Class Notes (837,695)
Canada (510,398)
POL327Y5 (40)
Jurgensen (20)

January 7th.docx

63 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science

January 7 2013 Events in last month: HSPC: found to money laundering of billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and groups affiliated with Al Qaeda, the Obama administration thought the HSPC was too big, and too disruptive to give them more than a slap on the wrist, several banks are too big to fail, or too big to jail. Speaks to equality for some, too tier justice system, US has one of the strict legal system, has the biggest population in jail, unforgiving with regards to citizens and minors (50% are in jail for non-violent drug related offense) let a bank that will lander billions, contrast this treatment of crime with the different of crime in seriousness of top of social ladder, bankers and members of government. Direct aid to Al Qaeda is very rare that it would not be treated harshly, different standards when its bankers, than when its average citizens. Second development: Checks and balances: rules of law, assassination killing program in Obama administration, engaged in targeting killings around the world and has included in this executed through drones have killed suspected militants, including American citizens, assassinated in 2010 in Yemen, his son was 16 in drone strike, never tried with crime in US. Too get information legal justification for this killing that target assassinations are contrary to constitution, without the process of law. The Obama administration bragged about this policy in releases from Obama officials outlining its targeting killings, Tuesday morning meetings John O’Brenan, look through suspected terrorist to be targeted. ASLU brought suit to get legal justification and was rebuffed by the court, held the secrecy. Lack of judiciary to hold them accountable when it comes to security, still seems to be confused. rd 3 development: Controversy of appointment.. Obamaadministration. Hilary Clinton resigned from security of state, her reasons are unclear. The person that was slated was Susan Rice, current ambassador to the United Nations, suggestion sent the Republican senate in a panic, over the issue she mislead the senate of the activity of the US in embassy of Benghazi. She described them as an outburst of anger of videos of Islamic video, which seemed evident that it was not a random outburst of anger, targeted attack on the embassy, Rice was mouthing talking points that were given to her from the state department. Obama caved into it, chose John Kerry Senator, head of Senate foreign relation committee. Mainstream democrat, controversy only been three senators that have been appointed to the head department, one of the key aspects to be in the state department, familiarity with large bureaucracy, Senators don’t do this. John O’Brenan to become head of CIA, past CIA came out of email search by FBI by junior member, no chance that a junior level would be able to get access to CIA account without approval, some suggest the biggest mistake was his blunt statement that the close relationship with Israel and USA is a strategic liability in the US. Some suggest this made those go through his email. John O’Brenan top candidate back in 2008 to take that position but his name was withdrawn because he played a role in the CIA through Bush administration and closely involved with illegal ease dropping in American citizens, and vocally endorsed torture. Credited: as assassination program, not one word in mainstream media convinced controversial, Head of Department of Defense Chuck Hagal, republican, choice of him is not getting resistance from democrats, but from republicans, comments he made over the last several years, did not care if policies upset Israel government, but more concerned with the US. Made a comment over the Jewish lobby having veto power over the congress, IPAC is a Israel lobby, not jewish lobby. Lots of Jewish citizens don’t support it. Other reason is first republicans being critical for Iraq role, after attack became critical, advocated for withdrawal, critical of Bush foreign administration. Vocal criticism on Iran, sanctions is not justified from obtaining a nuclear weapon, rather than containment and engagement in stopping them of getting nuclear weapons. Odds with republican establishment, not with the democratic establishment. Increasing hostility between Russia and USA. US has decided to deny Russian citizens in visa’s in human rights violation, response of Russia was to ban US adoptions of Russian children. Both symbolic, don’t effect core policies, demonstrates there is increasing problems between both governments. Context in which states act: Changing context from moving small republic, to mass center of international system. That change has brought about faced only threats from western Europe, the best means of confronting those threats was not to engage in conflict, but to encourage western European powers in 18 th 19 century to focus on each other, rather than to expand in the western hemisphere. The US did not pursue the “city on the hill’ at the beginning, instead, keeping them fighting with eachother. (off shore balancing) Meashiemer< policy up till second world war, Wilson argued that ww1 was justified by need to have the world safe for democracy, US would rid the Europeans of dictators, main outgrowth that Germany become a republic, the policy he pursued was those before, off shore balancing, by 1914 Germany was most powerful industrial government, made it easy for them to propel themself into global power. The US backed weaker power, to stop this, backed the British and French through economic/military than eventually joined. Ww2 entered role of spreading democracy by Thorne argues they did this to weaken the most powerful state that wanted Europe under its control. Much of the cold war, both policy of containment, were defensive in nature The spread of military bases to all parts of the planet, won’t be as rationale that this aggressive realism, is likely to bring about defensive postures in those spread of American see this as a threat (Russia, China) Russia has gone drastic changes, from monarchy to the SU, to a Russian federation, the foreign policy has remained constant. Stable with some noted exceptions, with period of turmoil of 1990s. Russia power of PM vs. President is issues that are debated, information not transparent, political institutions do make a different and do matter, but the other reason less clear discussion is these institutions have been changing. Overview of Midterm Cuban pacification: liberated formal colonies of Spain, in western hemisphere of Puerto rico, phillipenes, conflict over Cuba had extensive interests where American government became concerned with Cuban independence, could threaten American interest, they could target the insurgency and put in power a conservative government. Authorized American involvement only if Cuba doesn’t become a colony of the US, Philippines and Puerto rico became colonies after math of plad amendment: authorizing the US to take anything necessary to Cuban pacification reoccupied from 1906-08 Imperial Presidency: refers to the massing of power by executive power during the height of the cold war when the president had virtual blank check administrating foreign policy that congress was dominated by the anti-communist which was administered by branch. No restraint .. imperial presidency came to an end after Vietnam war, passage of war act, intelligence agencies and other measures. Resurfaced to an extent after sept 11, where consences marked the senate around the war on terror, which gave them a blank check. Monroe doctrine: division of powers, in homeland C-68: conclusion of Marshal plan, core policy in cold war. Containment and Detterence, and reaffirmed permiment military and remilitarization of Western Europe. January 14, 2013 Brief review on the literature on how the authors look at it. Russian Foreign Policy American foreign policy marked by stability over long time, basic institutions have been around for a long time. The institutions remain more or less the same, allows us to come to definite conclusions that political culture plays. In Russia: where last 20 years has had a huge transformation, in terms of institutions & in outputs of Russian foreign policy. This transformation began with the ascendency Govatrof leadership to soviet union his recognition that the SU needed reform, institution with parastoda and grassnof, economic restructuring and reopening. This was to rescue it, if the SU continued on its trend it would fail. These new initiatives made forces that were very hard to contain, which ended in its collapse, a period of instability through the 1990s and first decade of first century and is only emerging from it now. SU: immediate outcome of the collapse was the 180 degree switch in foreign policy, to integrate Russia into western economies and political institutions, through a largely western prescribed program, from this the yellton government reasserted itself as the close arrangements with the US and NATO began to emerge in a slightly different light, the push for NATO east, more and more states integrated into Warsaw Pac – chec, Poland, Ukraine.. came to ahead with the NATO intervention in Caso, Russia relations to US and West reached all time low, this attitude of Russian leaders under Yellson continued to the assent to power in 1999 of Putin, his government made a drastic face in attitude towards powers, in context of 2001, which Putin saw as a mean of finding a common cause with the west, Russian leaders were worried with Sunni fundamentalism Jadis movement, saw in the declaration take the gloves off, a green light for Russia to do the same in respect to similar movements that threatens its interests, central asia and chet-ne-a. this about phase, lasted for a year, during which the Putin government made some impressive steps, facilitated this intervention, close relationship came to an end, with 2 factors: increasing hawkish of the Bush administration, impending attack of Iraq, and on the sharp rise in Oil prices that coincided with the attack, more than doubled the price of oil, which is the Russian main source of foreign currency. Made much of western Europe dependent on Russian energy sources, let them wheel a blunt stick, that were likewise dependent on Russia. This context the Putin government became more resistant to western goals, and sought to articulate a much more independent foreign policy. Increasingly India, Brazil Bric-Bloc: Brazil, Russia, India, china. History of Russian foreign policy and institutions, this be wilding back and forth, obscured Russian foreign policy, regards to the previous centuries. Even if they had stable patterns, the Russian state didn’t follow this. 1725-1825 came to an end with peter the great where the Russian state became a modernizing empire since 1825, period from 17 to 1825, Russia state tried to Insulate itself from western Europe, emanating from the west. Separate itself. Russia saw to import European technologies and European institutions, to allow it to function in the IS as a great power, but did so unsuccessfully, not in that there weren’t impressive results, city of st. Petersburg, but because it didn’t end the long history of absolutism in Russia, in so far it succumbed to forces that undermined its own stability. This is a pattern where a number of forces have identified, Russian history has always been torn between need to modernize, and commitment to maintain an absolute state, with lack of accountability, when these two goals came into contact, modernizing trends undermine the absolutism state, Russian leaders opted for more conservative options, downplayed modernization to maintain the absolute state. Next transform came with the Russian revolution, the Bolshvi movement to implement the ideas of communism, came in a way inconsistent with revolution theories who inspired this. Brief Marxist thought: Karl Marx, critic of modern capitalism, better understood if we approach his ideas not as a critic, but as a supporter of capitalism. In so far that Capitalism can be summed up as the phrase as the great locka moda of history. Serves to transform those societies from previous institutions of feudalism to more rationale means of efficient production, the reason for that he argued is that in contrast to that, capitalism is defined by class division, those who own means of production and those that are exploited. Produce surplus value, the value they themselves pay and those plus an hour a day. In that sense its not different from peasants who work there piece of land, where owners collect the land. Exploit the peasantry. The ruling class is not free. In slave owning societies they can do what they want with them.capitalist cant engage in this, they are in competition w/ one another. To maintain this status, they have to devote this share with the form of investment in the means of production. Vital stage that carries the seeds of its own destruction, as the means of production is upgraded they are capable of producing more output with fewer input, downward price of labor, this continuous of the working class, will bring about forces where they won’t be able to contain them, polarization of the haves and have not, will create social instability, privileged only means of defending themselves, this collecting action is to break with the individualism. Since workers represent majority of population, can vote in socialism. New economic plan, Lenin: well aware that SU was not right for communism, yet to accomplish that stage, therefore he saw It as what occurred as bourgouise, get rid of old feudal elites, to transform society, new economic plan didn’t get far: soviet revolution from the outset was under attack, saw in Russian revolution a threat to own stability, backed counter revolution forces, thrusted into a civil war. Reconceptulization of Marxism, Karl Marx looked at capitalism like a national set of institutions, Marx himself extracted the nation state and failed to conceptualize imperialism or colonialism as a progressive force that would speed up the process, they try to export to preriferal states, capitalism therefore is a world system, not something limited to nation states, if it’s a world system, makes perfect sense it would rupture where it would be least established. Necessity of security and war, that Soviet development could not be left to slow development of capitalist development, how it occurred in places like Britain, accomplish it through series of 5 year plans, we often talk about revolutions, When we think of the industrial revolutions, we tend to think of them as the introduction of new technologies, more efficient means to make things esier Violence that came from industrial revolution, American Revolution gained the US independence but left the same elites in place, did not result in a social change. The real revolution replacement by old elite to new elite came due to the industrial revolutions, replaced the old elites with a new set, resulted in the transformation to the change or elimination, also involved in throwing the institutions into chaos. Enclosure movement took place over decades, don’t notice how much violence took place due to the fact it took place over large time. Russian revolution did not transform the society, it came under the rule of Stalin, while these drastic transformation took place over a long period of time, due to a large extent of market forces. Absence of market forces, had to take place in a different form, when Stalin sees power in 1923 he abandoned the new economic program, he declared all private property, property of the state, if state individuals don’t have private property, they have no incentives except those that the state creates, all those things accomplished by incentives, has to take place by violence. Need to industrialize Russia for the rural sector to sustain the economy, consequently the force collectization of agriculture: where the independent peasants that farmed their own private land, were deposited from these private owned property to state run agricultural.. those were well off, resisted this, met with force, to Siberia or killed, or imposed to force famines, produced by the state by removing the agricultural product, the force collectization of agriculture, accomplished the former not the latter, a disaster that took productivity to recover. The SU by end of 1995, was not on par with the US economically, but the tradition of feudal order from tradition of 1945, occurred from industry being destroyed by war. History of SU: period of 1945 on, to its collapse. The SU despite many problems during ww2, and plus, had some impressive growth figures, by 60s, 70s, early 70s.. so much so that in 1947 the US having developed nuclear weapons, was very keen to see how long its nuclear monopoly would last, to see there intelligence to develop nuclear weapons, results was that the backwardness of soviet states, would occur 20 yrs. It took them less than 4. While many suspect the faster to the secrets had been leaked, its unclear how large of a role it played, didn’t only develop nuclear weapons but other technologies that kept them not far behind the US, by 1962 Krushal replaced Stalin, made a trip to the US to give a speech to UN in New York and said he would burry USA. capitalist economies will be replaced by something else. Progressiveness in resources etc. socialism will replace capitalism, evidence 1962 SU were creating 5x as many engineers, doctors etc. confidence on the SU leadership during 1960s, based on success of soviet model, when there economy slowe, the type that was being classified. Accomplished by 1960s, SU increasingly calcified in the levels of the repression, started to diminish, not nearly as authoritarian as it was under Stalin, when it made impressive strides, it was not on par with the US economically, consequently had to put much of its resources, towards the Arms race, keeping up with the development of new technology of western powers. Couldn’t demands for own people, built to last, when it came to other items like clothing shoes etc, in the soviet union you know whats in fashion, clothes were made on functional base, that meant Soviet public was disenchanted with socialism. East Germany: unique distinction, radio/tv signals, watched West German television, was consumer items, that they couldn’t purchase. It began to break down in states around Russia, who had been closer to western counterparts. What began the breakdown was culture influences, government of Hungary distanced itself from direct control of the SU in the 80s, given more leeway to do so, upshot: hungary declared it wouldn’t enforce its border with Austria, which wasn’t important for itself, East Germans did not require a visa, had the benefit that west germans considered east Germany as illegitmate, if you managed to make it to the western germ, was given a passport, city of Berlin was open, difference of standards of east/west living, east germans massive came to hungary to Austria than Austria can get to west Germany passports, wouldn’t put up with that, so they knocked down the wall, tried to call the west german bluff, (that they would give up this automatic passport) say they wouldn’t be able to handle it and stabilize the relationships, the west german’s didn’t blink, the east germans state collapsed or it allowe its satilities to disappear, they didn’t occupy east Germany. Cultural influences from western Europe had influenced it. Instability from collapse of SU: Russian foreign policy: paints a picture of rapid changes in Russian policy, suggest foreign policy has remained constant stable through this transition. With a exception of recent 20 yrs, policy instability over, Putin government in lst 10 yrs, have fallen back to traditional patterns stabilized, trends lasting stand out, cut apart these political transitions, the first is Russia and SU, have consistently faced similar problems in regard to foreign policy, living in the hood reading< core problem in SU/Russia policy is stabilization of borders core policy problem. Russian gov300+ yrs have had to large size of Russian territory and fact they are surrounded by all sides by powerful neighbours. Those neighbours have changed, threat from western powers in erueope britian Germany, napoleon with france, south from automin empire + Persian, during SU phase, Automin/Persian replaced by British military power in south asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and india, and east – china and japan, overall trend is territory expansion, viewed independent republics on their frontier as means through which there great power adversies could project power into their territory, prefer to expand into those states for preempting the use of those territories to penetrate Russia core. Problem w/ that is realist: classic security dilemma, you make yourself more secure, you make everyone else less secure, bring a response, enormous size and particular the portion of it are sparsly populated, makes Russia feel very vulnerable, to expansion at its expense by other great powers, flip flop, scortch earth tactic, supplies cant be sustained by Russia, and survive the impact, 2 lasting trend: the link between economic development and national security, general perception of economic backwardness, pursuits to this day, perceived economic backward ness, allow western powers to dictate policy to create modernization, backwardness has been temporarily overcome by increasing ability of western state to import goods, and rise of oil prices, this creates paranoia’s where Russia is falling in backwardness, results from deindustrialization of soviet Union and increasing reliance of raw materials. Relationship between territory expansion and unification, soviet elites and Russia elites have generally viewed the expansion of territory, form of gathering Final trend: substantial exception during the era, was the overall tendency of Russian state to shun long term alliances, in favour of short term, convenience, to meet specific threats, warsaw pac treaty, beyond that relied on that January 21, 2013 French foreign policy, unifying a French foreign policy, North Africa problem has brought France in Mali, responding quickly for troops to defend them from Al Qaeda that has captured the northern half of Mali. France was long time colony of that region of North Africa. Beginning with the drive for independence, each have achieved it in part through empowerment of elites within the states, that for the most part were favourable, Uranium mining, France has 70% of demand for electricity through nuclear power. Saw France as a crucial battle ground, CIA was involved in the instability. - Reputed to be the most corrupt governor in all of Africa, use bank accounts of Zahir state as his own, involved in SA, part of spreading communism, US strongly backed SA with front states, all of which after their independence, had become strongly pro soviet. Other states, US took a back seat role, allowing the former colonial powers to play the dominant role, particularly North Africa. Mali- US developed a relationship, trainer of their military, artificial state, ethnicity of these groups, southern: African, northern: equivalent of Kurds, straddles the borders of Nigeria, mali etc. any instability quickly spills over to neighbor states, to overcome this situation US tried to integrate the armed forces of Mali, provide them with extensive training, problem with this was the attempts to unify the problem did not help the social problems, economic problems. Last year tour elements defecting, north separating from south with these touring groups. Unseating of Gaddafi in Libya, fueled more fire, where Al Qaeda tried to destabilize these governments, split up of mali troops and for independence lefts them in a failed state, tour rates were important their attempts to succeed, was not linked to Al Qaeda, a coup took place in Mali, overthrowing a democratic government by a US trained officer, illustrates the extent to which US has contributed the prices, brought this crisis about. French intervened because the forces were pushing towards the south, defeated town after town, Algeria hostage crisis was an outgrowth of this, justified by those as a reaction to French intervention, Algeria is a trouble spot for France and for the west for quiet some time. French were first to develop extent counter-insurgent methods, a secular independence movement. First three decades of independence, election in late 1990s where Islamist won, but French backed military refused them to take power. Stopping the spreading in center Mali is only part, declared purpose of France is to liberate northern territories is to unify them. Where they will be playing a game of counter insurgency. Russian Foreign Policy: Economic backward ness, Russian perception, torn between the desire to modernize and to maintain political stability, to keep at bay the more powerful state on west, south etc. the more capitalist organization, the elites feared the instability this modernization could bring: etc what happened with French revolution, sidelining of old monarchy through capitalist development, between the demands of modernization & maintaining political stability, over economic modernization. Meaning: a real modernization of Russia did not really occur until after Russian revolution of 1917, which was the most important goal under Lenin, Stalin who thought to achieve that modernization through rapid process through state led industrialization, quota systems & imitation of western technology. Soviets thought they could leap frog over the capitalist phases because they had access to modern technologies. State led industrialization could occur much more quickly. In the context in the considerable fear of their own survival within the international realm, given the soviet union was under attack by those who backed other states, Stalin was convinced Russia didn’t have luxury taking its time. Transitions from feudal society, took place in a much shorter period, by state forces. Resulting in considerable brutality but in the realm of things in considerable success. Russia had become a considerable power by the beginning of the 2 world war, by defeating Germany. The brutality of Stalin’s rule, was Stalins paranoia and the extent he engaged in purges of his own routines to maintain power: brutality of Soviet regime; those that were purged were those close to him in power. Stagnation of Soviet model, 1970s extent to which the consumer economy stagnated throughout 80s, 70s making the process of restructuring (glass) much difficult leading to forces that tore it apart. The other side of this overall picture, realist approach downplays the importance of domestic regimes, tends to look through foreign policy through geopolitics, highlights features of the Russian state that cut across different regime types. Among those are in particular the weakness of the Russian borders, and its location in a dangerous neighbourhood. The Russian state has occupied the heart land of the Eurasian continent, which occurdng to makinder, put them in a position to pull them outwards. Flipside of this is whoever occupies the heartland is permantly surrounded by all sides of hostile power, difficult time controlling of the oceans. Elevated the rim lands, those that controlled the ports, Russian governments throughout have been concerned with stabilizing its borders. Elites that are in government that are nice to Russia, Constructivism: analysis of American foreign policy through a focus of American political culture, which we noted have been remarkably stable, idea of city on hill. Has cut across American history which to a large extent has unified the American, the US could not be properly identified as an empire, as he argues an empire has hierarchical with the core and prieferies of particular political entity, which resources are extended, inequality of governing in center, and governed elsewhere, US has joined inequality, within its own territory. Russia not the case, quite clear relationship of inequality core of Moscow through SU meaning the Russian empire was indeed an empire with numerous empires. Russian identity was dominant. What provided Napoleon was the ability to harness the forces of nationalism in his military ventures, identifying those armed forces, provided the French state with many advantages in confronting those who governed over its citizens, not subjects identifying those as separate from commoners, from devine right of kings. Power of nationalism has lead other states to imitate this, at least in this regard, british subjects became british citizens, slowly those parts of Europe which were governed by multi national empires lost out those regions which could create nationalism. Which gave rise to modern turkey. The main architects to this nationalism, was one hand the US, Wilson project in ww1, was to create national democracies in nation states as the ideal model for creating a functioning & stabilizing traditional Europe, and also Russia who saw imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism as the vanguard to eliminate imperialism, and thus capitalism, but that ment Russia found themselves in a particular position. Anarcistic: dividing the classes between each other, with the association with emergence of Capitalism the bourgeois, threat to own existence, SU took over in forces of nationalism were always a threat to those in power in Moscow, that those that supported in by outside forces, Idea of eliminating old empire, as a affirmative action empire, it sought to overcome the forces of nationalism by incorporating these nations on an egalitarian level in the SU state, a new soviet identiy that could overcome the forces of nationalism. Success in this regard: Lenin Brezhnev made career in demonstrating that lacking national background was not having a Russian background to move up What all this meant: constructivism- in sharp contrast to the US, which developed a very firm national identity, had a profound impact on foreign policy Russian national identity has always been combined with a big question mark, incorporating local elites in the state, reinforced nationalism, tried to co-op elites in various republics created resentments by those who did not benefit from similar. 1917 -1989 ment that by the time the economic model broke down, that the ability of the Soviet State to project military power, these ethnic identities were successful enough to pull them apart. These identities & foreign policy: will have continue to impact, what we see is repeated attempts by Russian leadership to “city on the hill” like the US 1) attempt by Lenin to see the SU as precisely that City on Hill example to rest of the world, didn’t use this term, or religious language like in America, but used Marxist reddrick – SU being the first country to govern by communist was the van garden of socialist revolution, it to saw it as a model and magnet to the rest of world, immigration not generally encouraged more model instead of magnet. Closely was the establishment of communist international, centered in Moscow, an attempt by the SU to co-ordinate communist activities around the world, assert its leadership around these communist parties around the world. Basic idea the role of the SU of Van Gard state in IR, was to help communist prties to overthrow their government in other parts of the world, support important in industrialized world, in western Europe & NAmerica. Distrust of nationalism goes back before the first world war, idea that nationalism was counter, and saw to hide class structure to unify the class, from the state, SU viewed nationalism as counter revolutionary focused on world revolution by supporting those groups. In US support of leftist forces, resulted in the red scare, leader was rounded up still got 1mill votes in prison, crutial foreign policy of : justified repression of communism around the world, as treason for supporting SU. Germany: interwar period, national socialist viewed communism as treasiest, over the interest of Germany. One impact it didn’t have it didn’t overthrow any capitalist country, 1917- ww2. Ww2 saw a greater realism in that SU first voted against the treaty of Versa & against league of nations, tried to ally itself with Germany, as situation in Europe changed, shifted towards a popular front strategy, facism was the most threatening attempted to unify coalitions against the rise against facism, made them more receptive to form alliances with former enemies. Foreign policy not by ideology or pol culture but by realist which best has its security. Stalin was well aware pack was necessary evil but not to rely on forever, but to buy time. For an slot. With attack on Russia by Germany, stalin changed and formed closer alliances with US&Britain main obstacles was communist international, was to overthrow US and Brit gov, through which the SU attempted to influence but not to aid them specifically. Important outgrowth was communist bookstores. The relationship between soviet and west morphed with the defeat of nazi Germany, where SU put less emphasis on trying to overthrow leading capitalist governments but focused on kinds of arrangements that had been Yolta conference: spheres of influence, one hand – western allies over western Europe, eastern Europe was SU. SU continue to have a foreign policy that was confrontational, it did not to undermine the spheres They did this in the third world, in which SU saw itself in undermining colonialism and neocolonialism in ww2. Backed and supplied many national liberation movements, most notably was the close relationship between national forces in Vietnam and confrontation with the French, In case of china, did not back them. Closer to national forces in china, defeated by moi-san-ton pushed into Taiwan. SU played a prominent role in helping the gov of north korea. In aftermath of Japanese occupation, but mostly in Africa, where SU close ties with many liberation movements, in particular those in which independence came through military confrontation, british colonies came through granting independence and friendly government within their former colonies. Angola, all of which were not militarily defeated but gained independence when gov of Portugal collapsed in 1975.. all of these states the backed govs by SU easily seized power, Russian Identity: shifts overtime and how its influenced its foreign policy, progressive force, idea of city of hill did not survive the collapse of soviet union, resulted in failure due to lack of coherent pol. Culture that would cut across the SU that was capable of replacing the national institutions, those states that resented the SU the fall out was inevitable, - Ukraine, Baltic Republics, Delaross, ethnic differences & the extent to which the development was still absent in these regions, central Asian republics and Georgia. All of these entities within the SU, pushed for independence, extreme dependence on model of restructuring of the economy, accommodated that independence. Which in turn ment, that the current Russian government under Putin, has three dominant priorities; that explain to some extent its foreign policies, and how its likely to develop 1) economic growth: that explains the strongly pro western tilt, under Yeltsin instability of coez ad counter coups was an eeconomic free fall, similar to that In east Germany, less developed country suddenly was subjected to international competition. Virtually over night the soviet economy depended on state regulation went into a free fall. Which only started to recover in 1990s gdp capita 7,000, collapse of SU economy went way down, recovered since than in 2008 gdpa per capita 16,000 economic growth and modernization have been on the for front, yelson gov tried to achieve those goals through rapid privatization through economy, considerable chaos, liberalization for that reason got a very bad name, that chaos resulted in turn as Strong emphasis on friendly gov in neighbor states A) Russia has not changed geopol position, dangerous neighbourhood & strong interest in maintain friendly government, so they cant threaten the government, equally important is part of the attempts to create soviet identity, was russification- encouraging Russians to emigrate into non Russian republics, to create a more homogenous population, result 60 mill Russia in near abroad, former soviet republics, many regions like astonium, Russians are not viewed in a favourable light, it creates temptation by Russia to use these as pretext for further expansion, comparing Russia to Germany, end of ww1 was drastically reduced, Russia like Germany moved from a great power, to drastically reduced at extreme reaction is inevitable, not been the case- Russia has cut troops, military drastically, 3.4 million troops from forces in 1990s shut all of its basses, Vietnam & cuba, 2008 cut troops in Georgia. One problems with second concern is that the west has unilateral cold war, nato going more east, as western friendly governments incorporating east wards, toying with the idea of ukrain and Georgia to join, which is viewed as an anti Russia alliance government. Major threat to this second priority, southern frontier the pro soviet governments maintain themselves in power, to this day however 9/11 Putin had seen this as opportunity to take its glove off, Chechen terrorism, to allow US to gain access and build bases in several bases, and increases the overall paranoia and not being able to maintain friendly governments. 3) prevention of terrorism @ home, explains why the Russian government was willing to compromise and allow greater American presence in America neighbourhood, equally threated by Islamic in Chechen, all of this has decreased because Sunni extreme has led the Russian government to assert itself to a greater extent, later part of bush administration equally important in anti ballistic treaty in Poland and Chec, invasion of Iraq – these rising tensions to signal a reset in Russian American relations, which bared some fruit (Russia allowed itself to be convinced to have more sanctions on Iran, allow use of former Russian republics to supply the nato powers, and to intervene in Libya, as Obama: form of backing off missile defense programs, as well as greater respect for Russian interest, is in Syria, where Russia maintains a naval base and increasingly government of Putin views western meddling where Russia may become more assertive, in some limits- on high oil prices less dependent on western oil, not expected to continue indefintiyl, oil prices downward prices. Energy to western markets. Demographically faces serious challenges. In protecting power of the immediate neighborhood, it wants to be the Regional hegemony, and US tries to stop that as greater control over the region January 28 2013 Research Paper: hypothesis relates to some aspect of making of foreign policy of such a country. Address a controversy in the literature. More liberal ideologist, realist tendencies in their foreign policy etc. on any topic it shouldn’t be hard to identify a controversial < Marxist, liberalist, this paper I’m going to examine such and such in the various perspectives in the paper. European Union Actor to frame our discussion in our two cases – France and Germany. German post ww2 era, without pay attention to main goal which is integration into common Europe. Main threat that Europe faces is primarily each other, these threats were increasingly disappearing. Economic: not idea of EU or sovereignty has gotten a bad name, rather the model ment to achieve this goal is flawed, not because of the vision of polling sovereignty was a bad idea, but rather the conclusion is Europeans move too far too fast, not so much in political integration, and coordination of foreign policy. Adopting a common currency late 1990s before material conditions within the continent and the political institutions were ready to cross that bridge: the level of development of various European powers, was still far apart. By the time these crucial steps to a singular economy were taken the most crucial a common currency. The economic levels of Portugal, spain, Italy, Ireland and Greece < countries referred to as pigs were far below than those more developed in western Europe like France & Germany . That meant the common currency and common market would tend to show these differences, for reasons difficult for a country to industrialize and catch up from those outside its borders. Those western had more benefit if they had equal access to these markets, Germany profited at the expense of these weaker countries. Ex: US difference of level of institutions and economies like states Michigan, Newyork Pens compared to New Mexico, Mississippi, Alabama, yet they share a common currency but has not resulted any state that has wanted to leave. The political institutions are developed in such a way where a large federation requires the ability to redistribute the resources to equalize this process. Within the European union, those institutions and due to the long history of sovereignty, remain under developed. Not so much political institutions, but the distinct political cultures. Difficult to sell the idea in Germany that average German should pay higher taxes, so part of tax revenue should go to Greece to bail them out, who from point of view of Germans are considered free loaders, some truth to that. Chancellor of Germany, uphill battle in convincing the German public to go along with it, not successful. Easy answer is the Europeans to abandon the common currency, it seems the case that those not admitted to the euro but are part of the EU – Hungary, chec republic, faired far better than those in the currency than less developed countries. It allows them to devalue their currency, can make imports from stronger countries more expensive and do protectionism from foreign market, to make local products cheaper. One way street: no formula created from how to get back out of it, Greek debt is in the form of euro’s, if they adopt their own currency, it would lose its value and devaluation & make creditors in other European countries happy. The German government recognizes the huge benefits, enlarging own market. Over 500 mill consumer, easy access, significant. Exports paid In euros, German competitiveness determined the value of the Germany currency, the competitiveness of the euro, Germany profits hugely, even outside the European union. The current context the Germans are holding out, & are not subsidizing. In the long run, recognize it has a strong interest in holding the system together to keep their exports low. Historical Context: European union has been seen as the end of the West Phalian state system: emerged out of western Europe, reason it defines the global system, has to do with the circumstances, 30 yrs war, largely fought on German soil and neither side was able to eliminate each other. 2/3 population disappeared. Was costly, means found to bring end to it was simple declaration that religion of the king of the religion of the people. If your king was protestant you be protestant or you switch places. Due to this 90% of Germans identify themselves as Catholic or Protestant, only 15% claim to believe in god, secular society. Creation of the idea that states are equal & sovereign, idea of diplomacy: rests on basic idea that diplomats are immune from ill treatment from the other states no matter how weak or strong. Idea of Realism: notion that states are core entitles they are first and for most by security, survival and they compete with other states to amass more power in order to guarantee the security for their survival. Peace of Westphalia ended the 30 yr war, many would argue it didn’t lead to peaceful coexistence, became interstate war. Superior, paycheck, numerous wars did not involve a huge amount of casualties, when one army tried to out move the other, no interest in dying for their nobel men . War of the Roses: between diff rulers within Great Britain, 5 and 15 causalities and result of drowning in mud, not by killing each other. The attempts by various nobel families but to create nation states starting with French revolution and Napoleon. First time harnessing the power of state power and national identity, by doing this convinced the average citizen they had a stake in dying for their country. That they should be willing to do this. Extent to which napoleon forces were able to overrun the professional military resulted in the rest of Europe trying to imitate this, ushered in the idea of the nation state. While the napoleon wars briefly gave rise to the stale mate in Europe, saw a sharp turn away in 1990s in concert of Europe system started to break down. Concert of Europe function on numerous power setters, France, Britain, Austria-Hungary, Germany etc, none were able to become to aggressive to their neighbours because the others would restrain this. German unification largely ended this in part of three interstate wars, prusia and Denmark. The second a war between Prussia and Austria- hungary which gained control over nevera franco-prussia war, france Russia, gained control over the Rhine land. Problem with that it upset that overall balance made it difficult> original offer made a security dilemma: as one state increases its security others become more threatened, competition for security is always a zero sum gain, as one state builds its military might it feels more secure but makes others less secure. Lead to a split between defensive realism: argue true state craft needs awareness of these security dilemma’s who recognized that pushing to far it would create an alliance with german power, he needed to restrain In central Europe to not appear to endanger Russia, france Britain etc, he avoided the temptation to form a alliance with Austria hungary (were german speaking) almost a natural alliance between those two. This in turn would result in a two front war, divide it between a eastern and western front. Bismarck was outstead when Kaiser died and was replaced by Kiser Wilhelm the 2, not interested in running government and left it to his chancellor, not as cautious and formed an alliance with Austria- hungary, which what Bismarck feared, alliance of Russia, france, Britain. War in which each side managed to convince themselves that it be very short and there were invincible. Schlieffen Plan< if it came to war, concentrate their forces all to France, crash Belgium and move to face Russia, instead of breaking through France got stuck in trench war fare, had to split forces in east and west. Obstacles of emergence in EU: can be clearly seen point of view of Germans, 70km from Paris, to try to capture Paris, and by the time they pushed on somehow 10-20km out of paris, general ludan wired back to Kiser we failed to achieve is to look for peace, surprising in country like Germany steady progress, than press for peace.treaty of vers: view of dehumiliation due to the king being put down, if they could get into France, their supply line could not hold. Response of the other allies, supported ww1 to end all wars, idealist view of world affairs, all European countries are democratic, keen to avoid the question of who is guilty of starting the war and paying back. The victors France viewed themselves as victors and forced a humiliation treaty including territorial concessions, economic etc which will mearly lead to future conflict down the road. He instead wanted a far settlement and a league of nations. Atomonisty between German & France, were such a reconciliation was unthinkable, realism would triumph. If you want a democracy to flourish Democracies function well if there’s economic growth food on table, if you want an enemy to never try to hurt you again: cripple its economy, realism over liberalism. League of nations was established, the most important features the punitive measures taken in regards to Germany. By creating enormous reparation with just enough of an army to put down domestic rebellions but not threaten neighbors or retake territory. 1948: couldn’t find anyone to co-exist in the near future, though main driving forces France and Germany for EU, something that happened as much inspite of americans, not for it. leadership of Germany and France that took the first steps to create the European union, first step was taken in 1950 with creation of European coal and steel community, 1950 also yr American answered they would support the rearmament of Germany. European steal and coal community was one level an economic agreement, to pool resources of these two industrialized country together, but more than economic move, it was intend ended to explicitly to make future conflict impossible between Germany and France. Unifying the steal market, the idea that separate military could emerge, one thing that’s clear what would allow two formal enemies make common cause, what dimensions the revenge and concern reparation payments; France lost access to their colonies in North Africa and South East Asia having to focus on domestic front would make it difficult to try to recapture control over the international. Soviet Threat: overarching factor that allowed these two countries to put there differences aside. Main concern was expansion of soviet interest. Both of these countries were extremely vulnerable to communist interest, try to make german left as a workers group, fighting battle s with the socialist power, when hitler came, communist were quickly run up. Center of Spector, conservative looked at Nazi at brutality and thugs, but since their main enemy was communist was lesser of two evils, made peace with Nazi and some were important roles in the nazi state. If free and fair elections were held after France, maybe socialist or communist, those who weren’t collaborators that’s why the initial agreement was that each country would occupy its corner of Germany, demilitarize, and unify, the SU were right on top of that, wanted unify Germany would become communist and would spread. Crisis among the ruling elites in France, USA, best way to take the sail is the rapid reconstruction.jumped with Marshall Plan a component of containment, if soviets were removing the reputations, it would become very poor, if the western sector pumped in credits, they could see how poor the Russians were, and cia, by creating the rapid growth, over socialist development that in turn made sense to go in the direction of the coal and steel community in large part of the economy. The expectation process would continue because of the continued threat of the soviet union, continue to integrate their systems economic and political integration went hand and hand, whats unique is if we look at the history of the European union, one thing that stands out as many important steps taken, these steps were relative baby steps, the collapse of the SU where the more important steps were taken, including a common security police in 1993. Rapid reaction force, that never materialized, the creation of the euro. In regard to foreign policy, clearly the foreign policies of both states throughout the period of the cold war, were focused on integration, to maintain security within the period. Nato was an important outgrowth of this. First foreign policy crisis Europe faced was Suddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, no substantial differences emerged because of large part of US repelling Iraq forces to remove them from Kuwait. Things got more complicated for European policy, despite in 1993 they signed the European power treaty, it didn’t work out that way, to the extent to which European foreign policy got the lowest common denominator was illustrated in Balkin Crisis and disillusion of Yugoslavia, first country to recognize the independence of Croatia Yugoslavia was only communist party left, power keg: set off ww1, cost grief throughout ww2 in aftermath, and socialist government was independent of the soviet union. Yugoslavia was unified as a single power, leftovers of atom empire, and parts of Serbia that was orthodox Christians, culturally and religiously divided. Wealthy regions were taxed to prop up the poorer regions, wealthiest region was Croatia, decided they feared better by themselves, started the process of leaving and declared their independence, huge number of people that moved and came all those Serbs that came became second class citizens, and engaged in ethnic cleansing. Process of serbs trying to get the Croatians out. Process in turn resulted in muslims and serbs and Croatians in territory of bosnia, Germany recognizing an independent Croatia, playing a destructive role and on top of which gave rise to accusations of playing a role in similar to nazi Germany. Extent to which European foreign policy increasingly diverged reached its high point in case of Yugoslavia, but in second gulf war. where clear division emerged. With old Europe and new Europe > progressive new with international police, old> resistance to those adventures. New Europe>great Britain, spain, Italy, Poland, Old> out of gulf, illustrates If the intervention marked a low in Iraq in Obama administration: A) outs critical of Iraq intervention popular in western Europe, were intervention in Libya, fueled by the French. Represents a common problem, US and common intelligence in assaid in Syria, and recently in intervention in Malie, france took lead in lesser roles, environment in common European interest in containing Islamic Fundalism, which presents Europeans with a common threat, affects France for front of impacts north Africans live in france, and instability in tht region brings about waves of legal/illegal immigrants seeking to escape the instability in that region, france domestic threaten Algeria and north Africans and largly in ghettos. France: wealthy downtown, slums out suburbs, zones of paris have become explosive and generating riots etc February 4 th European Union, transformation of European politics from the establishment of EU, that represents a departure from the corner stones of the international system described as the Westphalia system Idea of sovereign states within their jurisdiction, maintain absolute authority, monopoly of the legitimate use of force and coherision. Integrating some of the major players, EU is a major departure interesting incorporates within its territories the key players in the international system prior to 20 century, France Germany GB. Beginnings of the EU were humble, mostly economic, cool & steel community integrated the European markets for coal, steel most notably were major players within that France & Germany. Upshot from that, was essentially an aim at making conflicts between these two powers less likely, if not impossible. From that gradually, to incorporate more and more the economic affairs of European and, make a common market. That integrated the economy of western Europe, and those economic forms of integration were enhanced through political integration, meaning the creation of political institutions Europe could be governed. This includes the European commission, European parliament, court systems, and European central bank. One of the last steps, most interesting the integration of their foreign policies. Officially the purpose of the EU: Kenneth Smith outlines objections: 1) regional cooperation and regional integration or political and economic and increasing cultural, 2) the promotion of human rights, 3) promotion of good governance and democracy; democracy prerequisite for integration of EU, Greece and Italy good governance is questionable not readily described as good governance4) prevention of violent conflict, good record, little violent conflicts, and to 5) fight international crime. The main obstacles are sovereignty the diminishing of sovereignty, the pooling of sovereignty into EU, & the existence of separate national identities (cultural differences). While much has been done to diminish the barriers between states, integrate markets, free flow of capital and goods within the EU, and to allow the free flow of labor across former political boundaries, lots left to be achieved. True all Europeans carry a European passport, not a French or German passport, but these passports are issued by their countries, to signify any member of the EU they can freely travel across the borders, seek employment anywhere in the EU..freeing the flow of labor is more apparent then real. Main reason: linguistic and cultural obstacles that seek employment out of their country of origin. Lots of work to facilitate skills from one region to the other, if you want to practice as a doctor in Germany but you studied in Spain, than your going to have a lot of trouble. Realm of foreign policy, these differences;cultural and the differences between national identity, represent a obstacle in integration of foreign policy. National identities determine members of a political community recognize the world and understand the interest in the world, in so far these national identities diverge, history of country diverge, countries will continue to seek their interest in many ways, critics of European policy argue that foreign policy has been unified its been unified only conformed the lowest common denominator, objects of that policy is limited, but its very difficult to go beyond, value & interests are not shared across borders, no European polity. For that reason, member states control their region to a extent, differences are evident with respect to the dissolution of Yugoslavia, where German played a different role from France & Britain, in regard to Rwanda where France backed Hutu government longer than any one else, Iraq war: France & Germany didn’t support, Britain, Spain, Italy joined the coalition of the willing. Iraq:A) different countries have different interests, as such some of the reluctance of France & Germany to go in may have a great deal to do with the fact both France & Germany had trade ties with Iraq, both exported capital goods to Iraq, reluctant to give up those connections, Poland Spain, Italy far less so. Great deal of reluctance of joining the coalition was because ofAmerican government & the attitude towards Europe, and the attitude towards coalitions and international community in general. Bush: your with us or with the terrorist, low approval ratings were far worse in Europe (France/Germany). France singled out- US declared the French an enemy, taking measures like renamed French fries to “freedom fries”. Why Germany was not singled out, not entirely sure. Situation towards a common foreign policy has improved with change of one key variable: replacement of Bush to Obama. Obama enjoys far greater popularity than Bush, notable that their doesn’t seem distance towards European countries andAmerican foreign policy. Worked similar playbook in Libya intervention, US majority of arms, on the ground in terms of directing attacks was France. Syria: gradually emerging in Europe that US may have pushed too hard trying to push to hard,Arab states pushing a little to hard to backing opponents to theAssad Regime, most investigations say Syria opposition 50,000 members of resistance, 40,000 are linked to Europe considers to be extremist groups (jihad). Only 10,000 seen as moderates. Essentially, gradual realization better withAssad. Obama administration greater role in pushing Europeans in isolating Iran, don't share same atomicity towards Iran due to Iran Embassy. Iran Embassy Crisis: why Iran is in a similar category with Cuba, official enemy to US long after the reasons have disappeared. Despite 30 years, US still hostile. Europeans have viewed Iran not positively, but not completely negative. State that does not threaten its neighbors, European interest and potentially a large market to European exports, despite these interests, that would push Europe nicer attitude towards Iran..successful in getting the European member states so support sanctions regime. Temporary to greater integration.. or merely Obama better selling the policy, Europeans may be still extremely divided. Realist: understandably skeptical at integrating foreign policy in EU. Peter: European Union will only take difficult decisions if gains of a common action are so great that sacrificing their own sovereignty is worth it.. or if interests converge to an extent that no loss of sovereignty will exceed. These conditions have not held in the past, unlikely to in the future. Common interest cannot overcome those basic interest. Different interest at stakes, no controversy has erupted, evident in bubble of NorthAfrica. North Africa, France has substantial interest.. long history of colonial domination.. rest of Europe doesn’t share those interests.. Reluctant to intervene in that region such if an intervention would be really costly. Liberals more positive: arguing while limits exist, true to note cup is half empty, half full. Limits can be overcome, they can particularly overcome if larger states within the European union, can be forced to accept outcomes that are contrary to their interests. That is the case in foreign policy, more case in economics. So long as Germany, central player in EU continues to defend its national interest, unlikely EU will survive the current economic crisis. In order to survive needs to accept it has to bail out the weaker players within the EU in order to prevent the disintegration of the EU. Britain is holding a referendum again for its EU membership. when they fit their interests. Germany Fragment of region of Europe, lacking in core identity. The reason for that is that German speaking peoples in Center of Europe, form the largest ethnic group within continental group, from roman empire and on, potential threat to other regions in Europe. Didn’t play much of a role in first outgrowth of Holy Roman Empire In Europe, holy roman empire, governed most of today whats known as Germany,Austria and Switzerland. Holy Roman Empire slowly disintegrated govern through various lose ties of various noble families, made up holy roman empire that fell apart to multitude of states. Identity emerged late, is that Germans have generally suffered from a cultural inferiority in respect to their neighbors, in particular in respect to neighbors of south and west, meaning France & Italy. Immediate out growth, no common German literature, high literature within Germany tended to be about cultures other than German, glorify the Mediterranean cultures, high culture. Fragmentation came about during reformation period, which followed by 30 years war. reformation: was primarily theological development which began with a roman catholic priest, bishop Martin Luther, nailing 95 principles criticizing the teachings of the catholic church, he set off a religious war, not first to criticize the catholic church: unleash reactions. Criticisms prior, practice of Catholic church and Jesus, distribution of wealth, new testament Jesus did not teach that wealth should be retrieved for, the enormous wealth of the church and people living in jurisdictions, those folks got killed. Luther strayed away, questioned the idea of justification by good dead, ability of nobilities to buying themselves positions in heaven by providing money to the church. His critics didn’t threaten the feudal elites in Europe, those elites that resented the church for taxing them, supported Luther to gain autonomy and more wealth. 30 yrs war nobles of gaining autonomy from church and those church wanting the territory to tax them. In process 2/3 of population Germany disappeared. Civil war that included armies, and the civilians. Settled in peace of Westphalia, religion of the prince is religion of the people. Draw, end it by allowing political authority to impose their religion on the people that lived in their territory. Cynical way to settle theological issue. Greater freedom it unleashed in Germany in regards to science & technology. Didn’t contribute of greater unity or national identity, further divided different principalities where different th religions were dominate. Real identity didnt happen till 19 century, real signs within the German culture. Guddis writing: German Renaissance. Virtue that the Guudis book the suffering of young Verter, first book within Germany. To considerable extent, leader of philosophy, Kant etc. Germany became philosophically one of the first European regions where there were support for move towards democracy and away from monarchy. First attempts to unify Germany took this form, attempt to create German parliament to eclpise the power of the separate noble families that ruled the small states that ruled Germany, revolution of 1848 uprising, which was unsuccessful. Unification of Germany didn’t take place through the establishment of German parliament, but rather through the expansion of one of the key states within Germany of Prussia. That of Prussia. Prussia is often seen as a useful example to illustrate the process of state making, in Tilly example, in that Prussia expanded its regional power through extraction coercion cycle. Extract resources of the territory they have control using those resources to expand their power, to expand their military, using increasing military to expand the territory to gain more resources etc. Expansion of Prussia reached its peak under Kaiser the first. Who himself was not particularly interested in politics, left in hands of chancellor, Oho Von Bismark. Who recognized the extent to which neighboring states collaborated to keep Germany divided against itself, sought to eclipse Denmark (short war with and achieved victory gained control over northern Germany of today) launched war againstAustria-Hungary gained control over Bavaria, Franco- Prussia war.. Bismark recognized political and economic position in Europe. Recognized Prussia and Germany as a whole was developing a colonial relationship with the dominate power of GB. Prussia, heart land was bread basket of western Europe, ruling elites the ruling feudal lords of which Bismark was one, controlled that territory became really wealthy to a large extent through the ability to create large gains which fueled the British empire because it was exported to GB. Bismark Recognized growing relationship of dependency to GB, strict limits on the ability of Germany to become a great power, to maintain an independent political identity as a whole. Therefore council that the most important task for a unified Germany was industrialization. Late industrializer faced obstacles to industrialization – 1) already removed of political control of all of Germany, numerous competing little states within in Germany, was impossible, didn’t have “economics of scale” not big enough domestic market, not large enough market to industrialize, Germany as a whole state. Alate state that has to industrialize late, has to catch up to more advanced countries, has to find a means of foreign goods out of its market, more control over land borders & ports in order to keep foreign goods out, unification of dominate role military played in doing so facilitated that precondition for German industrialization. did in doing sodoing so, military did this. Next problem: transporting resources from traditional agricultural sector to industry. Only means do to so to protect markets and Transform resources from agrian sector to industries. Up hill battle. Similar to US civil war, wealthiest citizen’s plantation owners in south, got wealthy by exporting cotton, tobacco to GB, using income to import goods from GB, when USAsought to industrialize, conflict of interest between south and north focused on protectionaism, force those wealthy land owners to be cut off from main market but purchase inferior goods in northern part for higher prices. Germany: members of same class which Bismark came, in his case didn’t fight a civil war,. Bismark used connections to convince Prussia leaders the “Junkers Class” large grain producing noble men, that in order to maintain themselves and be an independent state which all of them valued be a great power in western europe, industrialization was mandatory, protectionism was mandatory, in that short of becoming a colony of England, the best strategy was for the dominate elites to convert themselves into industrialist, transfer their profits into banks, which would lend them out money to allow them to create industries… coalition of Iron and Rye: in which profits of agrian sector through state created banks transformed into industries, the Junkers class became the owners and managers of the growing industries. Important: main concern that propelled Germany in this direction was maintaining of its sovereignty, in other words, Prussia had developed modern military institution on the planet, and wanted to maintain its military dominance and military autonomy, was not interested in industrialization in order to..raising the standard of living of average German, was to for point of view of ruling class is maintain their power & military independence, Bismark view if Germany became more and more economically dependent on GB , it would be military dependent, to remain independent sovereign state, It would need autonomy to develop heavy technology to be useful in primary of war. Coalition of techstyle and rye, but iron & rye, Iron was the corner store of having independent military establishment, and Germany developed in a short time in using an experience of earlier industrial developers, to develop one of the most advanced steel industry on the planet, surpassed GB at turn of 20 th century, it also developed another key industries relevant in the making of war: expansion of railroads, infrastructure, which depended on the ability to create large amount of steel. Fairly extensive and highly advanced chemical industry, remains to this day a corner store of German industry, and lastly Germany got a head start in developing electronics industry, all seen a key primarily not for consumer interest, but because of their importance of projecting power outside borders and protect own sovereignty. Germany invented an industrial structure, that naturally tended towards greater war like behavior, just as industrialization and other countries created an impetus in Britain, US et to move beyond the borders, of the state, Germany needed to beyond borders to sustain industrialization, and in that regard unleashed a competition between itself and other colonial powers who got a head start. NorthAmerica spoken for by British or French claim, USAMonroe doctrine, far east controlled by early industrial powers like GB, tried to get China.. last territory was Africa. Consequently Germany extensive involved forAfrica, French lead in occupied North Africa, in order to prevent a war over remaining territories European powers, under leadership of Germany conference of Berlin 1884: sat down with map ofAfrica divided up territory with a ruler. Borders remain to this day, explain why states like Malie suffer from different cultures throwing together under the same jurisdiction making natural weak states. Germany: got Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Namibia, colonial possessions, and established colonial relationships spent more than they got out. One reason they weren’t much colonial interest in those territories, Germany only controlled from 1884 till ww1. Germany also developed, a quasi-colonial relationship with Eastern Europe and Russia, where German industry was main supplier of industrial goods, it was a main importer of grains etc. Continuation expansion of European empire that took end of 19 century, appeared to indicate a considerable inter imperialist conflict emerging between competing empire, conference in Berlin to avoid fighting. continuing expansion of these empires within Europe, one upshot the blame of Germany starting ww1,understandable from victors, historical over stated, destabilize the European powers and made maintenance power, emergence two opposed alliance, that were balanced against eachother, lanched into war by assassination of archduke franz ferdinand of Serbia nationalist, Franz was to be theAustria-hungary throne to inherit, seen by them as attack by Russia,Austria-hungary declared war on Russia, Germany had alliance withAustria launched in war, GB/France with Russia Clear:Germany seemed to be an upper force with military might, but was dragged into two front war, ultimately not really defeated, but made steady progress in defeating france: point of success when they occupied more territory in France to maintain supply lines to support their troops, stood for peace. Aftermath of peace, not in position to resist the methods that France and GB, US Treaty of Versailles. , humiliation of treaty large part of territory giving to others, divided Germany from one unified block and east Prussia, gave territory to France. Significance of ww1: establishment of “Weimar Republic” named after town which its constitution was drawn up suburb of Berlin which was the first establishment of democratic system of government in Germany based on the most democratic constitution at the time, based on proportional representation & parliamentary model. Problem with republic: not so much institution, but rather context in which it took control. Basically, reparations Germany was supposed to pay, crippled the economy resulted a spike in unemployment + demilitarization of Germany, only allowed to keep troops domestic order but enough to threaten neighbors, downsized. In turn added problem of unemployment, related problem came from this in the face of forced out of military and zero economic opportunities in private sector these ex-soldiers organized themselves as “fri-corses” or free militias not officially linked to German state but organized militias. Engaged in a number of attempts to overthrow the government of the Weimer Republic.Absence of military capacity, and deep economic crisis Germany was in lead to a # of attempts to mimic Russian revolution, beginning with the establishment of the “Rather Republic” in Munik,left wing communist revolutionaries overthrew the Munic government, tried to overthrow Munic as a communist state. That case the government in Berlin sent in military to put down rebellion to reestablish order and effectively, though shortly thereafter, government in Berlin was overthrown by collection of militias by fellow of name Kapp resulting the name “Kapp Putsch” in which these former military members overthrew government in Berlin, leadership in Berlin called the military to put them down, response from military that German Soldiers don’t shoot other German soldiers, they refused. illustrates military itself would put down leftist rebellions, but not rebellions from right, sympathized the right political spectrum. Not willing to act against it. refusal of military to put down to put against the right republic, they called for a general strike, entire country shut down for several weeks until those sought to gain power gave up, restore original government to power. Illustrates the instability of the government. Participants within this government linked to national socialist movement, centered in Bavaria, Germany. Went against the Versailles treaty which viewed Wiemer republic as a symbol of German defeat. All took place in economic chaos. Economic chaos reparations demands from Germany, paid in German Marks or empire marks, which gave government in Berlin an incentive to fuel inflation. By inflating the currency they would pay the debt off in less valuable currency. Gradual at the beginning, but by 1923 reached hyperinflation reached point to be 100% inflation rate per year. Basically means your paycheck on Tuesday if you didn’t spend it was worth half as much the next day, half the next day. No one willing to take money and essentially workers were paid in kind, meaning working in tech-style factory you get stack of shirts could barging those for something else. Economy was reduced back to this. Anti-constitutional parties picked up significantly in terms of support, communist party, socialist party, gained popularity and on the other hand the Nazi party, gained support until 1923, the currency reform at the end of 1923 stabilized things allowed for considerable amount of growth in later 20s, and accordance support for communist, nazi declined until stock market crash in 1929, support for nazi and communist went threw the roof, where fights broke out in the streets in most cities between supporters of various parties. February 11,2013 Putting German foreign Policy in perspective:  Germany harnessing talent in University = become a leader in second industrial revolution o 2 ndindustrial revolution was lead by Germany, involved renewed industrial revolution, key component: application of science to new technologies  prior to this the two were kept separate  Engineers got a science education starting in Germany due to the industries being developed such as chemistry and electronics. (brought Science and Technology together)  transformed knowledge base of our economices  prior was knowledge was of “wooden ships” etc. which relied on experience, not mathematics and science! This developed later in Germany (look up date) nd  2 transformed this by directly applying science to technology, transformed by Chemistry because you need an understanding of science to develop scientific theories which would help you advance the technology. This emerged out of Germany NOT Britian o Why? Because Britian was based on muddling through. Resulted economy market driven technology advancement = no real advancement o Germany had a highly centralized, more advanced system o Britian was first to electrify, but the hardware required was not built by a British country, built by Germany o British biggest bank was a German one o Germany was growing extremely rapidly in 1880‟s-90‟s and becoming leading producer of technical goods that were science based (chemicals, steel, electrification etc). o What went wrong? Why didn‟t‟ they dominate?  need to understand the approach taken as an economic power after WWI (which was devastating)  in 1880‟s they worked to expand military, (unification of the german army), the perception by German elites was to become a global power need to expand Navy, so end of 1880‟s spent a lot on sea power expanding their Navy, sea power seen as essential to projecting power globally like Britian. Continued expanding  how change: o 1890‟s German on good terms with Great Britian (they wre giving them tech for electrictity), because Britian was still rivials with France and engage in territorial disputes with them, so trying to contain enemy #1 (france) o Russia was enemy #2 due to territory as well o So Germany was irrelevant to them, and the German ships had Biritsh protection on seas, but with expantsion of Navy threatened Britain so Britain started seeing them as a threat to their power o Great Britian had obsticals to forming alliences with France and Russia, but the alliance took place nevertheless. 1907 they were in alliances with them. IN 1903 had allied with Japan = Had Germany encircled. What could Germany do? Their Allies were tiny and weak (Austria-Hungary, Ottoman emipire had limited capacity and usefulness and was waracked with secular elements in their empire). So Germany found itself encircled and locked in (cuz of lack of allies), they couldn‟t challenge Britain, France had them blocked out of Mediterainian, so they were stuck up Nroth. Even with development of U-Boats they were screwed because antagonized USA which could have been an ally (but wasn‟t cuz of the Uboats). o Germany had most powerful Army and Navy but lost the war in spite of always winning the battles. Why?  Global Strategy: it‟s paradoxical in nature (sometimes more is less and less is more). German defeat was NOT inevidtable and they COULD have prevailed by 1920, however to achieve this they had to take a different strategic route  best route? Sell off Navy preferably to Russia to balance power. And Reduce size of Military to defensive capacity just enough to defend borders which would have resulted in crumbling of alliance. Only thing bringing France, Britian and Russia together was fear of rising Germany. Russia would have crumbled 1 . st Germany would not be militarily dominant, but would have been economically dominant which is more important in terms of global stability for keeping power.  Why didn‟t they do this?  Had Kaiser Whilhelm the 2 nd announced demilitarization, the German military would likely have staged a Coup. It was a dominant institution and very powerful. The Prussians loved their military and were fascinated by it, AND an industirial military complex had been developed. Military was very dominant in all aspects of society.  to suggest that the military can‟t grow is absured, growth of military essential to rest of society growing.  Lack of control over oceans allowed Allies to block off goods to Germany like food. o Since Germany was “undermined by domestic forces” not defeated militarily, this is how elites saw it which influenced WWII. Military advancements, (economy) and weakness of adversaries stuck in great depression, but this didn‟t change how they saw things and did things militarily! They wound up Land locked again (WWII, lack of oil = demise a forgone conclusion). They didn‟t‟ learn from their mistakes. Bismark Republic:  Perception of failure of it was seen as requiring adjustments of German institutions in a number of ways: o 1920‟s Seen as establishing one of the most democratic systems on the planet. Regional system eliminated in favor of unitary model. Parliamentary model instituted. This lead to problems: proportional representation (while purest form of democracy) has problems: it has a tendency to generate a lot of parties, starting with split of Communist party and social democratic party) (this differs from Canada where parties try to stick together), there was a centrifugal force in each party that made parties split smaller and smaller which made it harder and harder to form a ruling party! The multiplicity of parties competing and forming unstable coalition parties (weren‟t figuring out how to deal with problems, rather figuring out how to stick together, also when they disagreed and a coalition partner left you had to have ANOTHER election to get new gov‟t. most only lasted 2 months so people got tired of the elections and not having a stable gov‟t). o The German military reduced at end of WWI, meant that could maintain stability at home but not project power. But the insitutions and peole in them weren‟t changed over, and they saw democratic gov‟t as problematic, which doesn‟t bode well for democracry where a key element is the support of the officer core (need the military to support it or they will crush the civilians trying to control gov‟t rather than protecting them! (the military would take over). o Judicarcy are essential for establishing of Democracy, they weren‟t changed over after WWI, and were inclined to view the democratic system imposed on Germany as a result of Versailles treaty with skepticism. Were inclined like all other insitutions to protect the institutions from the Left, but not the Rigth (not as suspicious of them) so would try the Left??, this illustrates threat the Judic. Weren‟t firmly committed to democracy  Collapse in 1933. o In 1932 there were 6 elections, by beginning of 1933 Nazi party became largest party (but not majority), the Presidency of Germany was more symbolic and saw no choice to apt Hitler as chancellor. He manipulated things to create a greater crisis. Such as the burning down of the Parliamentary building which was blamed on a Dutch communist though it was likely Nazis who set the fire, either way created enough of a crisis to put forward enabling act: created a situation of national emergency and was the decisive end of the Bismarck Republic in Germany (no more democracy), and since blamed on communists they were rounded up and sent to exile or concentration camps. Thus began the disaster of Nazi rule: at first wasn‟t disaster had created policies to boost economy(state intervention to get the rd 1/3 unemployed, employed! Printed money to get employment to zero by employing unemployed ppls (esp those that were part of Nazi party wich provided incentive), funneling money into rearmament factories, autobahn??, etc. So economny growing leaps and Bounds esp compared to rest of Europe and NA which was in great depression). The success of economy brought them support of Public, even amongst those at first suspect of Nazi‟s which allowed them to consolidate their control in a totalitarian manner! . o In Nazi Germany Nazi‟s organized “CORPORTAISM”: MEANT looking at society in an organismal view (society is like an organisam, so all has to work ogther. Meant that needed FUNCTIONAL representation, so number of Funcional cartels that would have a say in policy (farmers organized together, Businesses together, factroies together etc), all controlled by the Nazi‟s. Rather than including them though this was a form of cooptation so the Nazi‟s could push them in the direction they wanted, thus keeping control of policy. o LIBERALISM is the exact opposite of Nazism. Liberalism = everyone look out for themselves, but facisim is the interest of the whole over the interests of the individual (this goes with what was written above!).  Anything not seen as contributing to the whole were seen as obstacles to the success of Germany and eliminated (Holocaust started with elimintation of mentally disabled, then Gypsies, Jews last because German Jews were well established and tightly intergrated into the key sectors of German society like the Universities, Military, and Banking and Industry where they were extensively represented, this began to change with flee of Jews into Germany from Russia which resulted in the elites seeing the Western Eurpoe, nonintergrated Jews as a problem that needed to be dealt with. Nazis exploited this to get the Jewish leaders on board with their policies against these other Jews, even though later they were under fire as well).  Anti-Semitism started with hatred of religious Jews, then began to change with Nazi ideology defined by Race, not Religion.  But German Jews saw themselves first as Germans, second as Jewish! Race first, Religion 2 ! nd  Holocaust started Slowly, first eliminating Jew from certain professions (like Military and universities) which eventually resulted in the Nazi policies against them. The anti-Semitism was played down at first, but then it got worse and worse as the policies continued and the Jews became less and less integrated in society  Nazi used the elimination of Jews in sectors as a means of promoting their own supporters. Eg the Hertman company (like the Bay in Canada which was “naturalized” by the Germans from a Jewish family)  As man Nazi‟s pointed out “everything was done by the letter of the law” (with a single event), but most of the acts done were done by the letter of the law (rule of law OUT the window!)  Third Reich most brutal eg of totalitarianism which was due to efficiency of military, economy, and political system  only 2 objections to “the final solution”: what to do with German Jews (are they Geran because of “superior” bloodline or Jewish because trying to purify? Jewish was decided), and the bueracracy was not ready to take this on. No moral objections to mass systematic eliminiation  were able to disguise from rest of world because were at war End of WWII Germany is worse shape then after 1918, and no “stab in the back” ideas were credible (that had given rise to Hitler remember)..  Aim of occupiers in germany: o demilitarization o denazification o democratization (the 3 D‟s!!)  idea was that each occupying country would do their part in their part of Germany then reunify it as a democratic country  demilitarization straightforward  no corporatist model like in Europe which incorporates labour and capital on the same table which makes keeping social order easier.  Germany couldn‟t do this cuz of denazification.  Austria could because mounds of evidence to the contrary they were seen as a victim of Nazism, not a supporter of it! (though they were). No nurenburg trils for Austrians so their corporatism remained intact  Corporatist system eliminated in favor of “CODETERMINATION”: any entriprise that employs more that 500 workers has to have 49% of its directors controlled by labourers. They get considerable input in investment decisions. Also means all organizations need to open their books to the workers so can‟t plead bankruptcy to downsize etc. So hwo keep economy up? Not by avoiding outsourcing, but when outsourcing is seen as an interest, the union insists that the … Something I missed. (something about a domestic investment for high skill and wage jobs which has been successful) o Denazification: not a problem in the soviet sector. Most Germans feared nothing more than the communists occupying their country. So the Nazi elites did their best to get into the Western sectors rather than the Eastern communist occupied sector (Germany divided up to be rebuilt).  Western sectors: no one ot put in top position that wasn‟t tainted by Nazism unless communist?? Problem was with emergence of cold war were torn between denazification and goals of cold war (listen to explanation). Business secrtor let off hook, only political were denazified??  for state power, discluding everyone who was part of naxi regime = no one to hold top positions cux all either Naxis or communist which isn‟t in interest of US.  Nuremburg Process brought to trial top elites of Nazi Party, and instead of complete denaxification west adopted process of Collective Guilty, where EVERYONE was collectively guilty so no one (with Nuremberg ppl) more guilty than anyone else. So when West and East split, many viewed the West as a continuity of the former Nazi state! o Democratization:  Western sector: tried to introduce new „BASIC LAW‟ (rather than consitituion) because meant to be temporary until reunification of Germnay.  so this new constitution and money was the WEST not east setting up barriers to keep germny divided  flaws in Bismarck republic proportional rep a problem because wasn‟t applied properly, so it was fixed it was partially proportional rep and partil individual constituency. (this was what their constitution operated under so this is why it was flawed) The single representatives usually came from two biggest party, so all things being equal the dominant parties were overly repped, but doesn‟t work that way because the single rep of parliament is calculated as though whole thing was done by proportional rep in the first place. Why split this up and not just stick with proportional rep to weaken the parties and boost up regional rep votes! Gives th parties less control which was important given  Another flaw: 5% clause: no party that gets less than 5% of votes gets any rep in parliament at all. This made it harder to form coallitions by taking power away from bigger parties  Vote of no confidence can take place only in so far as there is an alternative party ready to take power, this was seen as a means of stabilizing How does this influence foreign policy:  in West Germany which dominates today so operates on above rules o parties that dominate:  Christian democratic party: 1 time leader = Conrad something. Governed in 50‟s with free democrat party He was replaced by his finance minister who coaligned with free democrat as well ntil the FD pulled out and then the grand coalition formed, this didn‟t last long, then came the coaltion of the free and social democrats! (this leader wanted to reunify East and West and saw best way to do this is by reaching out to East and the SU). When free democrats pulled out and joined Christian democrats, then pulled out of this to join the social democrats, btu then they were replaced by the Green!  upshot: no change in gov‟t in Germany has ever been a result of an election!! Always due to coalition forming and breaking and reforming!  influence on foreign policy: learned lessons. Militarism had been thoroughly discredited after WWII, so no more expanding my military means! Serious impediments put in place of remilitarization of Germnay until US remilitarized in 50‟s under NATO command, Germany never re-expanded to threaten neighbours and doesn‟t do imperialsm (don‟t really send their troops abroad much and doesn‟t really make military commitments), means that they were able to develop in economic terms o “german economic Miracle”: end of 50‟s, end of Marshall plan, German economy rapidly recovered to be super strong! Until recently it is the biggest export economy on the planet! They are very powerful economically! (not China or Japan), Their main exports are capital goods (facotries!! Not consumer goods) o what does this mean? Germany expanded significantly not through military and expanding borders, but through expanding markets! This was key to establishment of EU, this is why Germany doesn‟t like European intergration (would make them less competitive) TH FEBRUARY 25 2013 France: Emergence of French national and its national identity which we discovered has an important impact on understanding the foreign policy & politics of a country. French identity= less complicated than Germany, or in Russia, due to the fact France is credited by most international observers by inventing the idea of nationalism. First state to start nationalism in advancing its national aims, doing so sucessfully. to such an extent that nationalism has been imitated by virtually all other states that have been confronted by the power of France as expressed by the initial success by Napoleon by eliminating other rivals political systems during the Napoleon Wars, quickly defeated western adversaries and various groups in Russian territory, and close to defeating the British. Power of national identity, as expressed in powerful national opposed by professional army, organized by napoleon 1799-1815 led to the idea of the nation state, which is important to the Westphalia system. ultimately only triumphed in ww1 in the dissolution of multinational empires (Austria-Hungarian and Otumin Empire) Ultimately only triumphed by the dissolution by last multinational empires. Only partial realized goal to nation states, states represent an ethnic linguistic community that is relatively homogenous = In western Europe, this ideal was never realized it is (Belgium continues to be divided) Not descriptive of the non-European world, ethnic division is extensive but the great power is aimed in that direction, Wilson expressed the self determination of nations, inspired by the French example nation state, the identity of the nation with the state and ability to meet social and military goals by this. French national identity didn’t emerge simply by Napoleon, France was one of the first countries to develop a F
More Less

Related notes for POL327Y5

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.