Complete Lecture Compilation (1).pdf

117 Pages
Unlock Document

Jeffrey Kopstein

The End of History? 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Jeffrey Kopstein, Joseph Wong Francis Fukuyama's Hegelian View On the Nature of Politics - Aristotle - Political Animal - Politics is unavoidable Themes - Democracy, Dictatorship, War and Peace - Regimes, government, - Social science: Make sense of the world - Simplify, Matter > Not matter Democracy and War - Is the world becoming more peaceful? - Francis Fukuyama - Summer 1989 - Berlin wall- significant - Hegel: professor of philosophy - Hegel: professor of philosophy History of Human Consciousness - History of philosophy - Ideas can get displaced, can clash - Ideas stolen by leaders - War = Clash of ideas Ideas and The Organization of Human Society - Ideas are those that organize human society - Ancient: Plato, Aristotle - Medieval: St. Thomas Aquinas - Modern: Liberal democratic state Hegel and Liberal State - Hegel and the battle of Jena: Victory of "Liberty, equality and fraternity" - History of ideas would never be surpassed - History was over due to lack of new big ideas to challenge status quo - "Theory alone that helps us transient this poverty of the human condition" - For each age, study of human consciousness Fukuyama - Hegel was right but he was a bit off - Few challenge to come along: Nazisim and communism - Those would still pose a challenge to modern ideas - Not 1806, but 1989 - The big challenges have all been defeated in realm of ideas - Challengers are gone, Communism is a powerless idea - Religious fundamentalists are not universal and therefore not a real challenge Where does that leave us? - World of peace, trade, democracy - No more wars of big ideas - Liberalism always wins - We should look for the big challengers - No one willing to follow or sacrifice for new ideas - In this sense, history is over Clash of Civilizations? An Examination of Huntington's arguments - Berlin wall, important in global politics - Speculative about future world order - Many became known for speculating - Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington - Fukuyama looks through the lens of the victor - Liberalism winning was seen as arrogant Huntington - 1973- 40 democracies to 114 - 1974 - 2010, 53 democracies broke down - Alternative conceptualization of new world order Alternative World Order - Fukuyama had a narrow reading of world history - Saw his views as short sighted - "Liberal peace and prosperity" are illusory - Inequality, contested citizenship, exclusion - His story of history falls under cold war categories - He describes the end of history in the west - The end of western conflict in Anglo-European world - End of conflict between states - Not the end of ideas, but the end of western ideologies - Believed Fukuyama overstates - Democracies do not go to war with each other - Due to trade, Interdependent countries "" - Prosperity and global peace (Fukuyama) - Universalist civilization - we do not live in one (Huntington) - Existential reality (Canadian sands in China) - More militaries - What really matters most is national interests, not universal - We will continue to live in a world with competition and conflict - Inequality (classes), contested citizenship, Exclusion - All is not resolved like Fukuyama says so - A universal civilization can only be the product of a universal power: There are none - End of history is still arrogant: West will rest easy and may become challenged again - Huntington asks: Who are we? - Conversations of dignity and humanity - "" Aspiration, dreams of living out of poverty and degradation - Illusion of Peace New Fault Lines - People are divided by their reliance to civilization - Objective: Religion, language - Subjective: Who am I? - World divided into civilizations, not countries Who Are We? - Civilization: Essence of a society - Not objective markers like language, or economics - Analysis of immigration policy: essence of what it means to be American - Essence of America: Descending Anglo-Protestantism Why Clash? - Due to the deep rooting of civilizations, clashes should be expected - Difference (Real or imagined) = Conflict - Interests = "" - Kinship = "" - Conflicts of contending essences (civilization differences) The West and the Rest - Fukuyama believes west has won - Huntington believes west vs the west A Moral Alternative - Feared the rise of alternative moral order: Islam - Fighting Islam will be a war between civilizations - A potential rival without a state - A new type of conflict which America has not been good at combating - Worried about the rise of China - Rise of China is testing the west - Rising according to it's own rules "The Beijing Consensus” - People find China's model attractive, can be threat and rival - Not the end of history, but a transitional moment - Moment of triumph just as the west was in decline - Huntington fears the end of history Modern Democracy 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Joseph Wong Modern Democracy - South Africa: Social, Economic - Third wave of democratic transition - Democracy slowly starting to gain popularity - Natural process of modernization that makes democracy appealing Points - Democracy's Virtue - Democracy's Fragility - Democracy as Process Democracy's Virtue - Rejection of traditional forms of government - Modern form of political organization - Centrality of participation - Form of political order where we all have a say - Ability to participate in politics - Decisions are collectively made Characteristics of Democracy - Liberty: Freedoms and Rights - Right to dissent: Disagree with the government or positions in power - Mediated through institutions - Equality: Democratic or political citizenship - All as individuals equal in the political sphere - Same vote/say as other people regardless of socio-economic situation - Modern liberalism - Rule of Law: Equalities and liberties protected under the rule of law - Constitution lays out the rules - Democracies are the rule of law as opposed to rule of man - Pluralism - Multiple interests and ideologies which all matter - Allows compromise among pluralism - Institutionalized Uncertainty*** - The ability to elect our representatives in government - Empowers us to vote a government in or out - Winners and losers: Losers do not get out - Can come back to fight again - Belief that if you lose today, can win tomorrow - Allows us to have continuous elections Democracy's Fragility - Democracy can breakdown - Can be taken away Democracy as Process - The right to vote is not inherent - The right is conferred by the government - Democracy is a long process - Democracy today is part of a longer process - They don't just suddenly appear Dynamics: Foundation, Choice of democracy, Choices we make to make democracy work Building Democracy's Foundation (I) Modernization Theory - The theory in which countries go through stages in order to modernize: Economic Social and Political Change - 1. Economic Transformation - Modernized trade, infrastructure, technology - Industrial Revolution - Agricultural to Industrialized - 2. Economic Development - Growing your own economy - Rise of the middle class - 3. Demographic Change - Urbanization - Size of families decrease - Landholding becomes smaller - Increased female labour market - 4. Social Change - More literate - More education - Modern science, medicine, healthcare - The secularization of society - Become a modern citizen - 5. Demand for Political Rights : Demand more of a say of how politics is run - As a society becomes more modern, democracy is inevitable - The final stage for modernization - Should expect more democracy as society modernizes - Not just economic, but social modernization - People join groups: Social fabric of democracy - Socially engaged, understood the collective fate - Income paired with social fabric of associational life - Engage in civil society - When alienated, no longer living in democracy - Political culture Democracy's foundation requires: - Modernization of economy, social world, and culture Democratic culture - Democratic culture is drawn from western experience - Hard to find democratic culture outside of the west Cultural Obstacles - Asian Values - Group over the individual, Hierarchy over pluralism, Family over public - Hostile to democracy - Don't have the cultural DNA to participate in demo. - Confucian democracy is a contradiction - Islam is inhospitable to democracy - Catholic church "" - Non secular societies do not have the cultural Choosing Democracy (II) - Democracy has to be Chosen - When? - Bottom-up pressure, demands from society - International Pressure - Legitimacy crisis Making Democracy Work (III) - Institutions-"Rules of the game" - Rights and Limits: Lobbying and Limits on lobbying - Winners and losers - Not neutral, not impartial, consequential Presidentialism and Parliamentarianism - Executive and Legislative separate in presidential system - Canada: Vote for party and it's leader - Parliamentary system's tend to lead to majority rule = Powerful prime minister Coalitions - Parliamentarianism is better for ethnically divided countries - Presidentialism can cause polarization - Presidential System • Executive versus legislative branch - Parliamentary System • Executive reflects legislative branch Overview - Making Democracy Work - The "Rules of the game" - Consequential - Reflects Goals - Vary among democracies Modern Democracy - Democracy's Virtue - Democracy's Fragility - Democracy as Process - Building Democracy's Foundation: Modernization - Choosing Democracy Benjamin Constant 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Jeffrey Kopstein Constant - Swiss born, French intellectual and politician - Fervent liberal - Context: French Revolution and its aftermath - Question: How should free people govern themselves - Liberal: Freedom - French Revolution was a social revolution Model Rejected - Liberty of ancients: - Participatory - Freedom consisted in the act of governing and being governed - Direct: Everyone would participate - They believed in public freedom, not private liberty - Collective freedom, not individual - Freedom of the community, self government - Not ruled by foreigners - Dependent upon a class of people who didn't engage in commerce o even work - True freedom does not come in the household: Realm of women and slaves - Tiny minority of Greek polity were citizens - Big decisions were decisions on war - Biggest danger was the domination by the outsider Liberty of Moderns - Not so much as "freedom to" as "freedom from" - Legal protections - Limited government - Freedom is individual rather than communal - All driven by commerce and private property instead of war Contradictions of Constant - Modern liberty is better both than ancient liberty and pre-modern "despotism" (French Kings) - Moderns care more about freedom from - We prefer 'representative" to "direct government" that just leaves us alone to be happy and get rich - Liberty of ancients creeps back in through modern notions of citizenship and virtue. Ancient Liberty and Plato - Plato in his last dialogue, "Laws" offers a grim prophesy to which constant and perhaps all moderns seem liable - Government is everyone's selfish needs and demands: Plato Traditional Societies - It was a different world - There was tremendous scarcity - They had what they need and nothing more, no savings - Non market societies, no currency or competing multiple currencies - Families were not the nuclear families of today - Extended, collective family - Affective orientation: emotional, more familiar than today’s formal and impersonal society Political Authority and Change - What is a state? - Monopoly of the use of force within a given territory - But in traditional society, no distinction between public and private authority - Authority relations based on personal dependence, love and affection - No clear line of territorial authority - Feudal society Political Authority and the State - Public Administration - Creation of Modern State: Louis XIV - Taxation and system of personal retainers of "King" who competed with local lords for power. This becomes bureaucracy - Out of this comes the idea of "Sovereignty" Liberalism: Four Genetic Features - Individualism: not family or clan - Proceduralism: Rule of law, limited constitution, bureaucracy - Markets: Economic and political, market dominates - Toleration: religious, ethnic, gender - relies on hypocrisy - Hypocrisy is the essence of liberal civilization - All elements of a liberal society Liberalism Development Stages - Transformation (revolutionary or evolutionary break from monarchical rule) - Consolidation - Exclude those social elements that threaten the new world order - Inclusion: include those elements that, if not included will rebel against the order - Never perfected, always evolving, always new groups demanding inclusion The Rise of the West and Marxism 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Jeffrey Kopstein Origins of Modern World Economy - Twin "Revolutions" 15th-19th century - Agricultural and industrial revolution Industrial Revolution - Originates in late 18th century England - More appropriately designated as a revolution - Amount of iron processed into steel in English factories - Produced large changes in domestic consumption Consequences - Luxuries to decencies, decencies to necessities - Distribution highly uneven but now creation of the middle class that had risen from manual labour to professional or entrepreneurial status Social Results - 1. The Capacity to produce surplus - 2. Increasing complexity of division of labour - 3. New forms of social consciousness Political Consequences - Demise of Royal Absolutism - Victory of parliament over kings - Selection of leaders by election - Rise of political parties - Universal rights without reference to class - Need to accommodate new groups within politics Marx - Asked how to analyze society? - What does one look for first - Queens and Kings? - Dominant Ideas? - The food they eat, alcohol they drink Marx and Materialism - Feuerbach and Critique of German idealism (Hegel) - Materialism: What is god - The good part taken out of us and rules over us - Man created god - Marx says this does not go far enough - Why do we need religion? Injustice. You must go to the material causes Critique of Hegel: Historical Materialism - Hegel: Consciousness creates society - Marx disagrees: Consciousness does not create being, other way around Materialist Conception of History - Humans make there own means of survival - Work is natural, humans are creative - History is the history of class struggle and forms of domination History is a struggle, but material struggle - Classes own or do not own the means of production - Culture, ideas, art, law morality, religion are all determined by mode of production "Superstructure" Critique of Hegel: Historical Materialism - Slave, Feudal, Capitalist, Socialist/Communist Modes of production - History moves from one stage to the next: Like Hegel it has meaning, movement and an end How does History Unfold - Exploitation - New Classes grab power for their particular interest but claim it is in the universal interest - They create an ideology and exercise state power. The state is nothing more than executive committee of ruling class - But they too exploit labour and eventually their power is brought into question - If history is the history of class struggle, only means it ends when class struggle ends When does History End? - Marx's analysis of social orders: feudalism to capitalism and then his analysis of capitalism - Immiseration and class consciousness - Will be displaced by those it exploits: revolution Capitalism - Creates unprecedented wealth - Warps human relations and culture - Capitalist exploitation is at once the most subtle and the most extreme - But Workers (proletariats) will redeem history: no exploitation and truth rather than ideology Marx History and Politics - Liberal democracy is presented to us as in the interest of all but actually un the interest of ruling class, Formal freedoms versus substantive reality (How can you exercise your freedoms if you're poor?) - Is it really about capitals: Marx is a student of capitalism - For rights are an illusion, ideology is a mask for power. You can't see out of it because you are in it - What does Marx mean by communism? Is it utopian and unrealistic? Contradictions of Capitalism - Production is a public activity but geld in private hands - What is a revolution? Political versus social revolution - When will the revolution happen? Free will versus determinism - Problem of false consciousness (What if the workers don't want a revolution?) - Stabilizing mechanisms of capitalism (welfare state) - What is the role of the entrepreneur or capitalist? - Is the state really just a projections of economic power? - Limits to growth? - Yet class analysis is powerful stuff, as in the notion of the force inherent in the capitalist order. Communism and Fascism 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Jeffrey Kopstein Intro - Institutional Standardizations in Communist countries - Fascism and Communism were ideologies of salvation - They wanted to perfect the human condition - We live in an incremental society - The human toll these ideologies exacted instituted the basis on the human rights now Liberalism and its Crisis th - Long 19 century is peak of Liberalism’s appeal - Liberal institutions develop even where basis is not obviously present - Parliaments in non-democratic countries are faked - They go through the motions of liberal democracy but it actually does not happen Liberalism and the Working Class - Extension of the franchise - Rise of Social Democracy in Western Europe. Evolutionary socialism and reconciliation with liberal democracy: electoral system - Socialism turns from being a revolutionary to an evolutionary idea What about the revolution? - Lenin: revolutionary movement under conditions of authoritarianism – Russia - It was a fulltime revolutionary activity - You did not occupy a role, you became a status - The only way of revolutionizing was along conspiratorial professional lines - Workers only capable of “trade union consciousness” - If there is to be a revolution, it must come from outside of the working class - Need a “party” to bring them the truth: what this means for Marxism - If there was a seizure of power by a minority in the name of the majority Marxism and Economic Backwardness - Russia – one of the most backward countries in Europe - Working class revolution, with small working class - 1917: World War and Revolution - Marx was exiled but he did not give up on revolution - He had a small revolutionary party called the Bolsheviks - Germany helped Lenin to get back to Russia because he said it would end the war - He returns to Russia while it is in complete chaos, czar stepping down, many parties - October 1917, Lenin and the Bolsheviks size power in the October revolution World Revolution or World Power - Lenin believed he could cause a revolution in Germany too - The military wipes out the Bolshevik parties in Germany - Huge civil war in Russia - World revolution fails to materialize - From insurrectionism to Stalinism – supporting communism meant supporting the Soviet Union - Transforms from a revolution of ideology to revolution of state interest - But what is communism or socialism? What will this kind of economy look like: - Lenin: “Communism = Soviet power + electrification” which is everything modern - But this does not solve the problem Stalinism: terror and progress - Industrialization - Collectivization - Terror and Street police - Purges and Famine - If Russia was to make it, they had to industrialize as rapidly as possible to make a military - People’s Commissariat for People’s Affairs – Secret Police - He understands people might oppose him so he arrests the entire old guard - Huge amounts of force are used within the society - Stalin is raised up to be seen as a God - What was created was the cult of Stalin’s personality - This was the morphing of the communist experiment into something completely different Famine - Roughly during Stalin’s reign, famines killed somewhere between thirteen to seventeen million people Stalin and After - Construction of Militarized State - Balance sheet. Won WWII and created an empire that lasted until 1991 but long run growth prospects dismal Military Expenditure - The soviet Union devoted between 15 and 17 percent of its annual gross national product to military spending during the 1980s Germany - Late state unification 1871 - It is not as economically backward as Russia - It is still trying to catch up with Britain: economic modernization without political modernization - When you are economically backward, you can adjust the world economic order, try to catch up or change the order - Adjusting: Politics of development - Germany pursues reconstruction European policy - Always the question: adapt to existing world orders to try to change it - Germans wanted to create their own trade zone - World War 1: discrediting of liberalism being peaceful - People believed that liberalism was peaceful, based on trade and not violence - Nazism/Fascism - Liberalism received critique from both sides - Communism: equality, Nazism: Hierarchy - Left Wing argued liberalism was about inequality, WWI about rich capitalist countries squabbling over imperial spoils - Right Wing argued that the world is a hierarchy and should be a hierarchy but it is run by inferiors: genetic and cultural inferiors - Nazism as reactionary anti-modernism - Anti-Semitism: A. Religion B. emancipation C. economic and sociological - - A. Christianity spread beyond the Jewish world. Jews became defined as those who would not accept Jews as God’s son - The Jews become a tiny minority in the world - Jews were seen to be involved in the killing of Jesus - B. Jews have been exiled - It traces back from the French revolution - They got equal status as citizens and many people did not like that - The Jews began to maintain a sense of national identity - C. In the feudal world, Jews were not able to own lad, had to pay head taxes but they were able to live - Their economic function was largely commerce and trade, not completely but disproportionately - To be a merchant in the pre-modern world was not a high status job, it was left to the ethnic communities - The rise of capitalism changed this, money became meaningful, so did merchant jobs - Flaws of Weimar Republic 1919-1933 - The Nazis themselves were insignificant at that time - The German electoral system made it that if you had very few votes, you could still get into parliament - Highly proportional - Germany returned to militarized state but with race as the key construct - War of diplomatic recognition in West, War of racial domination and extermination in East - Result: showdown between two great totalitarian regimes – Soviet Union and Nazi Germany - Holocaust and Defeat. Changing views of the Holocaust – modernity versus pre-modern impulses - A recent view of the Holocaust is that it was a result of modernity - It would not have been possible if it weren't for modernity The Problems of Democracy 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Joseph Wong Intro - Democracy is fragile - Relatively new set of institutions within government - Challenges within democracy- Internal Democracy and Equality - Rules of the game: Rule of law - By institutionalizing the rule of law, democracies are far more predictable in terms of what you can and cannot do - Democracy helps manage diversity - Because we live in a diverse society, people have contending interests - Democracy helps facilitate compromise - Political parties tend to converge toward the median voter which helps manage diversity - Democracies recognize that societies are diverse and embody different diverging interests - Helps to do a better job in facilitating commonwealth - Institutionalized uncertainty: More alternatives - You can vote a government out - There is a possibility of losing, no guarantee of winning - This creates accountability within parties and leaders - Governments must be responsive and accountable - Variations of Democracy - No two democracies alike, no fixed variables - The idea of democracy is flexible - The institutional rules differ in different countries that reflect local histories and socio-economic context - Changes over time, adapts to many circumstances and context - Equality - Fundamental to democracy (I) Equality of Opportunity - The Democratic Process - Allows for political equality: The separation of church and state, all equal as citizens under the rule of law - As individuals, we are all politically equal - Procedural democracy: The rules of the game - Example: The right to vote - Everyone gets a chance to participate in a free and fair election - Polyarchy (Robert Dahl) o 1. Public contestation o – People can dissent and deliberate o – People can assemble and mobilize to protest within the public sphere o 2. Inclusive participation o – Democracy is not an exclusive or exclusionary political game (II) Equality of Outcome - The creation of political-economic equity - Equality of outcome is about the consequences of democracy - Procedural versus substantive democracy: rules are only important if it results in an inclusive outcome - Example: Democratic welfare state - The debate of who gets taxed more in the US: Substantive democracy - Began with the rise of the welfare state, the mobilization of the working class - The higher rates of labour unionization led to more inclusive outcome - Unions were able to vote - Not the procedural rules but the outcome of the procedural rules Collective Action Problem - We all have a collective interest in who our next prime minister will be - When it comes to self interest – going to the ballot box – 40% of Canadians won’t go - We all believe in collective goods, but on the individual level, it is not rational to participate - 1. Costs – What one has to do in order to cast the ballot: Get informed, watch the news, debate, disagree with others - 2. Benefits – Single vote does not matter, does not tip the scales. The benefits to the individual are so miniscule that it becomes irrational. The benefits are not worth the cost - 3. Free-riding – The dependence on someone else to participate in political action – voting – for you - - It is not “rational” to vote. It is in the collective interest to vote but not in the rational self interest - The only incentives are moral suasion, economic incentive, coercion - The first challenge to democracy are even if we have the equality of process, people do not exercise in it Equality of Opportunity – Challenges Challenge 1. Even if we have equality of opportunity we don’t take advantage of it Challenge 2. The Fallacy of Democratic Pluralism - As long as we can express all our opinions, then the process is pluralist - Democratic pluralism – assumes political equality - Example: US health care reform - 3 quarters of Americans for the last 80 years agreed that the US should have national health insurance - If democracy was really under pluralism, there is no national health insurance - This is due to institutional fragmentation in the US political system - There is a congress, which has two houses, which has committees, which have power structures, etc. - Because of this fragmentation, it is much easier to kill a bill - Difficult to get a bill passed - Pluralism as procedurally fair is a myth - “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.” Elmer E. Schattschneider - Run by a tyranny of the minority- Minority but powerful interests - Power is not equally distributed Challenge 3. Elite Democracy - Democracy is governed by a political class - Only elites get the power, creates massive distrust within democracy - Politicians are wealthy, - Politicians are educated - They have social networks - And political parties are hierarchical - The “myth” of accessibility - We do not have equality of political assets Equality of Outcome Challenges Challenge 1. Protecting the disadvantaged - Belief that the individualism of liberalism should lead to humane outcomes - Liberal tradition – equal rights of individuals lead to equitable outcomes - But “the belief that the right of the community can trump the rights of the individual – and that this is not incompatible with liberalism but exactly what humanizes it – really is a distinctively Canadian insight” Adam Gopnik - In some democracies, we see a disproportionate advantages to groups and not individuals to result in an equitable outcome - Article 33, notwithstanding clause - Bumiputra policy in Malaysia – positive discrimination policies which help advantage disadvantage groups - In order to create fair outcomes, you must create unfair rules - Affirmative Action in the US – Employment practices are free of racial bias, not intended to be discriminatory - Equality of opportunity does not exist in the United States - Fundamentally goes against the principles of procedural democracy: Contradiction, paradox Challenge 2. Protecting the majority’s will - Democratic transition in South Africa - Constitutional crafting and power sharing - Concentration of political power o One party continuously won o This leads to a weak opposition o No alternative to party in power o If the majority consistently votes for one party, they will never lose - Dominant party system - Protecting a majority will is not a bad thing, but what if this majority is perpetual Challenge 3. Unelected Courts as policymakers - Democracies continue to moderate politics - Courts have become the de facto policy makers - Courts make public policy to ensure fair outcomes, whether people agree or not, especially when politicians cannot make their own outcomes - Normative commitment to constitutionalism - Part of our modernization process - Functionalism, we need a rational functionalism - Weberian rationalism o Politicians are emotional o The real decision makers have to be the people who are rational: Courts o Are juristocracies democracies? They are not elected Conclusion - There are a lot of virtues in democracy, why it has remained so resilient - It is about equality - The reality is power is unequally distributed - To create fairer outcomes, we impose on fair rules Democracy with Chinese Characteristics 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Joseph Wong Intro - China is a significant hold out on the end of history theory - An attractive alternative model in China - China eludes end of history theory and the inevitability of democracy - China has began to gain appeal due to it’s economic growth and the decline of the United States - European Union is also being compared to China - Democratic path showing itself to be morally, institutionally, and financially bankrupt - Due to that, the Chinese want political reform, but not democracy - “The people’s wishes for and needs for democracy and freedom are irresistible” – Premier Wen Jia-Bao, interview with CNN, September 23, 2010 - China is currently going through a leadership transition - Discussions of political reform are happening - There is a rise of collective protests occurring in China China in the Modern Era - The idea of liberal democracy is not foreign to China - There have been moments of potential democratic break through - China was at war with England, the Opium war - China lost the war and gave up lots of its land to British Control - They also had to pay war reparations - 1895, they fought a war with the Japanese - They lost again and lost land to Japan - At the end of the Qing Dynasty, the last emperor of china, there was a sense of Chinese defeat - There was rapid population growth with slow economic growth - The west was industrializing but China was not - Lack of national pride, population crisis and lack of industrialization - A national Republican revolution was started against the Manchurian rule over China in October 1911 - There was the proclamation of the republic of China - Sun Yet Sen- “Three Principles of the people” - His main goal was to rebuild a unified China - His three principles to rebuild china 1. The Nation - The Chinese nation should be a unified unit 2. Democracy - This would no longer by a dynastic regime, it would be a democracy - Chinese people would be equal citizens 3. Welfare - The nation was to care for its other citizens, it was their responsibility Non-Democratic Modern China - Turning Theory on its head.. - It is hard to describe what kind of political system china has - They call it Democracy with Chinese characteristics - It is not a democracy with liberal characteristics, not Polyarchy, not a political system with institutionalized uncertainty - What we see in China is a poor human rights record, absent of meaningful elections, fewer freedoms, and a sophisticated censorship machine - People believed as china modernizes, it would become democratic - So far, this has not happened - There have been events which have pointed in the direction of China becoming democratic, but it still has not happened (I) A Democratic Revolution? - China in 1940’s had become the People’s Republic of China - It would adhere to socialism, the way of breaking the bonds of feudalism - But China had continued to adhere to feudalistic tendencies - It would also be built upon the Chinese Revolutionary Spirit - China would adopt an Anti-Foreign Nationalism - They believed that foreigners and foreign powers had nothing good for China - China would be self reliant - There was a High tide of Maoist Socialism (1949-56) - Closed door policy - In 1956, China releases its 12 year plan - People would work together cooperatively - Production did increase but because of people working harder, not because of increase of efficiency 100 Flowers Movement (1956) - When Mao was confident the people would support him and opened up the system to allow the people criticize the party, he believed no one would criticize him - What happened was people considered this offer seriously and asked for political liberalization, democracy - Mao interpreted this as an attack against socialism Anti-Rightest Campaign (1957) - Response to the criticism - Declares any critic as counter revolutionaries and critics were purged, jailed and killed The Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) - An attempt to reenergize the people, with key features - i. The Formation of Communes - All forms of socio-political life were communized - Individualism became erased - ii. Steel Furnaces - The communal logic to production was applied to industrialization - Steel would be the core of their industrialization - Steel production would go rise dramatically - They overtook the US steel industry in over 10 years - He created the steel industry through the communes - iii. Steel Enterprises - The steel companies would be monopolized and controlled by the government - Proved to be the worst developmental disasters in all of history - There were no efficiencies due to the work being gained from the energies of the masses - There was no market, no incentives to work hard - No incentive to increase productivity - They declined technology - They did not accept any other foreign capital or business - 30 million people died in the great leap forward - This created resistance against Mao, lead to the cultural revolution called China’s 10 lost years Cultural Revolution (1966-1967) - Mao tries to reenergize the masses for a final time - In 1966, he attacks his opponents in the party, those who marginalize him - Mao allies with the army and with students, the red guards - Calls them for a cultural revolution - Called to destroy old customs, old habits, old culture and old thinking - He wanted to eliminate his rivals with this revolution - This turned into anarchy, where students would turn parents in, etc - 3 million people died as a result - Ends with the death of Mao - Also known as the 10 lost years, where china turned itself inward while the rest of the world was developing - There was no democratic revolution (II) A “Modernizing” China - Modernization theory argues societies undergo stages of development which are linear and sequential and move from one stage to the next - Deng Xiao-Ping came into power and established China’s “Four Modernizations” - i. The modernization of agriculture - ii. The modernization of industry - iii. The modernization of national defense - iv. The modernization of science and technology - This increased China’s GDP drastically - We should be expecting democracy - Yet no “Fifth Modernization” (III) Globalizing Democracy - End of History, Berlin Wall taken down - The “Third Wave” and contagion, massive movement of democratic transitions - It would be inevitable that states would adopt democracy because of its contagion effect - Rise of the Human Rights discourse, became a global agenda - Democracy promotion and foreign policy, foreign aid and economic trade would be conditional upon whether the country is democratic - China was integrated into the global community - But yet, no democracy Flirting With Democracy - There is a long history of attempts of getting China to adopt democracy - One argument as to why there is no democracy is because it is a western construct - Asian values, such as collectivity and hierarchy , prevent democracy from happening - However there are Asian democracies, China would be an outlier - - New Culture Movement (1913) - Students and intellectuals embraced democracy and science - Democracy Wall (1978) – Students wanting democracy - June 4, Tiananmen Square (1989) Protests for democracy - Charter 08 (2008) an online petition for democracy Challenges for Chinese Democracies 1. Stability and Economic Growth - The Chinese believe that democracy is chaotic and creates deadlocks - Authoritarianism creates order - Believe that authoritarianism can make decisions more quickly and effectively - Authoritarianism is better because global capital wants stability - International western firms want predictability and economic stability 2. Benevolent Dictator - A lovable dictator 3. Nationalism - There is an enormous sense of pride - Mostly because of their economic growth, they will eventually become the greatest economic power - Creates the Legitimation of the CCP - Resist foreign interference - Guard if China’s sovereignty – No one has the right to tell china what to do - Democracy is seen as western imperialism 4. Adaptive Authoritarianism - Dynamic authoritarianism - Aimed toward economic reform - Political opening – “deliberation” versus “consultation” - China has accepted dissent and deliberation but only as consultation - Hybrid regimes, it is non democratic but is not the autocracy it was in the past - There is some openness, some freedom of press, some freedoms but not as much as in a democracy 5. Choosing Democracy - People have to choose democracy in the end - Modernization theory is only a structural theory, no agents which actually bring about the change - Democracy must be chosen by the authoritarian regime, a hard decision to make - Autocracies try to hold on as long as possible Experiments in Democracy 2013-04-15 3:31 PM - Sir Ronald Fisher, father of modern statistics - Englishman, tea drinker - Experiment whether Mariol Bristol could tell if the milk or tea was put in first in the cup - Fisher made 8 cups of tea, half the milk put in first, other half, tea in first - Randomized the order of the tea - Fisher and Bristol didn’t know the order - Using the Fisher Exact test, we know that the probability of her getting all of them correct by chance was 1 in 70 What’s Important? - We can learn from experiments - We can test people’s claims - Treatment and Control - Randomization - Measurement Some Important Questions - Does Federalism lead to better political representation? - Are voters superficial? - How do we stop patronage and instead get public goods? - Does contact from political campaigns matter in an election? Defining Experimentation - Experiments need treatment/conditions: Stimuli people are exposed to at some point of not exposed to - Assignment to treatment or control/comparison groups of random and the process of randomization is known - Ex-post measurement of results - A treatment is something that is applied to some people or not to others, or to some times and not others Random Assignment - We put some subjects in treatment and some in control - It must be done randomly Ex-Post Measurement of Results - For an experiment to be complete, we need to measure the results - What we want to measure are causal effects - Example - Question: Does wearing tie make Prof. Kopstein teach better - Treatment: wearing a tie - Random Assignment: Flip a coin before class - Measurement: Exam results - If any of these components are missing, we would not have an experiment - To make a causal inference, we must have all three parts: If there’s X, there’s Y Measuring Effects - What is casual effect? - Difference in outcomes between two states of the world, treated versus untreated - This is problematic because we cannot observe any given subject in both its treated and untreated states - “Fundamental problem of causal inference” - Random assignment enables us to create two groups whose treated and untreated states are the same in expectation Why do an experiment? - Because we want to make causal inferences - Because we want to make them about important things - 1. Does federalism increase representation? - 2. Can politicians win by providing public goods rather than patronage? - 3. Are elections won for superficial reasons Examples - Field Experminets - Natural Experiments - Survey Experiments - Lab experiments Field experiments - What if you can intervene in the world? - Testing a hypothesis in the real world Natural Experiments - Sometimes the world provides for experiments - Natural disasters - Lotteries - School vouchers - If we can measure the effects of these, we can conduct natural experiments Survey/Lab experiments - Survey and lab experiments provide treatments in less natural environments - They could be done over the phone, or online, or in a computer room - Treatments are often different wordings of a question or exposure to a picture or video content Federalism and Helpfulness - Federalism generates jurisdictional boundaries - There is a federal government and provincial governments - Some responsibilities are unique, but some are shared - These are not always clear, especially to voters - Who do you contact for help? - Do boundaries lead to a doubling up or do they lead to an empty core - There is a federal and provincial overlap, issues both deal with called shared jurisdiction - This may cause an empty core where each politician in each level thinks the other will help and you receive no help at all Federalism Experiment - Subjects: Randomly chose 101 federal and 101 provincial politicians - Treatments: Send politicians emails from “citizens” to see how the politicians responds Employment insurance, finding a family doctor Responses were rated from 0-5 on helpfulness Politicians are helpful when they receive a message from their own or shared jurisdictions, not from other jurisdictions Clientalism and Voting - What do politicians want? - First to win office - Second to provide good public policy - So why don’t they provide for good public policy - Wanted to know how could politicians in Benin be convinced to offer public rather than clientalist goods - What if voters really want public goods? - Wantchekon worked with real presidential candidates in the 2001 presidential elections in Benin - Treatment: A public goods message or a clientalist message - Randomization: Villages would be randomly selected to receive different messages - Measurement: Compare vote shares for the clientalist message villages versus the - - Found that women were more likely to vote for those who had general promises Hey Good Looking - Study to see if people based their decisions on a snap judgment on who looks more competent - These findings were able to somewhat accurately determine the outcome of elections Concluding Thoughts - We can know something about the empirical facts of the political world - Sometimes, experiments are the best way to uncover these facts - Once we uncover them, then we can think about how to improve the world - Through experiments, we can learn about the political world, about democracy, and about human behavior - What are the limits to the experiment? Ethically? Practically? - What will the next great experiment look like The Rise of Great Powers: International Relations Theory, Uncertain Realities, and the Rise of China 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Joseph Wong Democratic Peace Theory - Democracies do not fight one another - Democracies tend to share allies - Tend to be slow when making decisions - Tend to have the same ideologies - We live in a world of uncertainty, we cannot predict but we can still try Example: Taiwan - Off the Coast of China - People know there are missiles pointed at Taiwan by China - 14 thlargest economy in the world - It is a democracy - During the cold war, China was not recognized as a country, however Taiwan was recognized: Taiwan, the Republic of China - To the international community, Taiwan was the leader in Asia - The normalization of relations recognized China, demoted Taiwan down to a province of China - It is a De jure Chinese province, it is an independent state in reality - There was a democratic transition in Taiwan in the 1990’s - 1996 missile crisis: Chinese launched missiles to scare Taiwan - 2005: Anti-secession law: Should Taiwan declare independence, China will use force - 2010: Arms Procurement Bill – weapons brought from the US by the Chinese - The US would come to the defense of Taiwan if attacked - Taiwan is not scared of an attack because they are a strategic position for the US and expect defense from the US due to moral standing China’s Rise: What We Know (I) China’s Economic Rise: We know the China is now an economic power (II) China has Hard Power: Military power and capability - Used to be militarily backward - Lost many wars - Second largest military spender in the world, nuclear power - Active military personnel standing army is larger than the US 1.5 Chinese for every American soldier - Land based weapons – Same as the US - Naval Ships – Half that of the US - Defense spending – 1 eighth of the US - Available military personnel – 5 times larger than the US (III) Soft Power is on the Rise - The ability for a country to influence another country without use of military - One way they do this is through investment - One of the largest investors in Africa and much of the developing world, this buys them influence - Energy Security: relies on the imports of energy sources around the world - Increasing investment in Canada and natural resources - China is buying a stake in Canada and how our government behaves in the relationship between the two countries - Beijing Consensus, emulation, people who want to be like you - What China has to offer is an alternative modern of development - More and more people want to emulate (copy) it - Increasing cultural power, Chinese culture being part of part of western mainstream culture (IV) America’s Decline - “China’s mix of economic engagement and soft power has spurred some fears that Western influence in developing regions will thereby be diminished...Many Americans in particular are concerned about losing strategic influence in Asia.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2000 - The US used to be the dominant power in Asia - The US funded the rise of power, brought the products that they made - Americans have undermined their own power - "There is really remarkable, rapid shift of power and influenced from the US to China...Today China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the US.” George Soros, 2010 - China is able to function more efficiently because there are no deadlocks or bureaucracy - China rising, America declining: systemic implications - If this continues, we may see the transformation of the entire international systems - The post war system may change What We Don’t Know - Canadians Believe China is: - Economic Opportunity – 43% - Military threat – 60% - Greater influence than US – 66% The International System - International relations occur within a system - System in place which shapes international relations - 3 core principals 1. Sovereignty - Treaty of Westphalia - It gives us a border - Sovereignty allows our government to tax - Other countries have to respect borders as a virtue of Sovereignty 2. Power and the distribution of power - Hard power, soft power etc - Power can be exercised as a threat or as coercion - The distribution of power matters and is inherently unequal, there will be countries more powerful than others - On the one hand, all states are equal in terms of sovereignty, all governments , no matter how powerful respect that - On the other hand, distribution is unequal 3. Anarchic International System - No world government - Their loyalties are not to this world or globe, but to their nation-states or countries - It is a state centric system - Functions in the absence of world government or in a state of anarchy - The best thing we can hope for is order This order is fragile, even though we accept sovereignty Scenario 1: US Hegemony - "Hegemony, total and utter domination.” – Shaq - End of the Cold War – Pax Americana - Military and economic hegemony - As a result of this, the United States was the Rule-Maker - Order in the system was a reflection of American dominance - They could create the rules of how the international system works - They had enormous influence in international organizations like the UN, World Bank - It had tremendous unilateral capacity - If the rest of the world disagreed with the US, they did not care - Benevolent dominance – Americans don’t mean to be dominant in a malignant way, it is a benevolent dominance - America provided markets, brought what countries sold - Hegemonic stability theory: During this period, we had tremendous stability and order - Stability is a function of the presence of a hegemony - No one wants to challenge this dominant power because it was so dominant, everyone wants to benefit from this: security, technology, markets - Realist International Theory: Order in this anarchic world can be facilitated by this hegemony Realism - Theory of the International Relations System - International relations are governed my a system - This system is made up of states, the not governments - Realists view these states as billiard balls - Realists don't care what go on inside these states, don't care if they are democracy or authoritarian, etc - Assume all states behave in similar ways based on the function of their power. Presumption of power and power projection - They behave based on the amount of power they have and based on national interest - Taking these characteristics and trying to predict what happens - This system is prone to conflict - There will be constant conflict - 0 sum, my gain is your loss - Realists like hegemonic stability - They fear the second scenario Scenario 2: A Dissatisfied China - Origins of WWI - We can predict what will happen when there is a new challenger - In WWI, the decline of one hegemony and the rise of another - The cause of WWI was the disruption of this hegemonic stability system - A unified Germany rose while England fell - Realists see a potential power transition moment - Realists see a rise of a dissatisfied challenger - This power transition may result in conflict - Strategic engagement v. containment - Some believe that in order to maintain peace, they must remain friendly with China to avoid another world war - Others say they need to be contained as fast as possible - Must view china as a threat, which increases tension - Conflict seen as inevitable Scenario 3: Domestic Politics and China’s Peaceful Rise - Looks at what happens inside the country, domestic politics - What really matters is what’s going on inside the countries - There is no challenge from China, they do not see themselves as a Challenger - China does not want to be hegemonic, but they are a developing country which has been developing quickly - They have internal problems which keep them from international issues - They focus on their internal problems - Demographic problem, population problem, economic inequality problems - Consolidate own internal sovereignty - Nation building and peaceful rise Scenario 4: Complex Interdependence - The argument is that economic globalization has led to complex interdependence - China is part of this global economic system - The largest source od economic income are Multi National Corporations - it is one of the largest economies but meshed in this complex system - Economic interdependence reduces the possibility of conflict: Globalization - Not going to go to war with other countries and destroy your markets and investments Neoliberal Institutionalism - They believe in global governance, globally we can cooperate under anarchy - Whereas realists believe that we live in a 0 sum world, institutionalists believe in a positive sum world, we can both gain or we can both lose, we must cooperate - Countries have an interest to cooperate: UN, World Bank, WHO, IMF, all countries cooperate in these - There is no such thing as international government but we can set up international rules - As long as we can follow these rules, we can all cooperatively gained - Institutions reinforce complex interdependence - Less likely conflict between china and the US Civilian Violence and War 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Jeffrey Kopstein From Ancient Greece to the Holocaust - War is normally thought of as state on state - Violence generally monopolized by state - Weber – state: monopoly of legitimate use of violence within a given territory - Civil war is something different - Collapse of state, collapse of sovereignty - Example Syria: The state does not have a monopoly on use of force within the country - Either no or multiple sovereignties - What is the difference between civil war and revolution? - The sequence, we tend to see situations as revolutions dependent on the outcomes - If the sovereignty wins, it is not a revolution but a civil war - Sometimes revolutions are not revolutionary, does not result to change - Very difficult to make sense of neighbor on neighbor violence Ancient Greece: Peloponnesian War - 431 to 203 BCE - Backstory: 480BCE: beating back Persoans, Athenians lead the way (almost single handed-Delian league) - 479 to 432 BCE Rise of Athens vs Sparta - Contrasts: land versus maritime, oligarchy versus democracy, military versus commercial orientation - Democracy and leadership (Pericles_ - Reason for war: rise in power of Athens and alarm it caused in Sparta and its allies Corcyra (Corfu): 427 BCE - "Oligarchs" versus "Democrats” each with external backers - Civil war: "now in time of peace they could have no pretext and would not have been so eager to call them in, but because it was war, and allies were to be had for either party to hurt their enemies and strengthen themselves at the same time, invitations to intervene came readily from those who want a new government - "Every form of death was seen at this time; and there was nothing people would not do. And more: fathers killed their sons; men were dragged out of the temples and then killed hard by; and some who were walled up in the temple of Dionysus died inside of it” Human nature and war Change people’s circumstances and they act very differently War and Language - War does something with language, alters it - Thought is dependent on language - "And they reversed the usual way of using words to evaluate activities. Ill considered boldness was counted as loyal manliness; prudent hesitation was held to be cowardice in disguise, and moderation merely the cloak of an unmanly nature. A mind that could grasp the good of the whole was considered wholly lazy” Human Nature - Phoesis versus nomos, human nature versus convention or law. Nature is violent, law is orderly. Nature is full of greed and envy, law is hierarchical and peaceful - Broader points about human nature and the conditions of peace - “The reason they failed, their ambitions outweighed their interests” - It's wrong to go to war when it doesn’t serve your interests, when it’s out off greed or when it’s overreaching Pinker - Starts with an empirical face that may be surprising: violence has gone down over time (measured primarily by homicide) - The 20 thcentury seems to have been the most violent, however it has declined - He measures it not by absolute death but by chances of dying at any given time - Chances of dying a violent death in medieval Europe were very high - Chances of experiencing a violent death in the undeveloped world is also very high but it tends to drop - Political theorists and social scientists have disagreed about the fact and its causes - Jean Jacques Rousseau (18th century 1760): primitive society is peaceful---a loner who wanders around or doesn't feel wronged. No envy- not self reflective. It’s a shame that we have the modern state, which is put into place by modern elites to sustain inequality. This theory is shared by many anthropologists - Primitive society = good, modern society = bad - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 1659-state of nature is a state of war against all. Life is “nasty, brutish and short” - Three motives for war: Interest, honour and fear - Get out of this is by everyone agreeing, you need a big and powerful state - Hand over your personal power to this massive centralized one, that is fear and awe inspiring - People will stop committing crime because they know they will be punished - He becomes the theorist for the big powerful state - Evidence appears to support Hobbes – violence declines with the rise of modern statehood - 1) Pacifying effect - That effect is vicious, early states that enforce the law might torture, kill and take everything from you - This pacified the population - 2) Civilizing process - The development of etiquette, manners - History is an internalization - Nobles were essentially warlords - People are forced to obey manners - Becomes a discipline within us that civilizes us - But evidence seems to work best for the “large processes” Less so for ups and downs (discussion of the US and the 1960’s and 1990’s) - This pacifying power of a strong state which is an internal and external force - The mentality of the people in the 1960’s de-civilized people and increased crime June-July 1941 - Operation Barbarossa: When the Germans invade the Soviet Union - They roll through quickly - In approximately 300 out of 3000 cities and towns locals violently turn against the Jewish population: pogroms – ethnic rival - Examples: Jedwabne- half the town killed the other half Why? - Why were some communities toxic but other benign? - Why do pogroms occur in some locations and not in other? - What kind of places were these? Did they share common characteristics that differentiate them from others? - One Reason: Germans (Heydrich Order) - What the Germans wanted was the locals to do their dirty work for them - They created a lawless atmosphere for which this could happen - This does not explain it because only 10% of cities did this for them, they were everywhere but it only happened in some places - Second Reason: The Soviet Occupation 1939-1941 - Land was divided between the USSR and the Germans - The lands that were occupied by the soviets were where the pogroms happened - The days the Soviets left, soviet secret police prisons were massacred - The Germans saw the corpses and showed the communities, blaming the Jews - This also does not account for the pogroms because there were more than there were Soviet prisons - Third Reason: Nationalism and Anti-Semitism - The argument is, where the where nationalism and Ant-Semitism were high, there would be more pogroms - This was not the case What kinds of communities were these - The main groups were poles, Jews, and Belarusians - Where do pogroms occur? - Where there were lots of Jews and where they constitute a large portion of the local population - Where they are unwilling to integrate into the dominant nation- building project - NOT blaming the Jews – Jewish parties were excluded from government - Two major conclusions: - 1) importance of political assimilation for preserving violence - 2) Perhaps we should move away from individual explanations for who helps and who hurts Jews – it takes village Sovereignty and Intervention 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Michael Ignatieff R2P: Canada as Norm Entrepreneur - Intervention Dilemmas: Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor - Canadian Leadership - Macarthur Foundation support - International Commission on Sovereignty and Intervention, 2001 - R2P at the General Assembly. 2005: norm entrenchment - Problem with Kosovo, was intervened without approval of the UN Security council - The idea is that the UN is the exclusive legitimate franchiser for military intervention - If the UN approves military force, it is lawful, if not, it is not lawful - It was illegal under the law however most people believe it was legitimate - What was morally legitimate in order to save the lives of innocent people was not lawful in international law - There is a problem between legitimacy and legality, a separation - International Commission on Sovereignty and Intervention, 2001. Commission to unite how to intervene legally and morally - R2P: Responsibility to Protect - All sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own civilians - When a sovereign state fails to do this (torture, massacre, ethnic cleansing) other states have a responsibility to protect them when the first state fails at this duty Language Matters - The Responsibility to Protect Versus The Right to Intervene - A responsibility is a duty and it is compulsory - A right is discretional, you can intervene or not - Responsibility says that states must act - States have a duty to protect their civilians while civilians must be protected from states Sovereignty in the UN Charter - 2.7: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state - Inviolability: Right to not be interfered with - 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression - 42. It may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security Can the Circle Be Squared? Sovereignty as Inviolability and Control Versus Sovereignty as Responsibility - Inviolability is used to protect small states from big states - Sovereignty is equal for all countries in international law - Protects people’s own right to rule themselves the way they see fit - These rights go with duties: protection of people Whose Priorities? Human Security or National Security? - National Security: Responsibility of the state to protect it from external attacks - Human Security: Do your people have food, clothing, protection? When Can Intervention Be Justified? - Ethnic Cleansing, Actual or Apprehended - Widespread Massacre - Genocide, Actual or Apprehended - Deliberate Famine What about these cases? - Human Rights Abuses - Democratic Overthrow - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Environmental Disaster - Keep Military Intervention confined the extremely awful circumstances How Do You Decide? Just War Criteria - Right Authority: No legitimate authority unless authorized by the Security Council - Right Intention: Not conquest and occupation, but to protect civilians - Just Cause - Last Resort: Use force when all other means have failed, must talk first - Proportional Means: Can’t destroy a city in order to save it - Reasonable Prospects: Reasonable goals and prospects of success - Exit Strategy An Intervener’s Responsibilities - The Responsibility to Prevent - The Responsibility to React - The Responsibility to Rebuild - A moral promise to try to prevent hardship, react if it is necessary and to rebuild afterwards Opposition to R2P - Libya, Brazil and RWP: ‘Responsibility while Protecting’ - Russia and China: Hegemons as Spoilers - Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico: Bad Memories of the Yankees - Countries like Sovereignty as inviolability, not as responsibility - Does the responsibility to preotect mean that we can overthrow regimes we don’t like? Questions - Is R2P an ‘emergent norm’ or an idea whose time has passed? - has ‘sovereignty as a responsibility’ displaced ‘soverignty as inviolability’? - Do intervention norms make the world safer or more dangerous? Syria: Should We Intervene? - Neither Side will compromise - 40, 000 civilians have died - Civil war may end in genocide - Regime collapse may result in state collapse - State collapse destabilizes the region - The increased visibility of horror increases the propensity to do something about it - Instead of dialogue Assad uses military force to suppress his own population - When dictators are attacked, people forget why they were able to hold power Intervention Option - Sanctions and Diplomatic Isolation - Negotiated cease-fire and transition - Reference to the ICC - Life and strike: Arm the rebels - Safe Havens - Ground Troops - It is not rational for both of these powers to compromise, if one side wins, the other side dies - You intervene because you want to be able to shape the future - If you do not intervene, the rebels will conclude that they did it all on their own and they may decide the fates of their enemies - Intervention causes greater political control over the outcome of the civil war - Srebrenica: 10 000 Muslims were massacred. The troops who were supposed to protect them were not enough - The Dutch were so disgraced that they had to restart their own militaries - You can’t protect civilians if they do not have the capacity to fire back - The only way to do it is with robust military force which deters the opposing side - Syria’s protection of civilians requires ground troops - No western government is willing to put ground troops in - Too risky Intervention: Reasons for - Stop the killing - Prevent revenge massacres on the Alawites - Create Clients - Shape the transition - Defeat El Qaeda/Salafists - Stabilize the region - Counter Iran - Military force is a continuation of politics by other means - Intervention may shape the region, helps Syria’s neighbors Intervention: Reasons Against - We can’t stop the killing without ground troops - Syrians have to own their own solutions - If we enter, we won’t be able to leave - If we enter, we risk a great power confrontation between the US and Russia - Russia and China do not want to accept sovereignty as a responsibility because they have their own sovereignty problems within their own countries Syria: Outcome? - Rebel victory - Settling of scores - Fragmentation of Syria - Russia loses - West loses - Islamic extremism wins Nationalism and Conflict 2013-04-15 3:31 PM Lecturer: Joseph Kopstein What is Nationalism? - Seemingly obvious answer: the ideology of nations. A nation is a group that wants to have it’s own state - A group of people who believe they share a common fate, history, culture and language - Nationalism says that the state and nation should be congruent - Every nation state has minorities, those minorities will have rights, basic liberal N - Most Arabs go to Arab schools in Israel but those schools are not funded by the government - 12% of Americans are African Americans, they have individual rights, but not that many collective rights - The United States does not define itself as a nation-state - A state set up to defend the rights of America, as a cultural group - What it means to be an Israeli in Israel is different than what it means to be an American in America - American definition of being an American is political - What Americans care about are political loyalty - There’s no cultural definition in America - In Germany, Korea, Turkey, they do not have a political definition of citizenship - View themselves as a community of descent - Those who are born German, Korean, etc - Nationalism is the ideology of nations (completely wrong) - Nation: A group of people who believe they share a common fate, culture, etc - Nationalism: State should be conducted by people of that country: Leaders of France should be French - The sense that our leaders must be from the same cultural group as us is a modern phenomenon - The world is chopped up in units where culture is protected by big organizations called states Nationalism - But this occurs only under modern conditions - Never before in human history did people insist that their leaders be the same cultural and never did leaders try to make the people share ther culture - This is a modern phenomenon - Nations do not create the ideologies of nations, Nationalism creates nations Nationalism and Modernization - High culture and low cultures: European moarchs and populations - Nationalism didn’t exist before modern nations - Europe consisted of high cultures and low cultures - Industrial society and need for universalization of high culture - In this way, nations are constructed , they are projects of elites, sometimes competing projects. They don’t exist as things in themselves but are the products of aggregated individual beliefs - But stakes are very high: if YOUR culture is not adopted as the high (universal) culture, you face systematic disadvantage - In industrial societies, states are service organizations for providing common c
More Less

Related notes for BIO130H1

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.