Class Notes (905,915)
CA (538,528)
UTSG (45,722)
POL208Y1 (501)
Lecture

contemp conflicts

8 Pages
53 Views

Department
Political Science
Course Code
POL208Y1
Professor
John Haines

This preview shows pages 1-3. Sign up to view the full 8 pages of the document.
Week 9, November 16: Contemporary Conflicts
TODAY we will look at:
Cold war continued
The revolution in military affairs RMA
The current utility of force: debate about the actual use of force in counter insurgencies/state
building efforts--conflict if afghanistan among the key examples
Media and war--whatever you do there is a camera or a mobile phone that can take a picture-
does that change the characteristics of war and if so how
The emergence of private sector and private corporations
Cold war Continued:
Gorbachev was a relatively young leader
Launched a series of reforms aimed at economic efficiency
1 Restructureation of Soviet economy starting with more freedom for companies to decide
what to produce
2. Transparency
These two pillars domestically transformed the way the soviet union conducted its business
But the most dramatic transformation connected to its global interaction
He thought soviet union spending way too much money on defense--objective was to negotiate
with the US a new set of armed limitation treaties so as to cap expanses linked to the military
1986/87-the Cenatura doctrine? (name of doctrine uncertain) - countries in Soviet influence
ultimately responsible for own destiny ie: if poland wanted to move towards a different system
he said the Red army wouldn’t intervene any more in this soviet satellite...this was a
fundamental change
Western europe was extremely enthusiastic to these reforms
Germany particularly ready to embrace the new face
US was less willing--CIA was doubtful that the reform of the Soviet Union would be
successful--they though the more reform he tried to implement, the more likely he would be
ousted by other soviet conservatives
US very cautious
Took goverchev seriously when the berlin wall fell
70s time when us and Soviet union organized first lessening of arms treaties only to find out
that soviet union had cheated and supplied arms
It was the soviet union that had benefited from this detente framework
This time the US wanted to WIN the cold war; they imposed largely american terms on the end
of the cold war
US wanted to show the US had one, they wanted a united Germany inside NATO
Nobody at that time believed Moscow would accept that option
The end of the cold war was a divine surprise
The end of the cold war was largely peaceful--largely a peaceful demonstration, a bottom up
process
The consequences for Europe were fundamental
www.notesolution.com
Europe was united again, no iron curtain, no eastern and western europe; moscow not
considered the enemy
Landscape paradoxical-NATO was the tool of victory for the US-the end of the cold war
meaning a new Europe- however there was no strictly european framework fro security
Europe didn’t have a framework to control own security on its own
Peace divident-- defence budget slashed dramatically-the number of troops in europe cut by at
least half, arm production was cut--instead of tanks, building cars
The disappearance of concern related to territorial defence meant that armed forces will have
been projected OUTSIDE europe
Projection of force n a remote theatre demands other kinds of capabilities ie: aircraft--transport
troops and equipment abroad
Cost of moving to this “projection” model were big, but budgets were cut
Even in US after 1989-defense budgets were cut
Another result was less conscription--professional military forces
It is more normal to rely on conscription directly linked to own survival
Humanitarian operation--conscription becomes a problem--justify debt for cause not directly
linked to survival or core national interests
However, some states still rely on conscription ie: germany
Landscape in early 1990s on one hand is a huge relief-cold war has ended peacefully
But the tension in some eastern countries riding dramatically
The case of bosnia, the civil was in 1991/1992 resulted in the a bloody conflict---the end of
cold war resulted in other problems therefore
Key question in early 1990s--is this the end of history?; ie: is was an instrument of foreign
policy obsolete
Answer was yes, its over, the free market, western ideas would prevail
Reality was that wars have not ceased
Yugoslavia engaged in endless civil war
Sadam Hussein decided to invaded kuwait-first gulf war
Loads of other civil wars in africa
Is the nature of warfare fundamentally different in modern times?
Definition of WAR The organized violence carries by political unions, mostly the state
War has been a phenomenon that largely shaped an built the state itself
“war made the modern state and the state made war”
The shape of states in europe largely shaped by permanent warfare against each other
Political reforms were also implemented after warfare
Democracy as we know it was basically implemented after ww1
Women’s votes implemented after ww2
The map of Europe is basically a result of fighting
Norway is one exception
Canada is an exception-wasn’t a result of a conflict
This whole model less true in africa
States in africa are largely a foreign import-european colonizers divided africa amongst in itself
without consulting locals
www.notesolution.com
States of africa tried to imitate their foreign masters-made an army
Relationship between armies and societies in africa were diff. than in europe
Most of the time their arms were more of a private militia or a protection force for the rulers
rather than an expression of civil society
The result of that is that mostly in africa there were civil wars, not interstate wars
The notion of failed state as a security concern started to emerge in the early 1990s
First and foremost a concern linked to human rights, mass murder and genocide
Intervention was conducted under human rights, not a security issue concern
After 9/11 terrorism became a salient concern
If modern warfare has been a crucial point in formation of states, each period has seen different
kind of warfare
Napoleon- every citizen could be a soldier--before this citizens were largely outside the game
of war--mercenaries were involved, not citizens
Napoleon therefore transformed characteristic of warfare
NEXT, satelite warfare etc
Can we talk today about the difference in the conduct of warfare, is there a post-modern
warfare?
Yes, and no.
Examples that answer this question
1. Civil wars in ex-yugoslavia
The relationship between serbia, croatia etc etc were crumbling
It was a shock to everyone that two hours away from berlin or paris, actual fighting took place
The resurgence of war in europe came as a shock
European powers largely disagreed on what to do because they had different stakes in the
conflict
Germany thought it was key to recognize the independence of Croatia and Slovenia
France refused to see a change of borders in europe by force--if a new border needs to be
created, we need a treaty
France didn’t recognize the partisan of ex-Yogoslavia--they refusal to see borders change
meant that the key ally for france was serbia
US-this civil war is so complex in its ethnical dimensions that foreign powers, an armed
intervention would not solve the problem
The US was simply not interested in the conflict
Disagreement between paris, london and berlin about what to do--came up with the
humanitarian aspect of the conflict--sending blue helmet personnel to help, peacekeepers
Peacekeepers sent to a piece where there was no peace to keep=a recipe for disaster
Serbia understood very rapidly that these UN forces were just there, but they weren’t a danger
to them, they weren’t an ARMED forces
So Milosovich started to play with them--taking UN hostages was like taking the rest of the
community hostage
Peacekeepers were shot at
How can you keep peacekeepers neutral when they are at risk in this way
Image of blue helmet soldiers taken hostage by serbian forces
www.notesolution.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
Week 9, November 16: Contemporary Conicts TODAY we will look at: Cold war continued The revolution in military affairs RMA The current utility of force: debate about the actual use of force in counter insurgenciesstate building efforts--conflict if afghanistan among the key examples Media and war--whatever you do there is a camera or a mobile phone that can take a picture- does that change the characteristics of war and if so how The emergence of private sector and private corporations Cold war Continued: Gorbachev was a relatively young leader Launched a series of reforms aimed at economic efficiency 1 Restructureation of Soviet economy starting with more freedom for companies to decide what to produce 2. Transparency These two pillars domestically transformed the way the soviet union conducted its business But the most dramatic transformation connected to its global interaction He thought soviet union spending way too much money on defense--objective was to negotiate with the US a new set of armed limitation treaties so as to cap expanses linked to the military 198687-the Cenatura doctrine? (name of doctrine uncertain) - countries in Soviet influence ultimately responsible for own destiny ie: if poland wanted to move towards a different system he said the Red army wouldnt intervene any more in this soviet satellite...this was a fundamental change Western europe was extremely enthusiastic to these reforms Germany particularly ready to embrace the new face US was less willing--CIAwas doubtful that the reform of the Soviet Union would be successful--they though the more reform he tried to implement, the more likely he would be ousted by other soviet conservatives US very cautious Took goverchev seriously when the berlin wall fell 70s time when us and Soviet union organized first lessening of arms treaties only to find out that soviet union had cheated and supplied arms It was the soviet union that had benefited from this detente framework This time the US wanted to WIN the cold war; they imposed largely american terms on the end of the cold war US wanted to show the US had one, they wanted a united Germany inside NATO Nobody at that time believed Moscow would accept that option The end of the cold war was a divine surprise The end of the cold war was largely peaceful--largely a peaceful demonstration, a bottom up process The consequences for Europe were fundamental www.notesolution.com
More Less
Unlock Document


Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


OR

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.


Submit