Global Politics

Part A.

1.       Is globalisation changing world politics?

Yes. Globalisation of trade and finance has led to fiscal power becoming potentially more powerful than military power.  It has created a declining ability for states to practice self-help as they are increasingly required to surrender sovereignty and collaborate. People need to work together and cooperation is imperative as interdependence in finance and trade between nation-states has created the commercial domino theory whereby changes in one place affect others (high interest rates spread, depression abroad means recession at home).

Laissez-faire economics encourages government non-intervention and increases probability of democratisation. International trade puts pressures on governments to protect industries/employment at home, which leads to protectionism and two level games.

Advances in travel have led to a global migration crisis, refugees seeking asylum, and thread of diseases spreading. Communications improvements have facilitated cyberterrorism and widespread media (which has the ability to exert agenda setting on the public), cosmopolitanism has spread through the Internet which may lead to a global village and corollary need for global governance.

2.       How does neo-liberalism build on classical liberalism?

Classical liberalism is based on ethical principles over the pursuit of power, particularly;

·         Human unity over national unity

·         Human rights/interests over states rights/interests

·         Ideas and education over warfare (the pen is mightier than the sword)

Neo-liberalism build on this by taking the basic principles and applying them to theories about how global institutions and governance can realise these objectives in the contemporary world. It is a counter theory to neo-realism which focusses on global anarchy.

It focusses on things such as international law, international organisations, MNC investment and trade, democratic governments, international treaties (such as non proliferation), and other institutions which will help to bring classical liberal theories into the forefront as the dominant global political principles.

3.       Is ‘National Interest' a useful concept for understanding the actions of states?

In the post-Westphalien system of state sovereignty, the state is above all other agents and 'National Interest' is a strong political factor.

The realist context particularly holds relevance as it explains the actions of states in relation to:

·         High military expenditure even in peaceful times

·         Mercantilist and protectionist practices (two-level games)

·         Resistance to ecological and environmental expenditure

·         Alliances (sometimes unlikely) to even out the global distribution of power, or assist in deterring a common security threat

·         The nonintervention norm – Sudan, Rwanda

What it doesn't answer are questions such as; whether militarisation provides security or just provokes an arms race, whether protectionism will provide profits or deny opportunities, or whether a lack of sustainability investment will leave people desperate for resources.Also, with globalisation neo-liberal ideals are being realised and eroding state sovereignty. Consequently, 'National Interest'  is becoming less relevant as people put their faith in IGOs, NGOs, diplomacy, international law, international trade/finance, and Human Rights.

4.       What are the key causes of war?

Individuals, states and the global structure.

The consequences of individual leaders in making foreign policy choices and/or actions can lead to conflict with other states and/or nations. Some think it is human nature to practice intraspecific aggression.

State nationalism (via nationalistic myths) creates an illusion of superiority leading to imperial desires, secessionist desires, or irredentism. Poverty/human rights failures may lead to protest and civil war. Overpopulation may lead to border and territorial conflicts through desire for resources. Also heavy militarisation may cause war.

Structurally, the global anarchy means there is a lack of global institutions or 'world police'. The distribution of power generates tensions as people compete for power – be it uni-polar, multi-polar, or bi-polar . Power transition theory stipulates that narrowing of difference between sides may cause conflict as each battle to obtain or maintain power.

5.       Is terrorism best described as ‘a tactic of the powerless against the powerful' (Kegley and Wittkopf)?

No. That only describes a small part of the contemporary situation.

It is better described as:

An attack with intention to harm perpetrated against non military targets in order to influence an outcome aligned to the terrorist individual and/or group's goals, some of which might be;

·         Agitational objectives  - promoting itself, discrediting rivals

·         Coercive objectives - bringing population onto their side by disorientation

·         Organisational tactics - acquiring resources, such as supporters and funds

Terrorism could not simply be described as 'powerless against the powerful' as, for example, were these terrorists to obtain WMDs they would become extremely powerful (terrorists are widely thought to be searching for them) with the  yet the definition described above still would and describes these acts generically better. The definition of powerless against the powerful only goes as far as describing the military logic, and terrorism can go beyond this even coming in the form of non-violent attacks on technology.

6.       In what ways do ‘non-state actors' represent a challenge to the state system?

Many states are now divided into multiethnic/multicultural societies. With nationalism being such a potent factor individuals may pledge their support for political minority groups that provide solidarity. This may then lead to ambitions of independence (Kurds in Turkey), autonomy, and a greater voice. This may be realised through seccesionism or irredentism, sometimes in the form of violent aggression against the state and its people, possibly in the form of terrorism. Although many negotiated settlements have led to devolution instead (Nicuragua, Moldova), this may still not be ideal for the state. Some analysts think conflict between and within ethnically divided states with characterise much of the next centuries conflict.

7.       What is the best explanation for the persistence of the income and power gulf between the ‘Global North' and the Global South'?

Dependency theory seems to hold the best explanation. The Global North exploits the Global South by making them dependent on exporting cheap raw materials to the Global North for which there are many competing producers but only limited demand. The materials are then used to manufacture goods which are sold back to countries in the Global South.

The poverty which results breeds conflict, and to offset deficits Global North countries sell arms to the Global South as they cannot produce their own, this then leads to armed aggression and perpetuates their situation. Also MNCs in the Global South inhibit infant industries, pay low wages and create cartels to filter out competition. What makes this worse is that 87% of FDI is funnelled back into the Global North. TNBs are a good example of where globalisation does not distribute profits equally.

8.       Why is ‘human security' in tension with ‘national security' (Kegley and Wittkopf)?

This is Liberalism (human security) vs. Realism (National Security). The relative burden of military spending is how people measure the ratio of GDP dedicated to military investment in the name of 'national security'. Any money that is spent on military spending is taken away from potential use as people investment – things education such as education and welfare. So 'human security' is directly deprived by investment in 'national security'. Also a factor is that militarisation may lead to conflict and warfare, which will decrease the 'human security' or the citizens within that state due to the threat of being caught up within armed aggression.

9.       How does the metaphor of the commons explain the global ecological situation?

It seeks to illustrate that Earth and environment it consists of (oceans, atmosphere) are common property to all human beings. As a result the impact of humans on this environment (in 2007 a report by the IPCC confirmed humans as the main cause of global warming) has a direct associated impact on the human security (liberals define security as the capacity to protect quality of life) of all due to the shared nature of our ecology and our interdependence on its limited carry capacity. As with politics issues are local (“think global, act local”) and what happens in one place ultimately affects conditions everywhere. Issues such as global warming due to CO2 emissions, ozone depletion due to CFCs, and deforestation for timber and other profitable resources affect us all in varying measures – as Arnold Schwarzenegger said “we all breathe the same air”.

10.   Why is it so difficult to measure power in international relations?

It's difficult because there are so many factors to account for and they are all relative. The realist viewpoint is that high politics and hard power through military is the decisive factor in IR, whereas neo-liberalists point to soft power, and low politics which take into account a series of other factors such as economics. Countries such as Japan are powerful due to their economical strength, but have a very low level of militarisation. Countries such as North Korea on the flip-side are in very poor economic shape, but have been given power by obtaining nuclear arms. Other pertinent factors that can also have effect are size/population, natural resources, technology and culture/values. Culture/values is particularly relevant in today's world of global terrorism where military power accounts for little when chasing non-tangible enemy, but cultural power can spread further with deep influence through the media and internet.

Part B.

‘The rise of US hegemony may in time create a more prosperous and peaceful world order'. Discuss with reference to geo-political, geo-economic and cultural forces in world politics.

                The statement above will ultimately be decided by three factors; whether the US can maintain their hegemony, whether it will be successful in promoting its values, and whether these values are just and tied to peace and prosperity.

                Maintaining hegemony has its difficulties and as all previous hegemons have discovered unipolarity is unlikely to endure as all previous hegemons have in the end overextended themselves.

The US rise started after World War 2 with their supreme military capability and use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This led to an expensive arms race and Cold War with the Soviet Union, today the burden of this military supremacy is still costly and difficult to maintain. While the outcome was in US favour and the universalisation of western liberal democracy seemed ready to move forth, promoting its values (however just they may seem to westerners) is not a formality. While being hegemon typically means your values and culture will be pushed on the world,  and the strongest power has historically been best prepared to promote the liberal values of capitalism, such as with Britain, the question needs to be raised whether these values are really peaceful and prosperous.

It is said the US is stretched militarily, in debt financially, divided domestically and unpopular internationally – are these the values and society the world wants or needs?

                Global leadership comes with many burdens, most of which come down to costs of maintaining political and economic order. The costs of maintaining the US military alone tallies their defence expenditures up to nearly more than all other countries combined, and the circular situation they find themselves in is that the larger your armed forces are, the larger your obligations. Hegemonic stability theory itself states that world order requires a leader dominant enough to punish any challengers, the British and the Romans were partly successful for so long because they were able to halt other nations desires to expand. A major war typically leads to a new hegemon, and for more reasons than this alone, the US will aim to avoid it. But with the changing, globalising world, and 'superstates' such as the EU changing the playing field towards economic matters, perhaps this military power will become less relevant in future.

                But the US isn't simply a military powerhouse, they are also proponents of of open politics and liberal democracy against autocracy. As Woodrow Wilson said “democratic government will make wars less likely”, and it seems that democratic governments rarely drive negotiations into outright war because each is aware of the others legitimacy and expects a peaceful diplomatic outcome. What will be a factor is how this liberal democracy is spread – “democracy at gunpoint” as with the US invasion of Iraq does not promote a good image, particularly when it fails and there is room for speculation and controversy around ulterior motives. Many seem to think that Iraq has made the US standing less secure rather than more secure and the whole affair serves to illustrate how in pursuit of their goal the US has shown typical signs of defiant unilateralism. This has led them to be labelled in some quarters as a rogue nation. Having said that the spread of democracy overall has been extremely successful with three quarters of the world now fully or partially democratic, over the past four decades many autocratic countries have collapsed.  This means most are now no longer playing a zero-sum game and persuasion is triumphing over coercion. However as US hegemony inevitably decreases and others close the gap, coercion rather than consensus may be used to grapple onto power. For now they are the undisputed hegemon though, and this unipolar concentration of power allows them to act as global police and to manage international peace however they see fit.

What this unipolar concentration also does is burden the hegemon with however is economic leadership. Global anarchy means that the buck generally stops with the most powerful, and the US is at the core of the structural economic system – it has both possession and use of the capital. After world war 2 they accounted for half the worlds GNP, this is part of what elevated them into the position they now find themselves, and what has helped them to maintain it.  Therefore the US needs to manage the IMF, help countries with balance-of-payment deficits, and to serve as lenders - by neglecting these duties the liberal economies who have come so far typically would slide back into closed economies. But as we have already discussed, military supremacy is far too costly, and war can reduce profits by interrupting economic exchanges through disapproval by other liberal states, or direct severance through the act of war itself. Also, it should be understood that the globalisation of finance means the transnationalisation of finance, and this effectively erodes the US economic power as they concede their reigns to the world – in laissez-faire economics, capitalism has no regulation above the state. Depending on how the above unfolds may dictate how the US balances their liberal and mercantile policies, and this may dictate how the rest of the world behaves moving forward such is their influence. Rich states interests often go beyond their borders (industrially  and trade) and they will use whatever tactics required to maintain their influence and power. Dependency theory actually tells us that world poverty stems from the capitalism so promoted by the US and other nations of the Global North, so we can see that the values are implemented in a universally ethical way.