Reap What You Sow

Elaine Hang

Professor Shirk

International Relations

22 October 2015

Reap What You Sow

The United States should be putting more effort into resettling Syrian refugees rather than increasing military intervention. This strategy would be more beneficial for the United States, because it would be less costly and would improve the image of the US.

The United States has failed to take responsibility for the devastation it has inflicted because of its military operations in Syria. The US military intervention has destabilized the Middle East for the last 20 years and forced millions of Syrians to flee the country. There are at least three actions that the United States contributed the Syrian civil war: destabilizing Iraq, arming “rebel” soldiers, and bombing the areas where members of the Islamic State are stationed.

However, the US cannot afford to increase military involvement in Syria. The cost of addressing the root causes of the Syrian civil war and the rise of the Islamic State is high. Already, the total cost of military operations in the Middle East is between $4 trillion and $6 trillion 2014. Rather than spending more money and time in Syria, the US should work with its allies and focus on funneling its resources to resettling Syrian refugees. The US would join and split the burden with 30 other countries who promised to take in Syrian refugees. In fact, it would cost the US about $4 billion to resettle 266,000 refugees, which costs about the same as year-long airstrikes against the Islamic State.

Not to mention, the United States has a history of resettling refugees. In the late 70s and early 80s, the US resettled about 150,000 Southeast Asian refugees annually. The rate at which the US resettled Southeast Asians refugees was much faster than the rate at which it has been resettling Syrian (1,500 in the last 5 years). The US demonstrated its strength against the communist regime in Vietnam by putting forth a narrative that the US is the beacon of democracy. Therefore, by welcoming more Syrian refugees while decreasing military involvement, the US can counteract the narrative of the US as an enemy the Islamic States presents in order to breed terrorism.

The United States must be held accountable for displacing the local populations in Syria. The best way for it to do so is to increase the number of Syrian refugees it will take in and use its substantial resources to resettle them. Since war in Syria is costly and also unwanted by most US citizens, the US should be leading on the refugee crisis because it would be a better strategy to counteract the Islamic State’s attempt spread terrorism within the region.

Post-Colonial Capitalist Peace Theory

Matt Hunt

Professor Shirk

International Relations

5 October 2015

Post-Colonial Capitalist Peace Theory

In discussing security among once hostile relations, it is important to note that economics plays an important part in mending ties. I will therefore be analyzing the connections between states and their prior colonial holdings through the context of economic incentive, displaying how private industry is crucial to state security.

The historically dynamic relationship between Great Britain and the United States is often overlooked. To take a closer look at the main reasons why Great Britain and the United States have stable relations, the history of their interaction must be analyzed. From its birth as a nation, the United States and Great Britain were off to cold diplomatic terms. As the War of 1812 signified, Great Britain was bitter over its loss of tax base in the colonies. Nonetheless, the Spanish American War signaled a shift in Anglo-American relations. The typically pro-Spanish Great Britain decided to support the United States under the American guarantee of Cuban independence. But what could have caused this shift from suspicion to support? I argue that Capitalist peace was the main factor in the warming relations between Great Britain and the United States.

Throughout the period known as the Great Rapprochement, the cultural and political objectives of the United States and Great Britain began to merge (Reuter). Great Britain sided with the Spanish prior to the US reassurance of a free Cuba because a US operated Cuba could have severely damaged Great Britain trade in the Caribbean. Great Britain realized that a war with America would not be beneficial to their economy. By focusing on economic backlash, Great Britain had established a positive relationship with the United States.

Capitalist Peace theory can also be applied to the relations of United States and Great Britain and their former colonial holdings. Specifically, westernized multinational companies like Coca-Cola promote a connection between the former colonies and their former rulers. Because these companies can be seen as entities with and without borders (and in the United States’ case, can even be recognized as people), their interests can connect countries that may have very different cultures. For instance, the Philippine islands, once American colonial holdings, reestablished trade with the United States upon its declaration as a nation. In 2006, 16% of its imports came from the United States. As can be seen by trade, the Republic of the Philippines now has a very strong relationship with the United States. Meanwhile, India and Great Britain have had relatively smooth relations following India’s independence. Coincidentally, corporations like British-based gasoline giant BP have ties in India, where it reigns in the automotive lubricant business. These companies, which have lobbyist voices in Congress and Parliament respectively, can pressure the political agenda to be in favor of peace with their countries of operation. As with the case between Great Britain and America, the economic relations between countries leads to a reawakening of the cultural similarities between states, therefore supporting secure relations.

                  Ultimately it is trade between private entities operating within countries that secures peace. Historical relations between Great Britain, the United States, and their respective former colonies indicate that Capitalist peace theory best describes how relations between once bitter powers can be softened through the economic coercion of the private sector.

William C. Reuter, "The Anatomy of Political Anglophobia in the United States, 1865–1900," Mid America (1979) 61#2 pp 117-132

Soft Power: Decline in the United States

Riley Gulrajani

Professor Shirk

International Relations

5 October 2015

Soft Power: Decline in the United States

           

Power in international relations can be defined in several different ways. Power can be understood as the level of influence states or leaders have, their ability to control outcomes, or the level of status they have among other states.  The capabilities to handle these functions above are different from state to state and can be measured in by levels of both “hard” and “soft” power.  In the late 90’s, Joseph S. Nye coined the term “Soft Power”, as a way to describe a nation's "ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion.”  The relationship between hard power and soft power has become an increasingly popular topic USA in considering how to strengthen its status in the world arena. Through the use of culture, political values and policies, the United States has led the world for years in the field of soft power.  With the rise of China and its economy though, the United States is slowing fading as the leader of soft power with China as the natural candidate to take its place. 

            Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them is in decline as a result. Views that recent policies have hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, and maintain peace are attitudes that undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United States to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment.  Skeptics of soft power claim that popularity is temporary in international relations and should not guide foreign policy. They may say that the United States is strong enough to do as it wishes, with or without the world's approval, and should simply accept that others will envy and resent it. After all, the world's only superpower does not need permanent allies does it?

The recent decline in U.S. attractiveness should not be so lightly dismissed though. It is true that the United States has recovered from unpopular policies in the past (such as those regarding the Vietnam War), but that was during a time when other countries still feared the Soviet Union as the greatest evil. It is also true that the United States' size and association with some things makes some resentment unavoidable today.   However, wise policies can reduce the resentments that these realities produce. The United States cannot confront the new threats, such as terrorism, without the cooperation of other countries. Of course, other governments will often cooperate out of self-interest, but the extent of their cooperation often depends on the attractiveness and soft power of the United States.

Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of temporary popularity. It is a means of obtaining outcomes the United States wants. When the United States becomes so unpopular in other countries' domestic politics, foreign political leaders are unlikely to make be the effort or be willing to help.  Soft power is necessary in today’s world of international relations and the United States cannot afford to lose it. 

Water Wars

There have been many articles written about “water wars”, especially with regards to the Middle East and North Africa. Some are of the opinion that these wars start because of water shortages while others argue that water is just a part of the war that is being fought for a larger reason. Whether you side with water wars or water as a part of war, it is easy to see how states in the region have used the bargaining theory of war to deter war when in regards to water. There are multiple cases of this throughout the area that prove the bargaining theory was used to avert war. 

In the first case we will look at the Arabian Peninsula, the most water poor region of the world. This area has no large river running through it, meaning it depends mostly on aquifers, desalinization, and “virtual” water. Virtual water is described as the water that is put into food stuffs that states import. On average a country needs 1,000 cubic meters of water to produce food for one person per year, and that person needs 100 cubic meters of water for other uses. Most of the countries in the area do not have that amount of water available, so they have to import food to feed their citizens. Instead of small states such as Kuwait, Yemen, and Oman being left on their own to search for water, Saudi Arabia has invested money in desalinization plants for the other states in their area. This has helped avoid conflict over water resources and has led to cooperation in the Arabian Peninsula.

A second area of the region that has had many tumultuous meetings is the Tigris-Euphrates Basin. This consists of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey who have had dealings that could have lead to water wars, but ended in agreements and peace because of the bargaining theory. When Turkey started building dams on the upstream area of the Tigris River to start hydropower building, Iraq and Syria were both worried about their water sources. The states met and agreed on a plan of action after many negotiations and regulations put in places. Something that could have ended in a small war instead ended in an agreement.

Third is the Jordan River Valley which effects Jordan, Israel, Palestine, and somewhat Lebanon and Syria. It has been said that part of the Israeli involvement in Lebanon was to secure water for the countries rising amount of citizens, which I argue is because the bargaining theory was not used between the two countries. Jordan and Israel, the two most effected by the water situation, have had numerous talks revolved solely around water security. Neither country wants to be depended on another to import “virtual” water, so they want to establish control over the Jordan River. These talks have led to some agreements, but has possibly led to the 6-day War. We will have to see if the bargaining theory can apply to this particular situation.

In all three cases it is possible to see the bargaining theory put to work, because these countries are working with one another to avoid water wars.

The Cold War and Hard Power

Tomas Iturregui
International Relations



                  The Cold war was a "war" between the U.S. and its NATO allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies. It was not really a war because although there were a few small scale regional battles, there was not any real fighting between any of the major powers. In this post I will argue why it was mutually beneficial for all nations involved that there was no fighting as a result of hard power.
                   The cold war took place from around after World War two until 1991. During this time The U.S. and Soviet Union were the two largest superpowers in the world and had a huge rivalry. The Soviet Union had a lot of influence over Yugoslavia which at the time was a group of eastern European nations, while the U.S. had its western allies on their side. The two superpowers had a large rivalry in sports such as in the olympics, as well as in the space race to see which county would acquire spaceflight capabilities first. The U.S. was and of course still is a Democracy, while the Soviet Union was a communist state. The two nations had major political disagreements, as the U.S. wanted to spread democracy while the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism.
                    Both nations came very close to fighting with each other as a result of hard power. In response to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by the U.S., the Soviets agreed with the Cubans to set up nuclear weapons in Cuba in preparation to potentially use on the U.S. in what was known as the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviets eventually removed them after talks were held with the U.S.. After which tensions eased up a little. The MAD (mutually assured destruction) theory can describe why nuclear war didn't occur. If the Soviets had nuked the U.S., the U.S. would have in response nuked the Soviet Union. When two nations both have nuclear weapons they are unlikely to deploy them against one another since they know that it will just end badly for both of them. Furthermore, going to war would have hurt both countries financially. The cost of war is immense, especially against another great power. Even though both nations had large economies, it still wouldn't have been an ideal situation. Lastly, it could have triggered World War three. The U.S. and Soviet Union each had many allies, so if the two of them had begun to fight it may have dragged other nations into the mix which would have cause a World War.
                  The world may of been a very different place if the U.S. and Soviets had gone to war. In conclusion, due to the potential destruction of both nations, the potential financial repercussions, and the potential for World War three, it was best for both nations that Hard power from the Cuban Missile crisis did not result in any actual fighting.
                 

Pop Power

Elaine Hang

Professor Shirk

International Relations

5 October 2015

Pop Power

In the 21st century, culture is power...Together with the Korean people we will foster a new cultural renaissance or a culture that transcends ethnicity and languages, overcomes ideologies and customs, contributes to the peaceful development of humanity, and is connected by the ability to share happiness.

— South Korean president Park Geun-hye

The South Korean government uses Hallyu as an instrument to expand its ability to influence other states through appeal and attraction, i.e. expands its soft power. Hallyu, or the Korean Wave, refers to the increase in popularity of South Korean culture since the late 1990s. However, it has really skyrocketed into mainstream media since the music video for Gangnam Style by Psy went viral. The attention and popularity it has garnered among young people and international markets allows the enhance the nation’s attractiveness thus helping its government achieve its goals.

From the shadow of the accomplishments of China and Japan, South Korea emerges as a rising cultural and economic powerhouse in the world. The study of the Korean language around the world is surging. The hi-tech manufacturing industry (e.g. Samsung, Hyundai, and LG) is renowned. The entertainment industry is booming. The increase in South Korean exports signifies the positive reception from its international community. The South Korean government’s investment in Hallyu also induces more Foreign Direct Investments and attracts many tourists. Gone are the days when South Korea is known as a war-torn, impoverish country. Now it is praised for its advanced technology and academic excellence, as President Obama has cited. It has produced some of the most influential people in international politics: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, South Korean President Park Geun-hye, and former-President of the World Bank Jim Yong Kim (born in South Korea).

South Korea’s positive image as a trendsetter for modern East and West cultures allows the nation to foster more regional cooperation. Take the bolstering trade between China and South Korea for example. Korean cultural exports, especially media content, have “modern Western style” mixed with “conservative Asian values” in them. The blend of East and West coupled with cultural similarities make for an alluring product that Chinese consumers find appealing. Moreover, China respects South Korea’s economy and political system, despite it’s similarities to the United States. So much so, that the Chinese government and the Korean government work together to tackle issues concerning historical animosities, regional trade, and relationships with the United States.

South Korea also uses Hallyu to assert its role as a representative of democracy. South Korea’s positive image among other nations allows the government to hold more influence over decisions concerning trade and negotiations with North Korea. Being seen as a Westernized and modernized nation helps South Korea gain sympathy and support from other democracies.

On the other hand, South Korea’s soft power over the relations between the Koreas can be a tool for improving its relationship with its northern neighbor/rival, North Korea. However, as shown with China-South Korea relations, historic tensions and divisions between the citizens can be reduced through cultural exchange. According to the DailyNK, Korean dramas and reality (variety) shows are popular in the North, despite bans on most media content. The pop culture of the South serves as a looking glass to modern and Western culture. Many Northern citizens consume the contraband media for entertainment and information as an act of escapism and rebellion against the communist doctrine, illustrating the possibility of Hallyu as a cultural and political force.

Hallyu reaps considerable soft power for South Korea. Because the nation exudes an alluring brand that is considered appealing by many countries (e.g. United States, China, and even North Korea), South Korea some leverage on the international stage. As its popular culture spreads, South Korea raises its status as a democracy, leading economy, and trendsetter. Though the full effects of this soft power have yet to be seen, the positive reception of South Korean culture signifies a victory for South Korean foreign policy.

Cuban Missile Crisis Bargaining Theory

Cole Gordner


While discussing the Bargaining Theory of War in class I noticed that a lot of the key concepts of this theory went hand-in-hand with the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960's. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a two-week period of time in 1962 in which the Soviet Union placed several armed missiles in Cuba and aimed them at the United States. They were placed there in order for the Soviet Union to assert a sense of dominance over the United States.
America obviously had to react fast as the threat of all out nuclear war occurring at any moment was very real. The IR Bargaining Theory of War states that war is never an ideal route to take and this was demonstrated by the U.S. as they tried to come up with a solution to this problem. President Kennedy and the rest of the United States knew that if they were to declare war on the Soviet Union each state would commence firing missiles at one another and total destruction of each party would surely be the outcome.
The U.S. essentially had only one viable option during this time of crisis, negotiate with the Soviet Union and reach some agreement that will have them remove their missiles from Cuba and dismantle this nuclear threat. Once again, this fits right into the Bargain Theory which explains that a striking a deal is always preferable for both sides than actually going to war. The Soviet Union was clearly looking for something from the U.S. when they set up their missiles and they also probably never actually anticipated firing them as they also foresaw mutually assured destruction.
President Kennedy promptly began negotiations with the Soviet Union and worked to meet an agreement. After only a couple days of talking, an arrangement had been met. The Soviet Union removed their missiles from Cuba and the United States agreed to remove their missiles from European countries like Turkey and Italy which posed a threat to them. The U.S. also agreed to not invade Cuba or support any troops going into Cuba. This was a direct result of the recently failed Bay of Pigs invasion the U.S. conducted in an attempt to overthrow the socialist government.
The Cuban Missile Crisis is a good example of the Bargaining Theory of War gone right. War was avoided and a peaceful deal was agreed upon by both sides. However, a deal like this is not always reached and war does occasionally break out. This can be due to the fact that an agreement could not be reached by opposing states or because one state has a problem committing to the treaty that was drafted. The Bargaining Theory can still be seen in full effect in today's society, namely in recent scenario's like the Iran Deal, and demonstrates a useful way to understand how states approach avoiding wars and attempt to make deals.