Chapter 10 is the main focus of the final.
The Big 5: Terrorism, Environment, Gender, Sovereignty, Statehood.
Here is a review for the final, which is on Tuesday April 28. The review
handed out in class showed the links individually, so here are all of them
on one page for convenience:
Each of these has consequences for the core problems in IR:
war / peace, conflict / cooperation, wealth / poverty.
TERRORISM (Groups pg. 252)
-The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence against civilians.
Used for political, religious or similar objectives.
Unresolved: If terrorism is different than other political violence
If state-sponsored terrorism within its own territory is
Nature of a 'civilian'… maybe 'non combatant' is better
Used often in weak states, in political transitions like in Colombia,
Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia. Used very often by and in failed
states, mostly in Africa, in permanent civil war. Used against the
state in the 1st World: USA (NYC) Britain (London), Spain (Madrid),
Japan (Tokyo- a cult bombed the subway there).
1950s – not much terrorism
1960s -1970s – scattered airplane hijackings
1980s – Muslim groups attack American targets in Lebanon, Iran, Somalia…
1990s – today - increase after Cold War
Is Islamic terrorism different? Mafia is organized crime, drug cartels
too, why the focus on radical Islam? Its presentation of an
existential threat is not great, but is there.
- Other belief-systems do not harbor embittered anti-Western focus to
the same degree.
- Complex and open societies are especially vulnerable, lo-tech bombs
can be used
- People with relatively 'normal' backgrounds in the middle class were
responsible in UK
- Recruiting ground for terror using groups is not limited to the poor
or to the Middle East
- US led Iraq War's 'blowback effect' may increase resentment and
engender terrorism
- Possibility of terrorists using a WMD on a city or society (pg. 254)
A Realist 911? Was the Realist view (of the Bush Administration in
2000-01) partly responsible for lack of preparation? Ss. C. Rice is
'state-centric' in her IR thinking. "Her preferred means are military
(realist), clear division in her mind about the national and
international realms." Realists tend to focus on state-state activity
and 'territorialize' it.
Liberal view appreciates non-state actors. Emphasize international
cooperation and not unilateralism. "Best weapon against terror is
cooperative government agencies".
ENVIRONMENT (pg. 257)
A growing number of earthlings in the Western world believe that Earth
itself is degrading in its habitability for humanity, and that less
action on the part of earthlings to stop it, could 'runaway' into a
state of unsuitability for all or many inhabitants.
Why now? Global population, food shortages in the 3rd World (which
lead to over-exploitation of land, ie: deforestation,
desertification), pesticides, acid rain and air pollution, water
usage, energy consumption and all that is without global warming
trends!
The 'victory' over CFCs is seen by 'modernists' as proof we can 'do
it' through advancing science and technology. (Modernists vs.
Ecoradicals pg. 258).
'Ecoradicals' think the ecosystem of Earth has a limited carrying
capacity, like every other ecosystem ever encountered. Strict controls
on population, changes in modern lifestyles (less consumption,
renewable energy, recycling), are encouraged.
Problem for IR? Environmental troubles = greater international
conflict. Lack of water resources in the Middle East already spells
trouble. Arab-Israeli problem exacerbates it:
Syria Jordan
----------------------------------------- they all share the Jordan
River. Arab League in 60s
Lebanon Israel tried to divert the water from Israel
(which helped
cause the 1967 War. 40% of Israel's water today
comes from land won in that war.
Is water going to be an issue in the Middle East peace process? The
Arab-Israeli 'war'?
IR finds environmental problems to be intrastate as well as
interstate. Intrastate? Stresses lead to migration from rural to
urban, urban chaos and degradation, less social cement, authoritarian
regimes. Do we see this already?
Realist stance lessens the interstate character of the debate. In some
way grounded in the Judeo-Christian view: "And God said… let them have
dominion over…"
Liberal stance is for cooperation between states due to the threat to
the 'global commons' by this issue: the seas, the ozone, climate, etc.
Only global cooperation can face down this problem.
IPE says that wealth in the global economy should be more equitable so
that people in stressed areas do not over-stress them further.
GENDER
Where does gender converge with international relations? In the debate
about basic inequality between men and women in societies all around
the world.
What is gender? Socially learned behavior expectations that
distinguish between masculinity and femininity (rationality, activity,
strength vs. emotionality, passivity and weakness).
Men own 99% of the world’s property, women 1%.
95% of presidents and cabinet members are men, 5% women.
Women put in 60% of the world’s working hours, and get for it 10% of its income.
60% of illiterate people in the world are women.
80% of the world’s refugees are women and the children they take care about.
Biological difference or social and learned difference? Nature or nurture?
Pg. 262
Much of work done by men is visible and paid, much by women invisible
and unpaid.
Low-paid work in “export-processing zones” of 3rd World
Sex-slavery and prostitution
Domestic labor
FEMINIST CONCEPTION OF INR
Exploring nature and conquering mother nature’s territory - is seen as
a type of exploitation that is merged with justification for
exploiting human mothers. Men who want to “protect from the
‘outside’”, also protects the exploitation of the domestic situation.
Though women have positions in government, war is still seen as a
man’s game: the “just warriors” vs women as “beautiful souls” who
should be saved from war.
Women’s inequality is seen as promotion of population growth, as women
in countries of the 3rd World who have little knowledge of
contraceptives, no education and are in poverty- tend to have many
children- Paul Kennedy says the entire future of the 21st century is
based on women’s mass education in less developed countries.
Feminist ideologies in IR
liberal feminism says “natural rights of life, liberty and property
have not been extended in equal measure to women (ie: Mary
Wollstonecraft)
marxist feminism says “capitalist system needs to be overthrown in
order to achieve equality between men and women- cause patriarchy and
capitalism go together.”
radical feminism says “subordinate IR to gender analysis and end to
inequality”. All violent conflict scenarios, security concepts, power
paradigms and sovereignty must be reevaluated in the light of male
oppression of women. Violence is not only between nations or groups,
but against women. The structural violence against women must be
dismantled.
SOVEREIGNTY AND FUTURE OF WAR - definitions box on 271
Is sovereignty of nations inviolable? Realists tend to think so, but
maybe times change? The whole idea of independence is under assault
from below and above: below by anti-state / tribal forces inside of
nation-states, and from above through nation-states merging into
larger configurations like the European Union.
Additionally, the ““global market,” or “global capitalism”, or “global
economy” have ripped national communities apart by going beyond
borders, mass immigration of peoples across traditional national
boundaries, and communication system, terrorism and the drug trade all
violate sovereignty, human rights, along with growing crime rates all
around the world.
UN says “time for sovereignty is ended- all nations must become one”.
Private security firms erode sovereignty of the state to monopolize
violence within their own territories. Sovereignty vs. trans-national
and world government.
Failed states, religious trans-state territories (like the Islamic
Umma) and super-states
The 4th Generation of Warfare: A global problem.
---------------------------
