International Relations Lectures - Hilary Term PDF

Preview

Summary

IR lectures HT17. Contents…         HT17 HT17 HT17 HT17 HT17 HT17 HT17 HT17 Week 1 Week 2 – Week 3 – Week 4 – Week 5 – Week 6 Week 7 – Week 8 – International Relations since 1900 (Dr J. Leader Maynard) Russia in IR The US in IR Rising powers in the Post-Cold-War world The EU – past...

Description

IR lectures HT17. Contents…

       

HT17 HT17 HT17 HT17 HT17 HT17 HT17 HT17

Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

- International Relations since 1900 (Dr J. Leader Maynard) – Russia in IR – The US in IR – Rising powers in the Post-Cold-War world – The EU – past, present, future! - The United Nations and International Security (Prof R. Caplan) – The Middle East in IR – John Maynard – Humanitarian Intervention (maybe? I just got here 10 minutes late)

International Relations Lectures – HT 6 Potential Narratives for //THE WORLD SINCE 1990// 1. The “New World Order” (George Bush Speech, 1990) a. US are strong and will lead the world from the front, and Liberalism and Free Markets will dominate. b. There will be US-Soviet partnership, and co-operation between great powers. c. UN will be revived; international law will be created and will rule i. NOW, ideology is REDUNDANT but instead, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT will be the key problem world-wide, and countries will co-operate to overcome it. d. Even if not all on the same “side”, the US-led order would form the dominant structure of international politics. 2. “Unipolar Moment” (Charles Krauthammer 1990) a. US Power is unrivalled, and other powers are irrelevant… but this is simply a “moment” and will not last forever. i. Christopher Layne went as far as to call it an “illusion”. b. Future US Isolationism or multi-polarity will return, according to these theorists. 3. “The End of History” (Francis Fukuyama, 1992) a. Western Liberal Democracy – universalisation of Western Liberal Democracy as the final form of human government. There will be no progression (opposite of Marxism) to another form of politics. i. OBVIOUSLY events will still happen… but it looks like interstate wars will decline, as ideological conflicts cease. ii. Future issues will focus around technological change. iii. Governments may more likely need to co-operate against climate change or economic disasters, rather than fight. 4. Towards the “Asian Century” (Deng Xiaoping, 1988) a. Rise of China, India and Japan – consisting in 1/3 of world’s population, much more than population of the b. Mixture of Liberal Markets, and Economically Active states. c. Asia will exert more influence and will begin to lead. d. Future world one of multi-polarity, with increasing competition between the West and the East – competition of their VALUES. [Western, individualism VS Eastern, community-orientated values]. i. In reality, Asia is VAST and geographical proximity is also vast… to suggest Asian homogeneity is surely oversimplification? 5. The “New Medievalism” (Hedley Bull, 1977) a. Erosion of state sovereignty, thanks to forces of globalisation. Rise of non-state actors, privatised violence, fluid norms and legal orders.

IR lectures HT17. Contents… b. This creates a few problems i. Instability, as private actors undermine states, and a state-vs-private dimension of who has the power is developed. Dictatorship of financial markets??? ii. States increasingly weakened, as global forces become more important… how can they command loyalty of citizens? Lack of democratic control. Porous borders and authority! iii. Fragmentation and failed states 6. “Repeating the 1920s” (John Leader-Maynard, now) a. A period of liberal optimism, institutionalism and interdependence i. Reminder – talking about the 1990s, not now! b. A thought that international courts could mediate international conflicts; ideological problems would disappear; interdependence and technological change drive the triumph of liberalism and institutionalism. c. All of this followed by FINANCIAL CRISES, ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS, WAR. i. Is this not EXACTLY what has happened now? ii. It’s as if the liberal teleology has failed… 1. Democratic backsliding, underdevelopment economically, deep nationalism, religious conflict, and state capitalism (aka is it really capitalism??) SO… now let us have a look at certain parts of history. END OF COLD WAR  USSR dissolves 8 December 1991  Peaceful transitions o Lithuania, Germany (1990), Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan (1991), Czech Republic and Slovakia (1993)  Violent transitions o Slovenia, Croatia (1991), Bosnia, Serbia (1992), Kosovo (2008)  What causes the difference between peaceful and violent?  Ethnic differences o BUT Czech Republic and Slovakia are an exception. Also, Ukraine is now not seeing peaceful transition…!  NATO expands as many of these countries join it.  International Law and Institutions – HEAVY development of these o Chemical Weapons Convention 1993/1997 o International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia/Rwanda o WTO 1995 o Kyoto treaty 1997/2005 (but US refuses to ratify)  GREAT POWER WILL. When commitment to solving problems is tenuous, problems tend to worsen, as no robust UN action is undertaken. o Rome Statute creates the International Criminal Court 1998 o Creation of the UN Human Rights Council 2006  When there IS the willing by a great power to get something done, it looks like it gets done!

IR lectures HT17. Contents… 

Or rather, when the US wants something done. This result doesn’t necessarily hold so well for China/Russia/anyone else…! o BUT… how did these guys deal with Somalia and Rwanda? Not really very well. Lack of great power will maybe, combined with ineffectual co-ordinated efforts.  I’d do well to look into these events and have a general overview of knowledge sorted for these cases.  Major UN-Authorised Interventions o Kuwait 1990 o UNOSOM I + II, UNITAF in Somalia 1991-93 o NATO bombing in Yugoslavia (1999) o British Intervention in Sierra Leone (2000) o Coalition military intervention in Libya (2011) [MAINLY NATO] o UN transitional authorities in Cambodia and Kosovo as they transition to full statehood o The list on the power point is at least double this length. The point is, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY. But how many were necessary, and how many were successful, is a different question.  Regionalism, Trade and Development o Many extensions in the period. Clearly not linear/one-directional (AKA UK leaves the EU), but generally, an uncontested process TOWARDS trade and development!  EU expansion, and euro created  MERCOSUR 1991 created (Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Venezuela).  NAFTA created 1994 (USA, Canada, Mexico)  ASEAN expansion (Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia join in late 90s)  African Union created 2001/2002  Four Asian Tigers are doing better (South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore)  Introduction of the Millennium Development Goals  These are now redundant, and not often talked about. It was more of a talking shop, than countries making any real commitment to these countries’ developments. o REMEMBER that for all of these developments, we still saw the Asian financial crisis in 1990s, the global financial crisis and subsequent recession, and the UK has voted to leave the EU… will we continue to desire greater Economic Co-operation, or do we think we can survive better on our own?  Nuclear Divestment and Proliferation o Again, not solely one way… but mostly turning AWAY from nuclear weapons  South Africa sings non-proliferation treaty and ends secret nuclear programme 1991  US and USSR sign START I (1991), then START II (1993). NPT made permanent in 1995.  Argentina and Brazil permit mutual inspections 1991  Ukraine joins NPT 1996  Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty, fully effective 2001  IRAQ pursues Nuclear Weapons  North Korea tests nuclear weapons, 2006 to now  Iran – nuclear agreement reached in 2015

IR lectures HT17. Contents…  Violence, Fragmentation and Upheaval exists too o Israeli-Palestinian intifadas, the latter being 2000-2005 o Sierra Leone civil war 1991-2002 o Chechen Wars 1994-1996 o Congo wars, first and second, last from 1996-2003 o Kosovo war 1998-99 o The Arab Spring 2010-2011 o Syrian Civil War (2011-now), US intervention (2014), and Russian Intervention (2015)  Analyse the graph and come up with 5 statements about conflicts  Internationalised intrastate wars (Syria, Libya, Russian intervention in the Ukraine) have spiked since mid-2000s  Overall, actually an UPWARD trend in the number of conflicts! 50 in 2015, less than 20 from 1946 to 1960  Dip in wars in mid 2000s, but we appear to be returning to the levels of the late 80s/90s.  Very few interstate conflicts, ever, anymore. Mainly civil wars that we are seeing!  List of Interstate wars [1000 deaths] o Gulf War 1991 o Intervention in Kosovo 1999 o War in Iraq 2003 o Gaza War 2008-2009 o Russian intervention in Ukraine 2014-now  Terrorism o 9/11, Al Qaeda attacks WTCentre and Pentagon. >3000 dead. o London 7/7 bombings o ISIS captures swathes of Iraq in 2014 o Paris attacks, 13th November o BUT, some good things. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) renounced terrorism in 1988, the Good Friday Agreement saw the end of the troubles in 1998.  Terrorism has spiked. Nothing inevitable about this rise in violence… but the rise of Muslim extremism is essentially the driving force, with the declaration of an Islamic Caliphate by ISIS determining the rise in deaths.  Prior to Syrian civil war, Terrorism had been relatively contained.  Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan make up the vast majority of terrorist related deaths  Humanitarian Crises o Some caused by unavoidable natural disasters, others by avoidable economic factors o International response to most of them, but complete variation in level of that response

IR lectures HT17. Contents…

o



MASSIVE response to Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004 for example, whilst Darfur’s genocide has received almost no response. When genocide’s are involved, responses are lesser – perhaps because political intervention is not desired by the OECD donating countries.

    

Hurricane Katrina 2005 Haitian Earthquake 2010 Rwandan Genocide 1994 West African Ebola Outbreak 2013-2016 Syrian Civil War 2011-now

LIST

 OTHER THEMES TO THINK ABOUT o Technological Changes  Space flight/exploration  Internet  Social media?  Cyberwar  Medical advancements  Financial fluidity world-wide o Democratisation and democratic backsliding  Kurlantzick, Democracy in Retreat (lower democratic scores – go read a summary) 2013 o Ideological Change  Human rights, environmentalism and sexual politics are becoming more salient.  Rise of cosmopolitanism (idea that we are ONE worldwide community, and that boundaries and national politics should matter lesser than an international focus). Single community, shared morality.  Markets and welfare of the lesser off – we should hope that the politics behind these things becomes less political and more FACTUAL around how people lose out from markets!  Revival of Religion in Arab world  Revival of Nationalism as a major ideology worldwide (Trump, MLPen, May). SO, the questions for us here are… HOW HAVE INTERNATIONAL POLITICS BEEN INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THESE THINGS? WHAT is the nature of power in the modern world? New forces, some with no agency? Is power fundamentally changing or has this always been the case? HAS the nature of armed violence permanently changed, or is it temporary? Will war continue to decline, whilst terrorism rises? WHAT will happen with economic management/growth/debt? Will we see debt crises with budget balances? Will growth cease in the East? ARE there legitimation crises? Increased polarisation… do we believe in our politicians anymore? Is median voter theory no more?

IR lectures HT17. Contents… HAVE we seen ideological fragmentation? Are there less sources of information for us that are united?

Lecture II – New Lecturer. Unsure of what we’re looking at… Russia after the USSR dissolves? -

-

-

-

Boris Yeltsin – appeared at first to be an advocate of democracy and a strong figure who could help the USSR overcome the transitory difficulties. However, he is reported to often turn up to meetings drunk, and was clearly a bit shit. Chechnya – area at the bottom of Russia. A bloody civil war ensued here in 1994. Russia appeared weak in its inability to control the situation. 1996 – Elections, where the results were highly contested. 1998 – Financial crisis which devastated the already fragile Russian economy. o What were the USSR’s priorities for international politics under Yeltsin? It’s tough to say. There seemed to be little clear path. Obvious confusion  But, TRANSITION and INTEGRATION of Russia into the West, to a very limited degree.  Russia more-or-less peacefully looked on, under Yeltsin, as the US detached itself from the conflict with Russia, and became more of a hegemon, integrating Eastern European countries more and more into the Western world. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN RUSSIA? SEE BELOW FOR WIKIPEDIA! “Much of the Yeltsin era was marked by widespread corruption, and as a result of persistent low oil and commodity prices during the 1990s, Russia suffered inflation, economic collapse and enormous political and social problems that affected Russia and the other former states of the USSR.” “Ongoing confrontations with the Supreme Soviet climaxed in the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis in which Yeltsin illegally ordered the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet parliament, which as a result attempted to remove him from office. In October 1993, troops loyal to Yeltsin stopped an armed uprising outside of the parliament building, leading to a number of deaths. Yeltsin then scrapped the existing Russian constitution, banned political opposition and deepened his efforts to transform the economy. On 31 December 1999, under enormous internal pressure, Yeltsin announced his resignation, leaving the presidency in the hands of his chosen successor, then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.”

After all of this, Putin becomes President, in 1999. Much more assertive and confrontational foreign policy. It started off well…  Praised initially by the West. More stable, less drunk… better able to control and lead his country.  Seemed to even offer better chances for co-operation with the West! o Following 9/11, offered Russia’s solidarity and co-operation in the war on terror. But, a campaign against free speech and the press – against activists and journalists in particular – was initiated.

IR lectures HT17. Contents…  This was done in order to try and suppress and consolidate power in Russia  Culminated when prominent Russian journalist was killed in 2006 – Anna Politovskaya – she had been investigating the Chechen war, which she oppoed. Her assassination directly linked to the Kremlin by most Western analysts.  A few months later, Alexander Litvinenko killed in London – again, linked to the Kremlin Then, a war with Georgia begins in 2008. A large ethnic Russian population exists in Georgia… Russia intervened “in order to protect its people” from the Georgian government. -

-

First time since 1989 that Russian military are engaged in another country (Chechnya doesn’t count – it’s part of Russia). For the first time since the collapse of the USSR, Russia had the capacity to use force! o Whilst still far from the military power that the USSR had had, Russia had grown economically thanks to the boom in the price of oil and gas – Russia’s main exports – and thus could expand its power and had the strength to intervene in Georgia. o After Putin’s rise to power, he exerted more direct government control over oil and gas. Gazprom & Rosneft organisations essentially take over the energy sector.  Crackdown on oligarchs. Boris Berezovsky/Mikhail Khordorkovsky for example, them and others arrested or exiled.  Army was modernised (they had suffered under Yeltsin!) thanks to the steady stream of revenue that the government received from the control of oil that it assumed. So the war wasn’t about changing Russia’s foreign policy priorities… it was just the first time that the West were shown that Russia was capable and perhaps ready of challenging other states, with the use of force.

Russian constitution forbids someone from two consecutive terms. Putin thus could not run again in 2008. So, he was elected prime minister for one mandate, and installed something of a puppet as President (Medvedev), given that they worked extremely closely…whilst Putin then was elected again in 2012. Medvedev put forward 5 cardinal principles during his term as President. -

-

-

Russia recognises supremacy of basic principles of international law o Russia has been rather inconsistent on abiding by formal international laws. They have stuck with the informal idea that a “correlation of forces” (Russian phrasing) is necessary… it’s an informal agreement between great powers. The world must be multipolar since a hegemonic world is unstable and conflict-threatened o When the world is dominated by the US, Russia thinks the world is a dangerous place. No country should be in a place to dictate rules to all other states. Thus, other states should resist/counter the hegemonic West (this is implicit). Russia does not desire confrontation with any citizens o Thus it needs a powerful military in order to deter conflict! Protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens wherever they are located o Helps us to understand foreign policy in more recent years. They don’t just mean Russian passport holders, but ethnic Russians. Can be difficult to define/describe. People whose first language is Russian but they do not live within the Russian Federation. Protecting them caused the intervention in Georgia in 2008, and the intervention in Crimea/Eastern Ukraine 2014-present.

IR lectures HT17. Contents… This concept stretches back to the 19th century (to Crimean War, perhaps further). Russia acts as the protector of its ethnic people.  Much like back then, perhaps this notion of Russian ethnicity is used more as an instrumental tool for expansion…! Russia, like others countries, has regions in which it maintains privileged interests. o Baltics/Central & Easter Europe/Caucuses/Central Asia. Basically, ex-USSR states. o Many of these places do rely on Russia, seeing it as a great power and accept its influence over them to some extent. o Russia implicitly threatens the use of force if the West were to try and intervene or influence any of these nations.  BUT - Pro-Western forces were installed (democratically, mind) in the early 2000s. But, Russia in the early 2000s had little capacity to react, and so did not intervene in these instances.  Perhaps a trigger for building up their army, and for the current attitude of intervention. o How Russia’s elites perceive their influence over these countries to be can explain a lot of their foreign policy moves over recent years. 

-

Don’t take too seriously – product of a TV interview. However, they provide a framework to explain a lot of Russia’s foreign policy. See red writing. Some puzzles persist: -

-

Why Russia in Syria? o In Soviet times, Russia and Damascus had a difficult relationship. o Russia’s presence in the Middle East has been minimal since end of the USSR o Here’s your explanation then doggo  Russian elites consider themselves a great power.  They want to show this and raise profile on the international stage. Russian officials have accused the US and other Western States of supporting revolutionary movements that toppled governments with which Russia – I.E. Libya and the fall of Gaddafi.  To prevent this happening again in Syria, Russia intervened in the conflict to support Assad’s regime.  A Western-backed government in Syria would make the world less multipolar. What is Russia’s conception of the West? o Lecturer has refused to define. That’s because largely, Russia does too. o OECD countries and offshoots, developed countries… important allies/states that bandwagon on the US.  Russia tends to be a little friendlier to some European countries, and this is reciprocated.  BUT as a rule – a bloc, that acts in co-ordination, and should be resisted!  Historically, but also recently, many Russian elites have a...