Why did Europe end up dominating the world?

-Ming China

-Ottoman Empire

• Ming China: 1433, banned naval expansion
• Turks: opposite, overextended themselves and couldn't afford it

Why did Europe end up dominating the world?

- Europe

• diversity of ideas (competition b/w states)
• diversity of economics (manifestation of the diversity of ideas, development of capitalism and free trade)
• fierce military competition (arms race)
•      - stimulated economy (motivation to produce)
•      - increased military power (laid groundwork to dominate less-developed countries-->more trade-->richer-->able to invest in more technology-->be able to dominate less-developed  countries

Habsburg Bid for Mastery in Europe

-Habsburg Empire

-Cause of the 30 Years' War

• No European dominance within Europe
• Hapbsburgs = biggest European empire, constantly at war
• Causes of the 30 Yrs. War
•      - struggle over religion (Martin Luther/Reformation - ideas spread w/printing press/several countries rejected papal authority)
•      - became struggle over balance of power (war started as a local revolt, spread, and the Catholic Habs couldn't control it!) (Tipping point: Catholic France joined the Protestant countries!)
•      - VERY destructive (Harvest of Blood - technology getting more lethal, LOTS of civilian deaths when soldiers would descend on villages)

Habsburg Bid for Mastery of Europe

 - Significance of the 30 Yrs. War

• ends Habsburg bid for mastery of Europe (and leaves hope for France!)
• Treaty of Westphalia allows for religious tolerance and state sovereignty
• a state is sovereign when it has freedom from foreign control, and when it has control over its own territory
• ruler could control HIS subjects but not others'

French Bid for Mastery in Europe (1667-1815)

- Louis XIV

- Napoleon Bonaparte

(Why they failed and its major consequences)

• Louis XIV: lots of wars, expensive, one reason for the French Revolution
• Napoleon: took over after Revolution, more expensive wars, lost because of a balance of power!
•      - other people formed alliances, didn't want France getting too strong
• Consequences:
•      - Concert of Europe!
•      - mass conscription
•      - rise of nationalism

• major powers vowed not to fight wars
• created & maintained balance of power
• two principles: containment, reciprocal compensation
• containment (as opposed to dismemberment): don't destroy France, that would just cause more war - don't want Britain taking over next...
• reciprocal compensation: couldn't take territories unless everybody else in the Concert agreed to let you take it
• ended by the Crimean War (France is back, Russians humbled, Britain at its height economically, US minor, Italy and Germany didn't exist!)

Wars of Unification:

Italy

• Italy: largest Italian city-state run by Count Cavour, had to face opposing Austria (who wanted chunks of Italian territory, and knew it was stronger united than divided).
• helped out by French in return for Crimean War favors - beat Austria (1859)

Wars of Unification

Germany - Austro-Prussian War

• Germany: Bismarck's "iron and blood"
• Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War

  ---

•      - Austro-Prussian: unsure which would control the German Federation, but looking up for Austria
•      - 1866, Bismarck CRUSHED Austria in 7 weeks, didn't give in to nationalist temptations to humilitate them - didn't want to make a permanent enemy and encourage them to ally with France later

  ---

• used technological advantages to beat them (railroad, guns)
• Bismarck made sure to diplomatically isolate them from potential allies

Wars of Unification:

Germany - Franco-Prussian War

•     - Franco-Prussian: most people wouldn't a united Germany (too strong)
•      - Bismarck got France to declare war on him, (good for PR???)
•      - France = poor military leadership, more technologically advanced but not trained well, Germans won
•      - HUMILIATED French, took territory, nationalist fervor - wanted to get back at them from the Napoleonic wars

Bismarck

From Revisionist to Status Quo

• mark of genius: knowing when to stop!
• knew not to humiliate Austria after their defeat
• no bid for mastery of Europe, knew he would LOSE, happy with uniting Germany
• became a defender of the status quo, was to consolidate power, not expand it
• didn't believe in nationalism, bust used it as a political tool to his advantage (realists view a lot of things a tool, sort of a machinal view of politics?)

• feared counter-balancing coalition, wanted to support status quo
• defensive alliances:
•      - most worried about French, knew they were still upset, encouraged them to go be expansionist so as to appease them a little
•      - Bismarck himself not very interested in colonialism, didn't want to expand power
• Europe basically at peace, 1871-90, then the new Kaiser fired Bismarck

Comparing 18th & 19th Centuries:

Revolution in Industry

• Revolution in industry = power of steam!
• led to radical increase in productivity and need for raw materials

Comparing 18th & 19th Centuries:

Revolution in Consciousness

• Nationalism! (What is it? Where did it come from?)
• nation had previously thought to be a collection of people with a common culture/language/ethnicity, as the basis for citizenship
• developed into the belief that the nation = divine creation!
•      - morality, loyalty, nation = divine by GOD
•      - nationalism combined with religion - powerful concept!
• jingoism = extreme patriotism, national arrogance
  

  ---

Comparing 18th & 19th Centuries

Revolution in Military Technology

• Railroad: made total war possible!
• blurred the home front and the war front!
• could mobilize the economy
•  
• small arms: machine gun = smaller, much more lethal
• DEVASTATING to indiginous people in expansionist movement

Comparing 18th & 19th Centuries

Revolution in Trade: Imperialism

• combination in the other 3 revolutions (arguably the most important?)
• imperialism = the practice and policy of overextending the power and domination of one nation over another, especially by conquest
•      - one state extending its sovereignty over another

• ---

Realism

What is Realism?

• economic power + military might + distribution thereof = balance of power
• by paying attention to the fundamental balance of power, you'll know a lot about the way things work
•      - why balance recurrences occur
•      - why war just keeps happening, forever
•      - law, international org.s, domestic politics, ideology, have nothing to do with IR
•      - important things to focus on: who are the most powerful actors in the system, who is rising/falling?
• war enables a state to get what it wants - used as a political tool

Realism

Origins of Realism

(a.k.a. Classical Realism)

 - Thucydides

 - Hans Morgenthau

• Thucydides:
•      - balance of power: Pelopennesian War happenened because of the uneven growth rate of Athens compared to Sparta
•      - human nature: won't change, we will always be slaves to our human passions
•      - unsentimental about power: "the strong do what they can and the weak accept what they must" - coldblooded about power!
•  
• Hans Morgenthau (Politics Among Nations)
•      - competition/war among states is normal - not desirable but there's NO way to change its existence!
•      - human nature is a source of conflict - lust for power explains why there is conflict

Realism

Classical Realism

What do classical realists share? (3 things)

• 1. state as a Rational Unitary Actor
•      - rational = acts in the most efficient way to acheive a given outcome
•      - unitary = one communal interest, "the U.S. interest," etc.
•      - actor = individual states
•      - also a strategic actor - planning ahead, "They don't know that we know they know we know."
• 2. Focus on economic and military power
•      - it has to do with capabilities, not intentions!!!
• 3. Can't change human nature

Realism

Contemporary (Neo-) Realists

• Gilpin - developed Thucydides' theory of hegemonic war (a.k.a. power transition theory)
•      - differential growth rates (Peloponnesian War!)
•      - conflict built into the international system
•  
• neo-realism: different views on human nature, don't believe it's important at all!

Neo-Realism

Debate over human nature and war

• classical:  Thucydides/Morgenthau: intentions lead to outcomes! Intentions governed by human nature
• neo: Waltz: no! other forces at play between intention & outcome - "systemic effect" - sum of parts are different than the whole
• Waltz: not HUMAN nature, but the nature of the international system (anarchy) causes war

Neo-Realism

Understanding Anarchy

• absence of authority, sovereignty, world president/prime minister
• 1648 (Westphalia) and after: ANARCHIC world, w/the advent of sovereign states (no Pope to defer to)
• no hierarch of authority (Hobbes' Leviathan vs. SoN)

Realism

Implications of Anarchy

• self-help (your only choice is to be strong enough to rely on yourself when there is no authority)
•      - internnational law (world court) has no actual power
•      - can't count on allies (Melians, Bosnians)
• relative gains (absolute gains don't matter if someone else is gaining more than you)
•      - Athens, Sparta
•      - you don't ask "will both of us gain?," you ask "who will gain more?"
•      - you care because wealth translates seamlessly into power

Realism

Consequences of Anarchy

(1/3)

• security dilemma: when a status quo state's attempt to improve its own security creats an objective threat to its status quo neighbor
• S.Q. meaning not expansionist/revisionist!
• one wants an army, ends up in arms race, potentially war
• something intervenes b/w intent and action! (anarchy/self-help/relative gains!)
• it's all about structural incentives
• both sides have to be S.Q. states
• one side makes a move that the other sees as a threat

Realism

Consequences of Anarchy

(2/3)

• cooperation can be difficult
• harder to make a deal when you both focus on relative gains, not absolute gains
• this explains why you have less trade than you'd otherwise expect!
• outside-in explanation!

Realism

Consequences of Anarchy

(3/3)

• alliance politics: balancing vs. bandwagoning
• going to focus on power and interests
• balancing: balance against the strongest hegemon... balance against (of) power!
•      - 30 Yrs. War: French Catholics sided w/Protestant countries to balance against Habsburgs
• bandwagoning: when you ally with power because you think it's going to be in your best interests
•  
• balancing is MUCH more common, and better for the international system

Realism

Puzzles Realists Claim to Answer

• Why has no one been able to dominate the world?
• Balance of power!
•  
• Why view domestic politics as fundamentally different than international politics?
• Sovereignty! Anarchy! (you act ENTIRELY differently in the two)
•  
• How can status quo states end up at war with each other?
• Security dilemma!
•  
• Why is cooperation b/w states often so difficult?
• Relative gains!

Liberalism

Essential Principles of Liberalism

• Freedom of conscience (speech, religion, association)
• Freedom of opportunity (guaranteed economic/social rights - equality in opportunity of education, employment, etc. - the right to own private property!!)
• Freedom to elect one's own government (democracy! guarantees that the other two will fall into place!)

Liberalism vs. Realism

Comparing Theories

• The Nature of International Politics
• (1/5)

• the nature of international politics:
• R: anarchy - but only in international politics! (no bearing in domestic, a-social)
•      - international law doesn't mean much because it breaks down when it has to apply force - big states don't have to comply! Why? Because they're BIG!
• L: society - international not so fundamentally different than domestic!
•      - more socially-based than anarchy-based
•      - societies have commons beliefs, expectations, regulatory international laws, etc.
•      - ex: widespread opposition to chemical and biological weapons as fundamentally different than traditional warfare!

Liberalism vs. Realism

Comparing Theories

• Who are the actors in the international system?
• (2/5)

• Who are the actors in the international system?
• R: state = rational, unitary actor
•      - you don't have to look any closer than the state
• L: state = rational, but not unitary
•      - have to look at the domestic politics to understand why it has the interests that it has
•      - also believe in non-state actors (IOs - WHO, WTO, Amnesty International) - much like a society!

Liberalism vs. Realism

Comparing Theories

• Why do liberals look inside the state? (a.k.a. the relationship b/w interests and actions)
• (3/5)

• 1. Understand the state's interests
•      - ex.: Bismarck wanted stability, Kaiser Wilhem II wanted  glory, to conquer other states
• 2. See how it'll obtain that interest
•      - means/end argument
•      - ex.: most people don't want Iran to get nukes... but how will they go about doing that?? (see Walt article!)

Liberalism vs. Realism

Comparing Theories

• Possibility of Progress
• (4/5)

• Possibility of progress:
• R: no progress, history is cyclical - self-help system, same thing happening again and again
•      - you can work better within the system, but you can't fundamentally change it!

Liberalism vs. Realism

Comparing Theories

• Importance of ideas vs. material factors
• (5/5)

• Importance of ideas vs. material factors
• R: emphasizes materialistic approach
•      - everything (all qualities - mental, spiritual, etc.) is a product of natural (material) forces
•      - so, focues on distribution of material power (guns, money, etc.)
• L: emphasized ideational approach
•      - certain things we all agree on (chemical/biological warfare is bad, slavery is an abomination, torture is immoral, etc.)
•      - free trade --> economic growth
•      - freedom of ideas!
•      - distribution of material power is important, but so is the distribution of IDEAS (fascism, communism, democracy, etc.) - this has an impact on how states interact!

Liberalism vs. Realism

Translating Domestic Principles  Into International Politics

• Realist: it's not how to make the international system better, but how we can better live in the international system that we have
• Liberals: we can live better by making the international system better!
•      - 3 fundamental freedoms
• universal principles - not time- or culture-bound
• everybody deserves it!
• liberals care because they think what happens within a state affects interstate relationships

Liberalism

Consequences of Liberal View of IR

• Democratic Peace: why democracies don't fight each other
•      - mutual caution (reflect the people's will, debate and deliberation! not capricious! mutual deliberation provides space for potential conflicts to be resolved peacefully)
•      - mutual respect (between governments and between countries, can relate to each other, less likely to resort to violence)
•      - mutual interests (economic interests - the more they trade with each other, the more they'd both have to lose to avoid war - costly for both sides)
•  Inside-out argument! Have to look IN the state to understand what goes on OUTside of it

Liberalism

Consequences of Liberal View of IR

Why dem.s fight non-dem.s

• no mutual caution (illiberal regimes don't have to be cautious, Saddam & Kuwait)
• mutual respect (democracies view non-dem.s as illegitimate, not based off the consent of the people)
• mutual interest (in general less trade, less incentive to avoid war)

Liberalism

Consequences of Liberal View of IR

Alliance Policy

• intentions matter just as much as capability
• influenced economy by perceptions/opinions about another state's intentions
•      - Canada would otherwise have a HUGE military buildup!
• we figure out intentions by freedom of conscience/opportunity/government

Liberalism

Consequences of Liberal View of IR

Transformative power of international institutions

• promote cooperation
•      - reduces uncertainty (this is what drives a security dilemma! - can provide immpartial info/be a clearinghouse)
•      - IAEA sent inspectors into Iran, and it told us a lot when they wouldn't really even let them in!
•      - can change interests (really captures liberal view that ideas matter!)
•      - Ex: International Campaign Again Land Mines

Liberalism

Consequences of Liberal View of IR

Trade

• trade --> interdependence --> PEACE

Liberalism

Puzzles Liberals Claim to Answer

• Why do democracies never (rarely?) fight each other?
•      - Democratic peace
• Why don't Canadians worry about a US invasion?
•      - we're a democracy! i.e., intentions also matter
• Why do similarly-situated states behave differently in international politics?
•      - because of what's going on INSIDE the state
• Why is cooperation often so EASY?
•      - international organizations!

Marxism

Isn't Marxism Dead?

Key Marxist Argument

• no! one of the most influential ideologies, esp. in the 20th century
• continues to inspire revolutionary movements, esp. in the developing world
• incredibly powerful & radical critique of the great powers
•      - "His books will be worth reading as long as capitalism endures." - even if it's not necessarily a good way to organize your society

Marxism

Background (4 Theories)

• Theory of History:
•      - history unfolds according to the logic of the economic system
•      - economic systems determine politics!!
•      - historical materialism (being creates consciousness?)
• Theory of Knowledge
•      - dialectic: every thesis has an antithesis
•      - ALWAYS there are clashing interests!
• Theory of Capitalism
•      - capitalism = a necessary evil
•     - evil: enslaves & impoverishes the world while making a handful fantasically rich
•      - necessary: to theory of history (need capitalism to screw everything up before the communist revolution occurs)
•      - every economic system sows the seeds of its own destruction
• Theory of Revolution:
•      - foresaw a gradual accumulation of capital-->monopolies-->squeeze the middle classes-->sharpen class distinction-->proletariat revolution
•      - communism eliminates classes becase all are equal, can't accumulate private property, so no classes! (sucks the life out of the dialectic)

Marxism

Leninism

• Imperialism: highest stage of capitalism
•      - no more national interests, only corporate interests, increasing corporate power over national policy!
• Lenin gave Marx a foreign policy (impatient, wanted socialism NOW and not wait for individual countries to come to)
• Corporate interests determine national interests
•      - state becomes a slave to corporate interests, popular will ignored completely and elections are a joke!

Origins of WWI

Random Tidbits...

• Triple Alliance: Germany, Austria, Hungary
• Allies: Russia, France, England joined later
• lots of crises, maneuvering around
•      - R: all wanted to keep one country from getting too powerful, balance of power
• crises crystallized alliances

Realism

Kipling (Richard)

• What was the White Man's Burden?
• Was he serious or satiric?
• What was the White Man's reward for his Burden?

• White Man's Burden = for white Europeans to civilize the world through colonizing uncivilized, undeveloped countries
• We're pretty sure he was serious, even though he was a satirist - although he was very aware of the negative effects imperialism brought (wiping out traditional culture, etc.)
• Reward: a lot of bitching and complaining from all sides involved

Realism

Gilpin

• What is human nature like?
• What explains perious of stability and hegemonic war?

• Human nature: unchanging
•      - motivated by 3 passions: interest, pride, fear
•      - always seek to increase wealth (power) until other people stop them
• stability: balance of power between major players (though minor players can move a little, provided they remain minor)
• hegemonic war: disproportionate growth rates, biggest hegemon gets a challenger
•      - military power = what decides things!
•      - difference b/w small skirmishes & hegemonic war: no hegemons involved = SOME stability
•      - Ex: Athenians willing to engage in trade! Militarily/population/monetarily --> expansionist!

Realism

Thucydides

• Why did the Melians resist Athens?

• Melians wanted to resist Athens because:
• wanted to remain neutral
• thought Sparta or the gods would come to their aid (Sparta = honor-bound, gods favor justice)
• appeal to justice & fairness so the Athenians might butt out
• unjust that Athens would come to peaceful Melos to take them over
• possibly a desire for balance of power

Stephen Walt (the one w/the blog)

• Why are Lindsay and Takeyh concerned about Iran?

• Why are Lindsay and Takeyh concerned about Iran?
• nuclear development in the works (Iran = looming threat!)
• Iran would supply neighboring states and terrorists w/nukes
• damage U.S. credibility - if we can't stop Iran from getting a nuke, our allies woudl lost faith
• blackmail neighboring countries - project power!

Realism

Classical vs. Neo-Realism

Differences & Similarities

• Differences:
• Classical: human nature, lust for power, conflict ensues
• Neo: structure of international system, anarchy (no central authority) --> self-help, relative gains

  ---

• Similarities:
• power matters! not just intentions
•      - humans want power just because, states want power for SECURITY
• key actor: the state (rational [efficiency], unitary [one voice])
• anarchy exists (not the driving force, but it exists)

Liberalism

Doyle

Doyle Explains Kant

• What is the essential principle of liberalism?
• What are the 3 definitive articles of democratic peace?
• Are there examples to support the liberal democratic peace argument?

• Essential principle of liberalism: freedom of the individual!
•      - freedom of conscience, opportunity, to elect one's own government
• Definitive articles:
•      - mutual caution (republican/democratic constitution, won't rush into war on a whim)
•      - mutual respect (Pacific Union - won't kill each other, even w/a conflict of interest)
•      - mutual interest (cosmopolitan law/hospitality - allow visitors to come to the state w/out fear and trade - trade is anti-war!)
•  
• Examples to support this: Triple Alliance = no mutual respect (huh?)

Liberalism

Doyle #2

• To what extent has the U.S. promoted democracy?
• How does Doyle think the U.S. should NOT promote democracy?
• How should we promote democracy?

• To what extent has the U.S. promoted democracy?
• Philippines: U.S. colonialism w/a promise of democratic self-determination
• cold war & democracy: principle (democracy) vs. interest (security) --> reinforces Realist view!!
•      - Kennedy, Reagan
• "democratic spring" of '90s
•      - lots of democracy promotion!
•      - Clinton, George Bush Sr.
• Bush Jr.: "forced democracy"
•      - pushed it hard, but didn't really invest
• originally started on an isolationist footing, changed its tune after 9/11 - "missed opportunities" in democracy

  ---

• How does Doyle think the U.S. should NOT promote democracy?
• invading other countries - "forced democratization"
•      - only home-grown, self-determined democracy will work... you can't force it on a country that isn't ready for it!
• replace U.N. w/"League of democracies" - exculding non-democracies won't get you anywhere!

  ---

• How should we?
• directly:
•      - incentives
•      - assistance
•      - good example
• indirectly:
•      - trade
•      - investment
•      - foreign, multilateral aid (support international organizations - would spread democratic values but neutrally - don't have to juggle security interests w/democracy promotion!)

Liberalism

NeoCon 101

• What are the origins of the neocon movement?
• How have they influenced U.S. foreign policy?

• Origins of the movement:
• originally liberal, mostly Jewish, in the '60s and '70s
• found common ground w/Reagan, many switched to Rep. party
• Scoop Jackson --> Jackson school!

  ---

• ---

• Have influenced foreign policy:
• pushed for confrontation w/Soviet Union
• sidelined by Clinton admin.
• back w/Bush Jr???

Marxism

Cassidy

• What is Marx's "materialist conception of history?"

• Marx's "materialist conception of history:"
• "It's the economy, stupid!" - James Carville
• economy drives history, and politics!
• capitalism: accumulation of wealth, class conflict exacerbated, pits bourgeoisie against proles
•      - makes people greedy (avarice), base, solely concerned w/self-interest, focus on material well-being

  ---

• ---

Panitch

• Why would Marx have expected the current financial crisis?
• Why for Marx would economic catastrophe not bring about radical change?

• Marx would have expected the current financial crisis because:
• inherent flaws in capitalism creates economic problems

  ---

• Economic catastrophe would not bring about radical change because:
• capitalism = isolationist, self-interested
•      - never join up with other like-minded proles
•      - base, avarice, self-interest prevents that from happening

  ---

Marxism

Zilliacus

• Why was WWI a preventitive war?
• What was the "plutocracy" in Britain? What is its main interest?
• For Zilliacus, what was the British government's key motivation for for going to war?

• Why was WWI a preventative war?
• most countries only got involved to prevent the balance of power from favoring enemies
•      - mastery of Europe = mastery of everybody else's colonies

  ---

• What was the "plutocracy" in Britain? What is its main interest?
• economic elite (bourgeoisie!!)
• wanted to make MONEY, esp. through colonies
•      - lose colonies, no domination of foreign affairs, lose politcal (domestic) power
• common people (proles!?) wanted democracy! The get control, bourgeoisie loses its power

  ---

• For Zilliacus, what was the British government's key motivation for for going to war?
• Marxist reponse: protect their interests! (colonies, economic interests of the ELITE)
•      - main actors: CLASSES (Marxist!)
• Realist response: British gov. would want to maintain a balance of power against Germany
•      - major players: STATES
•      - Britain came in b/c if they stayed out, Germany takes over, Britain loses material power (colonies) and they become insecure

Revolution in Consciousness

Part 2

• Where did it come from?
• post-Westphalia phenomenon
• conscription: Napoleon turned peasants into Frenchmen, they only had a concept of their village before, not their nation
• nationalist indoctrination: people learned how to be a good .            man
•      - Napoleon's wars crucial in spreading nationalism to other countries! You're invaded, you start to love your country, too!

• Revolution in Industry: economic rationale contributed to imperialism, needed raw materials!
• Rev. in Consciousness: nationalism/racism "justified" conquest, white man's burden, and obligation, every nation thought they were the best
• Rev. in Military Technology: conquest became easy (to wipe out pre-industrialized tribes), global domination by the West seemed absolutely unlimited

•      - why balance recurrences occur
•      - why war just keeps happening, forever
•      - law, international org.s, domestic politics, ideology, have nothing to do with IR
•      - important things to focus on: who are the most powerful actors in the system, who is rising/falling?
• war enables a state to get what it wants - used as a political tool

• not human nature, focus on the nature of the international system
•      - classical: inside-out arguments
•      - neo: no, it's anarchy that puts pressure on the state! the environment they're in, not the leaders' predispositions, determine actions'
•      - the sum of the parts may be different than the whole!

• L: Yes, you can! Progress is possible - people can learn!
• wars = costly & self-defeating
• can learn to create intitutions to constrain nasier aspects of international politics & fundamentally diminish the prospect of war
•      - Ex.s: Geneva Convention, Red Cross, WTO, WHO, DEMOCRACY!

• argument on economic class: economc interests explain political positions!
• $ = POWER!
• rish use this power to keep their positions (pay off politicians, politicians look after the interersts of the rich)
• corporations distort democratic process, have a predominate influence over policy... corporations determine what's in the national interest!

Realism

Gilpin

• Why/how is this realism?
• What are his views on nuclear war?

• Realism because:
• accepts that war WILL happen
• believes that balance of power = key to IR
• war is a tool to becoming a hegemon
• can't overcome human nature... but, as this is a NEO-realist argument, the distribution (balance) of power among states REALLY decides things
•  
• nuclear war:
• states aren't as willing to fight these wars because they have bigger consequences... but still human nature!
• nukes intensify "the avoidance of total war" to the highest level

Realism

Thucydides

• Why did Athens want to control Melos?
• Why realism?

•  
• Why did Athens want to control Melos?
• expand their power/empire
• letting them be neutral implies weakness
•      - all the other islads would stand up to them, too!
•      - not dishonorable just to give in
•  
• Why realism?
• war = inevitable
• uneven growth rate between Athens & Sparta (Gilpin)
• power = deciding factor!
•      - justice & fairness are just ideas
• war is a tool 
• human nature = get more power!

Realism

Walt

• What do they think the U.S. ought to do?

• ---

• What do they think the U.S. ought to do?
• keep all options on the table
• get prepared for a military response to a wide array of Iranian actions
•      - be forward-leaning!
• draw lines
•      - U.S. will respond "by any and all means necessary"
•      - 1, no initiation of conventional warfare
•      - 2, no use of transfer of nuclear weapons/material/technology
•      - 3, no stepped-up support for terrorist/subversive activities
• basically, be hawk-like, more aggressive
•      - not dove-like, more pacifist/peaceful
  

  ---

Realism

Walt

• Why is Walt concerned about this approach?

• overstates Iran's capabilities (defense budget)
• misunderstand sources of U.S. credibility - no effect on credibility (our allies KNOW that it's in our interest to back them up - we all want OIL!)
• smaller capacity to subvert/blackmail neighbors than they think
• NOT likely to hand out weapons to terrorists (not in their interest either!)
• hair-trigger approach = incentive FOR Iran to build nukes to prepare against U.S. hostility
• might have a small chance of heading off a bomb through diplomatic means
• reinforces an alarmist view
•      - these were the same arguments used in Iraq
  

  ---

Realism

Walt

• What does Walt recommend?
• Why is Walt a realist?

• What does Walt recommend?
• U.S. should take approporiate steps to maintain a balance of power in the region
• "grand bargain"
•      - allow Iran to have nuclear capability for energy purposes only, and let the IAEA verify that!
•      - U.S. engage in serious discussions about regional security, not to attack & overthrow Iran
• Walt is a realist because:
• talking about state interest (national power, security), not intentions
• not about ideology/democracy... it's about power!

Liberalism

Neocon 101

• What are their core beliefs?

• Core beliefs:
• thinks the U.S. needs to flex its security muscles... to promote U.S. values! (democracy, capitalism)
• security
• preventitive action (but not pre-emptive action...)
• support for Israel!! (friendly, democratic regime among lots of enemies/terrorists)
• skeptical of multilateral (international) organizations
•      - nice when they support what you want, otherwise can constrain a state's interests

Marx

• Who are the proletariats & bourgeoisie? How does capitalism affect them?

• Who are the proletariats & bourgeoisie? How does capitalism affect them?
• proles: workers --> losers!
• bourg.: capitalist, rich --> winners!
• capitalism generates inequality between the two,
•      - theory of immiseration: wages don't rise as quickly as capital profits
•      - bourgeoisie exploits proles, owns ALL the capital

  ---

Marx

• Communism was "supposed" to take over capitalism but never has. Epic Marx fail?

• Is Marxism still relevant?
• YES! Still a critique of capitalism!
• "His books will be worth reading as long as capitalism endures." - Cassidy
•      - maybe there are inconsistencies & it's not a great way to organize your society, but he was a student of capitalism and his critiques are still valid
• was right that capitalism would spread and destroy traditional societies, for example

Panitch

• Obama's healthcare reform. Marx: WTF! Why?

• Obama's healthcare system is NOT socialist (Marxist) because:
• essentially forced the gov. to pay the bourgeoisie!
•      - tax $ funneling straight to bourgeois corporations
• using capitalist measures to solve capitalist problems
•      - doesn't take away private property, no radical change