System is not anarchic, but hierarchically structured: core & periphery D. Unlike realism, concern is with DCs, not great powers E. Unlike Grotian model, there is an extreme power imbalance: emphasizes legacy of colonialism Interdependence implies mutuality; dependence implies inequity F. Explaining underdevelopment End of WW2, Latin America seemed on verge of self-sustaining growth. Why did this not happen? 1. Depletion of capital Capital cannot sustain itself domestically, must borrow to produce goods; debt payments reduce accumulation of surplus >> vicious circle 2. Rooted in colonialism a. Enclave economies Colonies exploited for raw materials; virtually no industry located in colonies; land used for export crops; railroads went straight from mines to ports. 3. Incoherent borders >> weak states, ethnic divisions 4. Neocolonialism: capitalism's demand for cheap primary resources, low-wage labor, investment opportunities, & external markets * Show cartoon a. Dependency maintained by structuring intl. economic institutions to benefit the North; by coopting and corrupting local elites >> huge disparities between DC bourgeoisie & poor G. Cultural imperialism as outgrowth of neocolonialism 1. Jihad vs. McWorld * Show Pepsi photo H. Policy prescriptions 1. Redistribute wealth a. Land reform (cuts urbanization, hunger) b. People-centered development projects c. Restructure intl. institutions: IMF, World Bank, GATT 2. Ethics are relevant: justice TASK: Is Marxism dead? Think of at least 1 current intl. issue where a Marxist analysis makes sense. How might a Grotian or a realist interpret this issue?

CRITIQUES OF REALISM: FEMINISM *Brainstorm: How does gender relate to study of IR? What wd. feminists say about world politics? I. Gender as a lens A. Lenses & paradigms: maps that order our experience, framework for interpreting reality & giving meaning to info. 1. Cannot view world without lens 2. Every lens has normative & political implications >> so it's best to become conscious of our lenses B. Until recently, the masculinity of IR was taken for granted & assumed as natural * Show cartoon (lens) C. Gender = sex: culturally acquired, not biological [Testosterone theory of IR] Perhaps the most basic form of social & psych. identity. No aspect of life is free from the dichotomous thinking that cuts the world into male and female. II. Explaining gender bias in IR A. Politics as masculine 1. Radical individualism neglects social dimension of life. Women invisible in Hobbes's SN; without women's caretaking, species would not have survived. 2. Modern state modelled on Athenian state. Until recently, women excluded from pols., even voting 3. Historical link between soldiering & citizenship More recently, between mil. service & pol. leadership Masculine Feminine Objective/Rational Subjective/Emotional Hard Soft Mind Body Culture Nature Public/Politics Personal/Home Powerful Weak Authority Care III. Feminist critique of realist assumptions A. Pols. governed by objective laws rooted in human nature **Objectivity is culturally defined & associated with masculinity. Human nature is also culturally defined. B. Politics shd. be governed by ntl. interest as power **Ntl. interest is multidimensional. Contemporary issues demand cooperative rather than zero-sum solutions. C. State-centrism **Privileging the state, which is a masculine inst., tends to make women invisible. Focus instead on transnational networks & issues that blur the public/private dichotomy (human rights, hunger, children's welfare, environment). D. IR separate from ethics **All action has moral significance. "The personal is political." Politics is not an autonomous realm, and in fact autonomy is associated w/ masculinity. This realist move is a way to exclude the concerns of women from IR. Q: What happens when women are made visible in world politics? *Show sky cartoon. Global gender inequality is revealed. Reveal the hidden: wives of leaders & diplomats, tourism & advertising as IR, prostitution and foreign military bases, sexual metaphors in strategic discourse. **TASK: Break into groups of 4, 2 realists & 2 feminists, all at a meeting of the U.S. President's cabinet discussing the U.S. role in the upcoming U.N. Social Summit in Beijing that will focus on women's issues. How do your views & agendas differ? What would each of you be hoping to accomplish at the conference? How might your perspectives be affected by the fact that the conference is happening in Beijing? IV. No monolithic feminism A. Essentialist: biology, not gender (minority view) EX: Testosterone theory of war Aggressive women like Thatcher, Golda Meir, cast doubt B. Liberal: give women equal econ. & political opportunities. C. Standpoint: women's different socialization & experience, esp. childrearing and caretaking, >> ethic of care. D. Ecofeminist: links oppressions of women with destruction of nature historically; women & nature were identified with each other. E. Disagreement among feminists: EX: Women in combat. Liberals says this is gender equality; other feminists say this just supports a masculinist system. V. Policy responses A. Consider impact on women B. Emphasize "low politics": reveal the hidden EX: World Bank is funding large mining project in a poor African country. How will it impact the family & property rights structure in surrounding villages? C. Peace & cooperation (not state-centric, like Grotians) D. Bring "maternal thinking" into IR: focus on preservation of life & growth of children (not state power) 1. Children are primary victims of existing practices & the least powerful members of intl. society --Most of world's poor & hungry are children --Most refugees from intl. conflicts are children (Rwanda, Bosnia, etc.) 2. Restoring the integrity of the biosphere shd. be a top priority. -- Children are primary victims here too.

CRITIQUES OF REALISM: POST-INTERNATIONALISM *Q: In the realist paradigm, what is the role of technology? In the realist paradigm, what is the role of individuals? How do realists account for major changes in the world political system? I. Why post-internationalism? -- Like post-modernism, suggests something new is happening, but doesn't say what it is A. Interactions among states no longer the primary form of transaction across national borders 1. Trade: Q: How many of you drive foreign cars? Homework: Go over some of your personal belongings (clothes, electronic equipment, etc.) Where do they come from? 2. Finance: computerized banking & stock mkts., billions of $/day 40 years ago, foreign exchange cd. be bought & sold only during business hours. Now, large banks & stock brokerages can always stay ahead of the setting sun. (Note: Britain used to say "The sun never sets on the British empire," which was because of its colonial territories. Now, sun never sets on global capital, but this is because of info. technology.) 3. Telecommunications: satellites, media: CNN >> ideas travel fast, an unprecedented global awareness -- Global inequalities more visible. There have always been rich & poor, but global communications revol. makes such disparities widely known 4. Migration: homeless in the global village (rich & poor) -- air travel B. "Erosion" of sovereignty 1. From above: transnational IOs (UN, GATT, EU, NAFTA) 2. From below: NGOs, MNCs, ethnic minorities -- fragmentation "The world is simultaneously coming together & falling apart" 3. Boundaries no longer firm; line between foreign & domestic affairs becoming blurred C. Turbulence p. 34 R&D: "when the number, density, interdependencies, & volatility of the actors occupying the global stage undergo substantial expansion" Sources 1. Proliferation of actors: Population explosion, vast inc. in # of nonstate actors 2. Technology >> interdependence *Q: Give some examples of how tech. increases interdep. 3. Economic globalization Capital, production, labor & markets now global >> states can no longer manage their domestic economies 4. New "post-international" issues: Ecological, refugees, drug trade, terrorism, AIDS >> states can't solve these alone D. Transformation of 3 parameters 1. Macro: structure of world politics (anarchy vs. bifurcation -- sovereign states vs. SFAs 2. Micro: individuals (levels of competence) (literacy, access to technology, awareness of world) Proliferation of NGOs 3. Macro-micro: authority structures, sources of legitimacy (traditional vs. performance) Relocation of authority downwards & upwards TASK: Groups of 4, 2 realists & 2 post-internationalists. How would realists & post-internationalists explain the end of the Cold War? How would they differ on what U.S. priorities should be in the post-Cold War world? Note that how you explain the collapse of the Soviet Union is related to your policy prescriptions in the post-Cold War era. (Can sit on desks, stand, some can go in hall -- be comfortable) PI'ism Photocopying, fax machines, modems, intl. science , transntl. ecological interdep. (Chernobyl), GATT >> glasnost >> collapse Realism Superior U.S. strength (Reagan, Star Wars) >> collapse "We won the Cold War." DISCUSSION: Jihad vs. McWorld How do these terms or tendencies relate to post-internationalism? (Both are elements of PI'ism, but they are the dark sides. Neither offers much hope for the future of democracy. But R&D's description is more optimistic. Why?) **TASK: Fill in "Paradigms of World Politics Compared" together

THE POLITICS OF ANTARCTICA *Q: Why is Antarctica important? Weather, fish, marine mammals; Only "non-sovereignized" continent in the world Perspective from "down under" I. Antarctica Treaty (1959) A. Nuclear-free, military-free 1. Cold War politics B. Scientific preserve 1. Intl. Geophysical Year (1957) States had to conduct substantial scientific research to qualify as a Consultative Party C. Realist explanations 1. US/Soviet interests: limited spread of nw's; enabled them both to focus their mil. resources elsewhere 2. U.S. was a hegemonic leader: wanted to minimize conflict among its allies (e.g., Argentina, Chile, & Britain) 3. Territorial states retain veto power D. Post-internationalist explanation 1. Scientists set agenda (sov-free actors) Science requires open communication & intellectual freedom >> pushed states beyond narrow ntl. security concerns Domestic science agencies, like NSF, took the lead (not DOD) 2. World park proposal, 1972 Q: How wd. Grotians interpret Ant. Treaty System? Marxists? II. Living Resources (CCAMLR, 1980) Not really covered in R&D A. Goal: prevent Soviet & Japanese distant water fishing fleets from overfishing, esp. krill, which is base of ecosystem 1. Allows only "rational use" B. Ecosystem management 1. But voluntary compliance & no enforcement mechanism C. Realist explanation 1. U.S. had no economic interest, so cd. afford to push an ecosystem approach (no fishing fleets in area) 2. No real infringement on state sovereignty D. Post-internationalist explanation 1. Scientists, environmentalists set the agenda E. Grotian explanation? F. Ecological paradigm? Q: Why has ecological approach been rel'ly successful in Ant., but not elsewhere? III. Minerals (CRAMRA, 1988) Never entered into force Required consensus to mine Australia & France vetoed; the U.S. gave into domestic pressure >> compromise: 50-year ban A. Realist explanation 1. Saves security regime: minerals exploration wd. have destroyed ATS security regime 2. Did not go into effect bec. there was too much conflict among major parties B. P-I explanation 1. Scientists, environmentalists Jacques Cousteau >> France; Greenpeace wintered over --like NRDC setting up seismic monitoring stations in USSR to show that a nuclear test ban could be verified NGO takes on role of state 2. Authority crises in states C. Grotian explanation 1. Norms, regimes, and IOs make a difference UN General Assembly charged ATCPs of elitism, allied w/ NGOs >> more DCs became observing members of ATCP D. Marxist? -- hard to think of one E. Ecological?

THE NEW NATIONALISMS I. Definitions A. State: a concrete political entity w/ territory, people, government; approx. 190 B. Nation: a group of people w/ shared cultural traits wh. may include language, religion, race, common history, or common values; think of nationality; 5,000 in world C. Nation-state: combines A & B; fairly good reflection of reality in industrialized world, but not in DCs where post-colonial borders had little relation to the cultures D. Nationalism: sentiment & set of beliefs linking A, B, & C. Calls for self-determination, hence linked w/ democracy; Loyalty to the nation-state is preeminent. Both cohesive & divisive. Leads to competitiveness, aggressiveness, xenophobia (Nazi's--extreme; US-Japan-- mild)

Q: What entity would you be willing to die for? For most ppl, only the ntn-state commands more loyalty than family. II. History A. Rise in West: 18th C., esp. French & American Revolutions B. Predicted demise: After WW2, because Nazism was viewed as extreme of nationalism & bec. increased econ. interdep. was expected to erode nationalism UN seen as unifying force to transcend nationalism. C. Resurgence: post-war decolonization; approx. 100 states gained independence since 1945; list is growing w/ breakup of Eastern bloc countries. 1. Many Third World states are weak >> foster nationalism as antidote to internal cultural divisiions. III. Role of ideas in IR A. Soft (not hard) power 1. Intangible: increases resolve, solidarity EX: Vietnam vs. U.S. B. Ideas can be subterfuge for pol. & econ. interests EX: Angola was "communist" to get Soviet support; leaders cd. not identify pictures of Marx & Lenin - vs. UNITA rebels (first got Chinese support & were Maoist, then were "democractic" to get U.S. support, trained to destabilize Marxist govt., wh. included attacks on U.S. companies like Chevron. IV. Poor fit bet. nations & states (show JR pg. 182) A. Multinational states are most common: former SU is good ex. of how ideology can suppress national identities 1. E. European problems rooted in WWI Treaties a. Synthetic states of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary created by victors interested in geopols. & balance of power (ignored minorities) 2. Same reason Bush encouraged Kurds to rebel, but refused to support them B. Non-state nationalities: nation found in more than one state EXS: Palestinians; Kurds; Jews since ancient times. C. Split nationality: Korea; Vietnam; Germany; Ireland. D. Fragmentation >> Microstates 1. Proliferation of tiny states: now 38 states in U.N. w/ pops. under 1 million; their total pop. is 10 million (1/2 Mexico City) a. Makes global problems more unmanageable 2. When to stop? EX: Most former Soviet states fighting separatist mvts. >> can spill over (Chechnya >> Turkey) V. A new perspective on sovereignty A. Deconstruct sov'ty: over territory & over people >> nonterritorial conceptions of territory. 1. Functional approach to sovereignty a. A key feature of E.C.; Israeli-Palestinian peace 2. Basic notion of territorial sovereignty invites settlement of disputes in terms of simple boundary lines, which is a zero-sum approach B. Make room for nations without making new states 1. Perhaps have UN General Assembly of Peoples alongside existing General Assembly 2. Some discussion along these lines for Indigenous Ppls. **Q: How would realists & post-internationalists interpret the apparent rise of "new nationalisms" differently?

THE U.N. AT 50 Q: See UN as generally positive institution? Compare to 5 years ago, 25 years ago, 50 years ago Q: UN more or less influential after Cold War? Why? I. General Assembly: Prin. of "sov. equality" A. Membership more than tripled since 1945 B. More power for DC's and "micro-states" II. Security Council: realist element A. 5 permanent members (UK, Fr, China, SU, US) B. 10 nonpermanent members (rotate every 2 years) C. Big-power veto Q: What are some of proposals on the table for changing the Security Council to reflect the contemporary world? -- U.S. 1995 proposal: Germany & Japan permanent members; 3 new non-permanent members (who??) * Major hurdles: Any change in UN charter requires a 2/3 vote in the General Assembly & consent of all 5 permanent S.C. members >> must have something for everyone. III. Secretariat = administrative structure (New York) A. Secretary-general: global diplomat, hands tied by states Often convenes negotiations between warring parties -- Peacemaking (not keeping)5-year term, usually stays for 2 terms. Boutros-Gali says he won't seek 2nd term, so Africa wants to keep the post another term. Nelson Mandela is most widely respected leader in Africa, likely to back someone with a strong human rights commitment. IV. Specialized Agencies: -- most of the UN's work, but invisible A. WHO, UNICEF, UNESCO, WMO, UNEP, FAO --WHO & UNICEF wiped out smallpox, almost eradicated polio worldwide B. Have own budgets & secretariats C. Conference diplomacy: Rio Earth Summit, Cairo, Beijing -- Major participation by NGOs Q: 1996? Habitat II in Istanbul (urban devt.) V. Funding A. 1993 budget approx. $2 billion 1. Less than 0.2% of world's military expenditures ($1 trillion) B. Member sts. assessed by ability to pay US = 25%; Big 5 contribute roughly 50% UN budget C. Financial drain: member states far quicker to approve new peacekeeping operations than to meet their financial commitments; UN costs quintupled since 1992 D. U.S. owes $3.8 billion -- Some talk that U.S. cd. lose its General Assembly vote Q: Why can't it lose its Security Council vote?!! *Show transparency (arrears) VI. UN Peacekeeping missions **VIDEO clip 28 missions since 1945; more than half since 1988 Q: WHY such a huge increase? end of Cold War A. Objectives 1. Creates norms against violence (Grotian) 2. Charter: Uphold intl. stability (realist) 3. In practice, often engage in humanitarian projects: -- rebuild houses, run orphanages (post-intl'ist?) B. Post-Cold war: uncharted territory [Desert Storm (1991) -- not peacekeeping, but enforcement of UN Resolution 678: "all nec. means" -- only possible bec. USSR stood aside 1. El Salvador (1991): path-breaking in its human rights & election monitoring role [in video] -- More than a dozen countries since then have requested electoral assistance 2. Cambodia (1993): UN adminstered during transition period 3. Haiti: peacekeepers sent to monitor human rts. -- no clear threat to intl. peace & security; humanitarian intervention w/o consent of parties 4. Yugoslavia: Key to UN's success has always been the readiness of parties to cooperate >> no peace to keep -- Dayton Peace Accord: 60,000 NATO troops take over from UN forces Like Persian Gulf War, shows U.S. leadership Q: Did UN fail? All decisions made by sov. sts. 5. Mozambique (1995): Apparent success story While world's attn. fixed on Bosnia, U.N. brought 1st elections to war-torn Mozambique in its history C. Future of UN Peacekeeping 1. Traditional reliance on consent of parties may be eroded: siege of Sarajevo; starvation in Somalia; Haiti >> Ethics becoming part of IR? 2. More humanitarian intervention 3. Hostile regime in Russia could jeopardize post-Cold War consensus (return to bipolar paralysis) 4. U.S. Republicans' Ntl. Defense Revitalizatn Act: -- would unilaterally deduct cost of related mil. activities (like flights over Iraq) from U.S. dues. -- Jesse Helms holding up votes on START & Chemical W's. treaties until Senate votes on NDRA (Clinton opposes) ** Big gap: UN respects state sovereignty; doesn't get involved in intra-state conflicts (civil wars), wh. is where most violent conflicts are. EXs??: Chechnya, E. Timor, Guatemala, Afghanistan UN caught between states & people. UN Charter prohibits interference in internal affairs of states; yet there may be universal human values that must be enforced by the intl. community. Q: In what respects has UN peacekeeping in the post-Cold War era differed from peacekeeping during the Cold War? -- Give ex's to support generalizations; don't need sentences

CHANGING APPROACHES TO SECURITY: ECONOMIC & ECOLOGICAL Q: What do we mean by security? What makes you feel secure? I. Pursuit of national security: Trade vs. Military power Territorial vs. Trading States (Rosecrance: not in reader) -- think in terms of a spectrum, not either/or A. Territorial path = Military-Political World 1. States seek econ., pol. & mil. autonomy; all have same function (security-maximizers -- realist) 2. Sts. seek territorial objectives, strives to be the leading power in the system (e.g., colonialism) 3. BoP = means of resistance to threatened hegemony. B. The trading path 1. Not composed of states ranked by power & territory 2. Instead, differentiated by function (comp. advantage) a. Each seeks to improve its position, but bec. they supply different goods, they come to depend upon each other b. Indus. Rev. demanded energy resources >> harder to be fully autonomous (oil) c. Some indus'd countries, like Switzerland & Italy, produce very high quality goods; others, like Korea or Taiwan, produce efficient, low-cost/high-volume goods 3. Trading states = primarily W. Europe & Japan -- forced to by post-war constitutions States can change: Gorbachev's reforms in USSR C. Historically, most states have chosen territorial path 1. Early modern pd (16th - 18th C's), close to terr. pole 2. Mid-19th C.: trading pole (at least w/in Europe) 3. WW's I & II: territorial pole 4. Post-1945: superpowers chose territorial option; other indus'd countries chose trading orientation. D. Force or trade: Costs & Benefits 1. Mil. "free-riders:" US spent 50% of its postwar R&D budget on arms; Japan spent less than 1% on mil. R&D 2. Declining utility of force a. Rising cost of arms makes territorial option less desirable b. Late-20th C. battlefield extremely uncertain c. Popular support for wars declining 3. Much easier to obtain needed access to raw materials & markets through trade than to try to capture them territorially by force. In the past, the military world was more efficient. E. 2 worlds reflect trad'l. realist vs. interdep. models How you define ntl. security depends upon what paradigm you subscribe to. ** Show video clip: participants in Global Forum at UNCED II. Ecological paradigm Tech. = driving force in world politics; generally ignored by dominant paradigms To answer Q. of impact of tech. on IR, ask what might world system look like without industrial revolution? 1. Little global trade (interdependence) 2. Practices of intl. communication & diplomacy radically different because of phones, trains, planes, computers, TV, etc. 3. Modern warfare radically different: airborne weapons, missiles, radar, "smart bombs", nw's 4. No global environmental crisis A. Bringing tech. & nature into IR: Dominant social paradigm = exclusionism New social paradigm = inclusionism (Pirages) 3 realms: Q: Where is nature in the paradigms we have studied? A: Grotians emph. interdependence, but primarily econ. Ecofeminists? Post-internationalists (envt'l NGOs) * All IR paradigms are exclusionist. B. Inclusionist perspective 1. Demographics: 500% increase since indus. revolution 2. Natural resources (EX: feeding a culture in petrie dish) 3. Technologies: sustainable? waste products? -- toilet assumption C. Ecological notions of security 1. Preservation of other species; ecological (not just econ.) interdependence (Antarctica: ecosystemic) 2. Clean water, air impt. 3. Intergenerational notion of security Long-term human survival requires sustainability. Q: What is the impact of technology on the state system? 1. Realism: Technology = source of state power; even if the utility of force is declining, IR is still about sovereign states competing for power & security 2. Grotians: States less autonomous; more cooperation (especially in areas of technological interdep.); more non-state actors (esp. MNCs) but states are still central actors; intl. regimes proliferate but states are primary actors; 3. Post-internationalism: post-industrial tech. & values challenge the state in fundamental ways; emergence of a multi-centric world of non-state actors; citizens become more competent Q: Is there a tension between econ. & ecological security?

INTL. POLITICAL ECONOMY: THE NORTH I. 3 dominant views A. Liberalism: market economy, minimal state intervention; comparative advantage B. Mercantilism: states pursue power through trade, investmt. C. Marxism: core vs. periphery; MNCs more impt. than states D. Ecological: inclusionist; brings in nature; II. Interdependence & mutual vulnerability A. 16th-18th C: Mercantilism No country has industrialized under a free trade regime Q: Why? B. 19th C: Liberalism in Europe C. WWI: end of free trade regime, Treaty of Versailles: punitive peace Reparations >> Econ. crisis -- shows how hurting others can hurt yourself Dawes-Young Plan U.S. ---------> German reparations (loans) France & Britain (asymmetric interdependence) D. Depression: rule of self-interest; huge tariffs; nonexchangeable currencies Q: How does WWI peace compare w/ post-WW2 peace? E. Post-WWII: 1. Keynesian economics: more govt. intervention in mkt. 2. U.S. hegemony Post-1970: Decline of U.S. hegemony -- 1980s: #1 creditor > #1 debtor (Reagan "get govt. of our backs" -- drain of military spending) -- Symptom: decline in U.S. foreign aid ** Show transparency Post-Cold war >> more European & Japanese unilateralism 3. Multilateral inst's >> policy coordination a. Monetary (Bretton Woods) Gold Standard >> floating exchange rates -- Annual G-7 summit mtgs. discuss monetary policy IMF: loans for exchange rate stability, not development per se b. GATT (liberal) MFN principle Reciprocity Nontariff barriers to trade Negotiations: state trade reps. & corporations ("rounds") Now covers services, intellectual prop. & agric. 3. WTO: GATT descendant Approx. 80 members -- Notable exceptions: Russia, former Soviet republics, the Middle East, most of Africa --Binding decisions by panel of experts >> erosion of sovereignty EX: calls for huge decrease in agric. subsidies U.S. has acted or threatened to act unilaterally in several trade disputes [over EU favoritism towards Latin American banana growers over U.S.-based growers; w/ China over intellectual prop. rights; w/ Japan over cars & cellular phones] >> will WTO work?? III. Global economy or regional trading blocs? Liberalism vs. mercantilism A. E.U.: began w/ Steel & Coal Community in 1950s w/ 6 members Now, moving toward single currency, perhaps common defense B. NAFTA: response to European integration Theory is that U.S. will benefit from cheap labor & Mexico will benefit from more jobs, which will create markets for U.S. jobs C. APEC: Largest (Japan, China, U.S.), but mostly just a forum for discussion; no real homogenization like EU -- Human rights issues (China, Indonesia) Q: Who is missing from these trade blocs? (Marxists wd ask) -- most of Latin America, all of Africa, former Soviet states **Like GATT, WTO does not consider the environmental & social costs of free trade. (Exclusionist) IV. Emergence of inclusionist political economy A. Trade & environment debate 1. EU harmonization of envt'l standards 2. NAFTA debate >> envt'l side agreement EX: When tens of thousands of birds died around a Mexican lake, side agreemt. provided for investigation 3. Critics want envt'l arm of WTO B. Aid to DCs increasingly linked to sustainable techs. 1. World Bank restructuring 2. Green conditionality = "eco-imperialism"? C. New economic indicators 1. GNP/GDP as exclusionist indicators EX: Indonesia deforests, increases GNP 2. Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare: takes into account depletion of envt'l "capital"

IPE OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES I. Defining the Third World A. Divide according to GNP/capita: Spectrum of DCs High-income: oil exporters & NICs Middle-income: Egypt, Nicaragua Poorest: Haiti, Bangledesh, Ethiopia ** GNP says nothing abt. quality of life & dist. of benefits B. Defining devt. 1. Modernization theory: Progress = Industrializatn, consumption, inc. GNP 2. Mixed blessing: pop. growth, urbanizatn, envtl. degradation "Poverty" = modern notion; subsistence was premodern norm 3. Human Development Index (UN): 4 axes, not just GNP C. Realism: DCs defined as either threats or opportunities to ICs Threats: source of immigrants, control "vital" resources Opportunities: * Quote from Business Week: "Multinational executives consider Latin America to be one of the world's major investment opportunities. It's all there -- protein, minerals, forests, water, cheap labor." D. Dependency: victims of ICs; colonial legacy **Show debt transparency Kennedy article: More $ flows from DCs to ICs than vice versa EX: Mexico's peso crisis caused by too much foreign portfolio investment instead of direct investmt. in factories & office bldgs. (because of low int. rates in U.S.) -- Bail-out protects U.S. investors. Q: How are these loans guaranteed? A: Mexico's oil revenues. ** Classic ex. of dependency II. Traits of most DCs A. Clear class structure EX: Brazil -- 2/3 pop. malnourished, while Brazil exports coffee & meat. (Chile article in Global Issues) Globally, rich getting & richer & poor poorer. B. High unemploymt., rural & urban C. Basic human needs unmet: food, water Health: Canada 1 doctor/500 ppl; Indonesia: 1/12,00; Ethiopia: 1/60,000 (>> groups like Doctors w/o Borders) D. High population growth rate 3% in much of Africa; less than 1% in most ICs. E. Goal of export-led growth But whether it achieves its goal or remains an exporter of raw materials, DC remains dependent; EX: Following OPEC's ex., DCs tried to form cartels for primary raw materials like copper & tin in 70s & 80s; failed because ICs control downstream mkts & prices. F. Profound environmental degradation Export of primary commodities: cash crops, minerals; timber. Desertification, deforestation. G. Instability >> mil. repression Military consumes avg. of 5% GNP in 3rd world. H. Refugees (civil wars) 30 million; most are from Afghanistan, Cambodia, Rwanda J. Low status of women Ironic: men gone, so women lead community groups ** Show Oxfam video clip, "Community" (4:20-13:00) Q: Which paradigms do the best job of explaining this? III. Sources of hard currency: A. Loans: private (most), indiv. govts, multilateral (WB, IMF). Q: Why World Bank is so powerful (only 10% funding)? Even World Bank is moving toward micro-loans we saw in video. B. Private investment MNC = corp that owns or controls facilities outside country in wh. it is based. Revenues of MNCs dwarf GNPs of most dev'ing countries. ** Q: Are MNCs good or bad for DCs? Good: MNCs further econ devt: bring tech'l innovatns, mgerial skills creates jobs, creates new mkts (win-win situatn) MNCs are a force for peace: create liberal econ & pol order; democracy comes w/ modernizatn. Bad: Undermines local industries & trad. societies; adds to existing probs. by creating new needs & diverting effort fr real sols. Ex: Nestles infant formula as "modern" Promote conflict by maintaining econ. disparities bet & w/i ntns; expansion since WW2 not accompanied by reductn in war. Q'able practices of MNCs: EX: bribery of local officials, interventn in internal pol. affairs Environmentally destructive -- mining in Latin America & Africa; tropical deforestatn in Southeast Asia (Japan); "biopiracy" C. Exports 1. LDC exports are usually low-priced, noncompetitive products 2. Countries can't feed their own people, yet export food 3. Debt crisis >> hard currency goes to creditors rather than dev't needs. D. Foreign Aid Until recently, most aid came from US & SU and was highly politicized; most of it was military aid. Corruption rampant (Phillipines, S. Korea) 1. *Q: What is effect of end of Cold War on aid to DCs? a) Former Eastern bloc countries compete for same pot b) No superpower competition >> less aid 2. U.S. debate (** If time, have in class.) Jesse Helms: "Foreign aid is equivalent to pouring money down a rat hole." a. Voter perception: it consumes a large portion of budget. 1/4 think it's the single largest item in US budget! Reality: 0.5% ($13.5 B. in 1994) In terms of percentage of GNP, US lags far behind other ICs ** Show transparency b. Over half is military aid c. Half of nonmilitary aid goes to Israel, Egypt & former SU & is considered untouchable

THE GLOBAL POLITICS OF OIL I. Description of energy sources A. 80% fossil fuels; 20% renewable (most of which is wood) B. What are fossil fuels? Oil, coal, gas Dead plants & animals preserved; coal = trees in swamps; oil & nat gas = dead organisms deposited on lake & ocean beds Coal dirtiest, then oil, then gas C. Oil = dominant form, esp. on global mkts. Why? easiest to transport D. Oil reserves: Saudi = 1/4 world's reserves; OPEC = 2/3 Most dependent countries = W. Europe & Japan E. Oil production Largest oil producer = SU (now Russia), by far. --Chechnya & Chevron 2nd largest " " = U.S. (nearly twice Saudi productn) -- U.S. originally had as much as Saudi, used up in indus'tn. F. Uneven dist. of energy consumption: Per capita energy use in U.S. is 80 times greater than in India sub-Saharan Africa. II. Global economics of oil A. Legacy of colonialism Britain & U.S. carved up Ottoman Empire after WWI & divided oil among 7 sisters: Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Texaco, Gulf, BP, & Royal Dutch B. OPEC: market intervention Lower prices bad for exporters >> OPEC cartel formed 1960 Initially weak; like all DCs, depend on primary commodities 1. OPEC price revolution 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict = #1 cause C. OPEC as a classic public goods problem Each member tries to capture a larger share of mkt, either by setting prices optimally or raising production. D. Factions in OPEC 1) Banker countries 2) Poor countries: hit hardest by price fluctuations 3) Radicals: Libya, Iran & Iraq Q: Were either of the 2 major oil shocks a result of actual shortages? NO, pol & mil. 1973 exacerbated by oil company hording to keep prices high; 1979 = Fall of Shah -- minor shortages, but prices tripled. -Social psychology of energy prob: shortages >> short-term conservation measures & govt attn to energy programs; as soon as crisis is over, consumption habits resume. III. Security issues A. Middle East Most of world's oil reserves in Mideast >> huge arms transfers & nuclear proliferation B. Impact in Third World DCs supportive of Arab oil embargo: symbolic politics; higher prices hurt them worst This, combined w/ petrodollar surplus in banks led to massive borrowing, wh. led. to debt crisis of 1980s. C. Russian oil & gas Perceived by some as security threat to U.S. bec. of potential for tighter links to Europe. Russia needs capital & W. Europe needs energy, esp. source besides Mideast. -- Russian production drastically decreased in last 4 years D. U.S. responses to oil shocks -- Exclusionist 1. Did not seek energy self-sufficiency or renewable sources a. Shifted dependence to Latin American exporters -- part of appeal of NAFTA b. Expanded domestic exploration c. Kept prices low Q: Why is U.S. gasoline about 1/2 the cost in W. Europe? IV. Pollution from fossil fuels A. Oil Pollution at sea Dramatic oil spills, but 90% is spilled as matter of routine B. Urban air pollution Ozone, CO, nitrous oxides, particulates. C. Acid Rain (especially from coal) D. Climate change V. The transnational journey of a cup of coffee: How most Americans become global actors every morning. A. Beans: Colombia 1. Insecticide: Germany's Rhine River Valley 2. Fertilizer: petroleum-based from Russian oil, manufactured in France 3. Diesel-powered picker: Saudi oil, picker from Detroit B. Transportation to New Orleans 1. Freighter: Japanese built from S. Korean steel; iron ore from tribal lands of Papua New Guinea; Kuwait oil refined in New Jersey C. Roasting & packaging Roasted for 10 minutes at 400' in electric ovens, made in Taiwan & powered by electricity from coal that was strip-mined in Kentucky. Plastic liner: Texas oil processed in Louisiana's cancer corridor. Foil package: bauxite from Australia's aboriginal lands, processed into aluminum in the Pacific Northwest using hydroelectricity from one of the many dams on the Columbia River D. Transportation to Seattle Mercedes deisel truck: German Oil: Indonesian E. To your home Car trip to grocery store: car, oil Electric grinder & electric heat to boil water.

THE GLOBAL POLITICS OF HUNGER Studying hunger moves beyond abstractions of IR; little is more concrete than food and hunger. The Current Situation *FOOD: 1 billion chronically undernourished 40,000 people, mostly children, die of starvation daily Avg. daily food consumption in LDC's = little over 1/2 AICs Inequity & waste: can of diet soda = 2,400 cals of energy to produce for 1 cal of nutrition; same energy cd. produce 7000 cal. of food. Q: How wd. paradigms address world hunger? Realism? Grotians? Marxists? Inclusionists? EX: Cold War: food to pol'ly acceptable countries (realist) I. Food Production and Markets A. Thomas Malthus: pop. growth >> starvation >> pop. decline. Didn't foresee tech. innovations: tractors, fertilizer, etc. But can tech. keep up with pop. growth (double by 2050)? -- Production/capita declining, but biotech offers promise [Optimists & pessimists in GI readings] Q: How do the assumptions of optimists & pessimists differ? B. Rise of world food market (after 1970) Before then, trade limited mostly to delicacies. Major commodities today 1. Wheat = dietary staple in temperate regions; = most impt. food in trade. U.S. accounts for 40% of all exports. 2. Rice = staple for 1/2 of world's pop. (Asia) U.S. is not the major producer, but is #1 exporter. 3. Corn: primarily used for feed, eaten in Latin Am. US produces 1/2 world's corn. C. U.S. dominates intl agric. trade 20% of all U.S. export earnings from agric. Countries tend to subsidize crops that are central to citizens' diets: Asian countries support rice **Q: What does U.S. tend to subsidize? sugar, wheat, dairy D. Positive aspects of world food market 1. Frees countries from needing food self-suffiency, makes labor available for industrial production. 2. Exporters use their resources fully: comp. adavantage 3. Countries w/ shortages due to bad weather can turn to world market for relief. E. Negative aspects 1. Seduces LDC leaders away from agric. self-sufficiency, posing probs. if food shortages increase prices. -- Export-led growth >> cash crops, not food grown. Coffee, sugar, cotton in poor countries. 2. Scarce hard currency goes to food imports. 3. Inc'd chance of global famine triggered by simultaneous crop failures. II. Food-energy connection Throughout history, food grown w/i constraints of solar energy. But agric. has undergone its own industrial revolution: *Fossil fuel-based fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, machinery all boost production (recall coffee). *Tranportation of food depends upon trucks, ships, etc. Worldwide food web held together by oil. >> Unlike past generations, only a small portion of the pop. in much of the world is involved in producing food "We put oil into the soil so we do not have to toil. A. World food market subject to boom & bust cycles like those in the oil industry (follows them) 1960's: superabundance of food 1970's: major famines (Bangledesh) & oil shocks >> >> "world food crisis" 1974 UN World Food Conference **Show transparency 1980's: oil glut & another pd. of world food surplus. 1990s: food shortage, even tho. oil prices are low **Show transparency of this >> *Q: How might a pessimist explain this? wd. say that we have reached limits of output B. Food mkt is mirror image of oil mkt Exporters of food are importers of oil & vice versa. 1. Affluent countries sell oil-produced food to gain export revenue to import oil for their farming C. Green Revolution Massive transfer of agricultural tech. thru intl. agencies beginning in 1960s. Increased crop yields, esp. in Asia. **Q: What might some of the neg. effects be? DCs dependent on imported technologies like tractors, oil & engineered seeds, it drove peasants off the land, & damaged the envt. Good in short-term, but envt'l effects, including pesticide resistance, have led to recent declines in crop yields. III. The Global Livestock Economy Biologist: "An alien ecologist observing earth might conclude that cattle are the dominant animal species in our biosphere." Domesticated animals outnumber humans 3:1; mostly for meat for affluent. Avg. American consumes over 2 kg/wk (India = 2 kg/year). A. Grain consumption In US, animals consume 70% of domestic grain. (compare to 2% for India & sub-Saharan Africa) B. Very energy & water intensive 1. The water used to supply a typical American w/ animal protein each day = their daily home water use: 100 gals C. Envt'lly disastrous 1. Huge quantities of waste >> rivers & groundwater **Q: Can anybody think of a recent instance of this in media? 2. Tropical deforestation, esp. in Latin America 3. Desertification from overgrazing. 4. Lack of plant cover >> soil salinization. 5. Methane: 80 million tons from burps & farts (!) 6. Meat prices wd. triple if full envt'l costs were internalized.

GLOBAL POPULATION ISSUES Pop. & Energy = twin engines of environmental destruction 1960-90: World population doubled; energy use quadrupled. 1960's: U.S. pushed pop. control -- "Ntl. security": Cold War 1970's: "Population bomb" argument (Neo-Malthusian) -- biologists alarmed; foresee envt'l collapse, starvatn. -- depends on notion of carrying capacity (EX: petrie dish) -- Growth near 2% today, 3% in Africa Rule of 72 -- 2 choices: either reduce birth rate or increase death rate >> Q: How to reduce birth rate? Tied to econ. devt., women's rights, sustainability N-S issue: Rampail's Camp of the Saints; Hardin's lifeboat ethics -- Blaming pop. for ecol. destruction misses consumption issue I. Why do ppl. have babies? If we want to solve a prob., we have to understand its causes. A. Irrational 1. Lack of celibacy (related issues: early marriage) 2. Cultural value of large families; women compelled 3. "Gift from God" -- not a rational choice B. Rational 1. Need for econ. labor a. "Primary producers' squeeze" In econ. dependent upon primary production: low prices >> inc. production & pop. >> prices fall b. Urbanization >> loss of rural labor >> replace labor 2. Perception of opportunity (Abernethy: rosy econ. picture & belief that trad. limits can be overcome >> inc. pop. --counter to conv. wisdom that econ. growth lowers pop. II. Basic demography A. 2 major increases in fertility: ag. & indus. revols. 8000 B.C.: 8 million 1 A.D.: 300 million 1800: 1 billion B. Demographic transition theory High birth & death rates >> low birth & death rates -- follows modernization; middle has high birth & low death [Note: note environmentally benign] [Show graphs] 1. Transition occurred from 1860 to 1960 in IC's. C. Why has this not occurred in DCs? 1. Health improvements Immunization, anti-malarial campaigns. These were imported into DCs: tech. fixes not accompanied by fundamental changes in socioeconomic structures. 2. Other rtl. & irrtl. reasons listed above 3. DCs historically had larger families that in pre-indus. Europe (4-5). In Africa, 6-8 children was normal, wh. sets stage for very rapid pop. inc. when mortality falls Weiskel: Europe caused Africa's high birth rates: slave trade, extractive econ., colonial warfare, epidemics D. Responses Trend: emphasis shifts w/ new knowledge about causes 1. 1960s: Spread condoms & pills Q: Why didn't this work? Tech. not enough: women need to make cs. choice religious traditions, husband's preferences 2. 1970's: debates in women's movement --many abuses: EX: Indonesia & E. Timor --sterilization: food offered to hungry women 1974: 1st global pop. conf.: DCs resisted pop. control 3. 1980's: empower women through employment, literacy 1984: 2nd. UN pop. conf.: DCs accepted, Reagan opposed 4. 1990: state-sponsored programs in most DCs 1994: Cairo ICPD Conf. -- virtual unanimity Stabilize pop. at 7.8 B, rather than 12.5 B, by 2050 Cost: $17B by 2000 E. Are we reaching the "demographic transition"? Thailand: 8 births/ woman in 1960; 4 in 1986. China: 3.6 in 1975; 2 in 1985. Brazil: 5.7 in 1975; 3 in 1985. Even sub-Saharan Africa: Kenya: 8.1 in 1977; 6.7 in 1989. despite decline in std. of living. Historically, once fertility declines, it continues to. F. Is there a pop. problem? Some say no: 1. Question notion of carrying capacity 2. "Ppl. are a resource, not a form of pollution." -- all life, even the most destitute, is worthwhile. 3. Pop. density is not related to economic welfare Netherlands & Bangledesh have same pop. density, as do U.S. & Ethiopia 4. Capitalism is the solution Julian Simon (Fortune Magazine): "It is time to abandon Malthusian theorizing for a theory that fits the facts: Growth of pop. & of income in cap'ist states creates shortages, which makes prices rise. A price increase represents an opportunity for entrepreneurs to seek new ways to satisfy the shortages. The final amazing result is that we end up better off than if the shortages had never arisen." Also, "The labor market presents the best evidence against the idea that there is a population problem. The cost of labor is increasing, which suggests that there is a shortage, not an over-abundance of people in the world." **Q: How many think pop. growth is a real prob.? Would one of you try to refute these claims? Exercise: Replay Cairo, w/ reps. from U.S., China, India, Vatican, Thailand, Burundi.

HUMAN RIGHTS I. 2 models A. Realist: Sovereignty = prin. of world system. Human rts = matter of sovereign ntl. jurisdiction. Note: democratic values have no place in this model B. Cosmopolitan humanist: human rather than ntl. interest Human rts. = primary issue area for forging global community; NGOs & some IOs are reps. of emerging global community. Q: How do the two people in this film fit into these models? Q: Is there any way of merging the 2 models, or are they mutually exclusive? II. Philosophical issues A. Pro 1. Natural law Declaration of Indep. & Constitution: inalienable rights 2. Kant: duty to treat people as ends, never as means. Human rts = a pol. specification of what it means to treat ppl. as ends. B. Con 1. Utilitarianism Morality = happiness of greatest number >> OK to abuse some ppls' rights if it helps most. 2. Cultural Relativism Muslim fundamentalist states say rts can be gender-based Practice of female "circumcision" in Mid-East & Africa a violation of human rights or trad. cultural practice? 3. National exceptionalism Ancient Greeks viewed non-Greeks as barbarians. American notion of manifest destiny & British colonial ideology of white man's burden justified barbaric treatment of nonwhite peoples. Nazism is most extreme example. III. 2 Categories of rights A. Economic & social Food, shelter, health care, educ.; emph'd by socialist sts. Russia: many ppl. resent losing these with "democratizatn" B. Civil & political rights Due process, equal protection of the laws, free speech, right to vote (democracy). Emphasized by capitalist democracies U.S. Constitutn. guarantees these, but not econ. rts. * Social democracies try to observe both A & B IV. Evolution of human rights norms A. Pre-WWII: slavery, workers Until turn of century, slavery was treated as an internal matter. Treaty abolished it in 1926. Some intl. labor standards. B. Post-WWII *Q: Why were human rts. on intl. agenda after 1945? A: Nazism was catalyst Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (1945-46): new notion of crimes against humanity. U.N.: quickly elaborated strong intl. human rts. stds. 12/10/48: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (anniversary celebrated in most countries). -- soft law (nonbinding), but becoming norm Utopian document, yet very compelling (read some). Cold War: human rights became arena for superpower struggle -- U.N. Human Rights Commission controlled by West, so emphasized freedom of information but completely ignored all econ. & soc. rts. -- 1966: Intl. Bill of Human Rights put econ. rts. & pol. rts. into separate treaties bec. of Cold War rivalry "3 worlds" of human rts. during Cold War: 1st world emphasizes civil & pol. rights; 2nd = econ. & social rts.; 3rd = self-determinatn. & econ. devt. U.S. exceptionalism: supported "friendly" anti-communist regimes that violated human rights, even overthrowing democratic govts. in Guatemala, Chile, Iran. C. Monitoring: NGOs States only agreed that they ought to follow intl. human rts. stds, not to let UN investigate their compliance. NGOs emerged in 1970s -- Over 200 in U.S. AI rec'd Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 AI founded in 1961, had intl. membership over 1 million by 1990. *Q: Anybody a member? Can say how it works? A: Best known for letter-writing campaigns -- took on cases of 42,000 individual prisoners since 1961. NGOs instrumental in strong human rights foreign policies in Canada, Norway, Netherlands, & to a lesser extent US. >> Since 1975, U.S. Congress has made foreign aid contingent upon human rights practices (at least theoretically) D. New treaties in 1980s 1. Eliminating discrimination against women 2. Elimination of torture 3. Rights of the child U.S. signed last year (not ratified) Adopted unanimously by UNGA in 1989 & ratified by 170 sts., but opposed by U.S. conservatives who fear that it will infringe on the authority of parents & thus erode family values. Q: Do you believe that human rights are becoming an intl. std.?

The Indigenous Voice in World Politics Show Baraka, 22:45-38:00 (from aboriginal culture to urban slums) Preface: a powerful visual image of what IPs are about, & what the destruction of their cultures entails. Q: Why does this topic come between our lectures on human rights & environment? -Many of the worst human rights violations are perpetrated on indigenous ppls. -Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees right to one's own culture. -For the most part, indig. ppls. have been living for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years in a relatively sustainable manner. Although indigenous peoples' issues seem far removed from IR, they actually relate to many of the themes of the course. Which ones? Post-internationalism: sovereignty-free actors (ironic, since many would like to have sovty.) Nations: poor fit between nations & states 6,000 nations, 180 states States have run rough-shod over rights of indigenous ppls. Before the formation of every contemporary state, there were indigenous ppls. living there. Poor fit >> conflict, sometimes civil war 3/4 of today's wars are civil wars. Q: What are some prominent stateless indigenous ppls? -- Mayans, Kurds, Sami people, Bedouins, Maori Development & IPE: many indigenous ppls. are outside mkt. econ., but their resources are exploited by states and corporations. --Different models of devt: top-down vs. participatory Ecological: indig. ppls. comprise 10-15% of world's population, but have traditional claims to 25-30% of earth's land and resources. IPs as knowledge-base: have lived in ecosystem for many generations >> knowledge of food, medicinal plants EX: Amazon rainforest's biodiversity is a result of IPs' agricultural practices. Scientists are finding the IPs have wealth of kn. >>pharmaceuticals eager to exploit Biodiversity Convention begins to deal w/ this. Languages: 1/2 of 15,000 have become extinct since indus'tn., only 5% of those remaining will be spoken in 50 years. [Hegemony of English: 80% of all financial transactions, 90% of all scientific articles] Different paradigm: Sacred vs. secular Recall that transition to modernity entailed moving from sacred to secular worldview. IPs don't degrade their natural envts. because they view them as sacred, & have an abundance of rituals & practices to express & reinforce this belief. A: Do we have anything to learn from this worldview? Spiral of oppression: appropriation of resources >> conflict >> weapons purchases >> debt >> more resource exploitatn IP allies: human rights & environmental NGOs EX: Amnesty Intl. & E. Timor, Ogoni people EX: Kayapo & Rainforest Action Network (Sting) Envt'l groups gain legitimacy through this alliance. But IPs find that envt'l NGOs do not always represent their interests: Debt-for-nature swaps: environmental NGOs ignored IPs; "national parks" model of conservation Global Forum at Rio >> IPs forum IPs from all over shared info., formed computer networks. 1993: UN Year of IPs Much consciousness raising, discussions of conferations, but no intl. law. Why? -- states are unwilling to give up sovereignty -- much awareness Q's for curve buster quiz: 1) Who are the natural allies of IPs on the transnational scene and why? 2) What are the two forms of human rights codified in international law? 4 points each, 6 or better raises your final grade by 0.1

Collective Security & Personal Responsibility I. Redefining national security & power A. Declining utility of force B. Economic C. Environment D. Soft power II. Challenges to the nation-state A. Poor fit between nations & states Maps make possible such questionable concepts as Iraq, Yugoslavia, Nigeria. The state, remember, is a purely Western nation which until the 20th C. only applied to countries covering 3% of the earth's land surface. B. Non-state actors NGOs, MNCs, IOs C. Permeable borders, globalization --mobile populations, refugees (3rd largest city in Sierra Leone is a refugee camp), immigration (L.A. has more Mexicans than any other city besides Mexico City) --goods (trade, drugs) --culture --environment III. Alternative futures A. Bleak: "west against the rest" Combination of poverty, overpopulation, env'tl degradation & ethnic conflict is already leading to collapse of social order in parts of Africa. Is this the prelude to the 21st C.? Imagine a sleek stretch limo w/the global elite, while hordes of poor people bang on the windows. Will the global elite be able to protect themselves? The D better dikes; Bangledesh cannot. Or perhaps Camp of the Saints is the more likely scenario. B. Collective security (nascent) 1. U.N. 2. Democratization 3. Human rights norms 4. Demilitarization 5. Sustainability IV. Personal Responsibility A. You are a sovereignty-free actor! B. Resources for global involvement C. Bringing it home: consumption (Americans: 140 lbs./day) E = PCT 1. Moss: "The act of buying is a political act." ($=power) "Everything I use has been made by other people." 2. "From cradle to grave" Think about where it came from, its waste products, & where it will go. 3. Toilet assumption 4. Global ecological interdependence & SHADOW ECOLOGIES Belgium & Bangledesh have same pop. density; Belgium's ecosystems wd. collapse if they had to support the consumption habits of the Belgian pop.