A SHORT

INTRODUCTION TO
WORLD POLITICS

Lawrence Meacham
Honolulu Community College
 Honolulu Community College
A Short Introduction to World Politics

Lawrence Meacham
This text is disseminated via the Open Education Resource (OER) LibreTexts Project (https://LibreTexts.org) and like the hundreds
of other texts available within this powerful platform, it is freely available for reading, printing and "consuming." Most, but not all,
pages in the library have licenses that may allow individuals to make changes, save, and print this book. Carefully
consult the applicable license(s) before pursuing such effects.
Instructors can adopt existing LibreTexts texts or Remix them to quickly build course-specific resources to meet the needs of their
students. Unlike traditional textbooks, LibreTexts’ web based origins allow powerful integration of advanced features and new
technologies to support learning.

The LibreTexts mission is to unite students, faculty and scholars in a cooperative effort to develop an easy-to-use online platform
for the construction, customization, and dissemination of OER content to reduce the burdens of unreasonable textbook costs to our
students and society. The LibreTexts project is a multi-institutional collaborative venture to develop the next generation of open-
access texts to improve postsecondary education at all levels of higher learning by developing an Open Access Resource
environment. The project currently consists of 14 independently operating and interconnected libraries that are constantly being
optimized by students, faculty, and outside experts to supplant conventional paper-based books. These free textbook alternatives are
organized within a central environment that is both vertically (from advance to basic level) and horizontally (across different fields)
integrated.
The LibreTexts libraries are Powered by NICE CXOne and are supported by the Department of Education Open Textbook Pilot
Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions
Program, and Merlot. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1246120,
1525057, and 1413739.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation nor the US Department of Education.
Have questions or comments? For information about adoptions or adaptions contact [email protected]. More information on our
activities can be found via Facebook (https://facebook.com/Libretexts), Twitter (https://twitter.com/libretexts), or our blog
(http://Blog.Libretexts.org).
This text was compiled on 02/15/2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Licensing

1: Introduction
1.2: Characteristics of World Politics

2: System History- The Rise of the Modern World System

2.1: 500-1500 AD
2.2: European Imperialism
2.3: Concert of Europe
2.4: Unification of Germany
2.5: World War I
2.6: The Middle East
2.7: Peace Efforts
2.8: World War II
2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The Cold War
2.10: Detente and Cooperation
2.11: The Post-Cold War Era

3: Images and Theories of World Politics

3.1: The Modern World System
3.2: Nations and States
3.3: Theories of World Politics- Realists
3.4: Theories of World Politics - Idealists
3.5: Theories of World Politics - Neoconservatives
3.6: Theories of World Politics - Isolationists
3.7: Theories of World Politics - Constructivists
3.8: Theories of World Politics - Marxists and Feminists

4: Foreign Policy Decision Making

4.1: System Factors
4.2: National and Domestic Factors
4.3: Individual Factors
4.4: Rational Decision Making

5: Non-State Actors- IGOs, NGOs, MNCs

5.1: United Nations
5.2: World Bank, IMF, WTO
5.3: G7, G20, G77
5.4: EU, NATO, OPEC
5.5: Other Regional Organizations
5.6: NGOs and Other Non-State Actors
5.7: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs)

1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/52283
6: The World Economy
6.1: Rise of World Trade
6.2: Post WWII Economy
6.3: Balance of Payments
6.4: Liberal Free Trade Policy
6.5: Mercantilist Trade Policy
6.6: Protectionism
6.7: World Finance - Bretton Woods and Today
6.8: Economic Power

7: The Global North and South

7.1: European Imperialism
7.2: Colonial Independence
7.3: Global North and South
7.4: Four Theories of Development
7.5: Alternative Economic Development Policies for the Poor
7.6: Foreign Policies of the Global South

8: Globalization
8.1: Information and Media
8.2: Sales, Labor and Production
8.3: Investment and Finance
8.4: Disease and Pollution
8.5: Theories of Globalization

9: War and International Security

9.1: Individual, National and System Causes
9.2: Less War, Irregular and Asymmetric War
9.3: History of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State

10: Military Power

10.1: Elements and Limits of Military Power
10.2: Comparative Military Power
10.3: Soft Power
10.4: Military Spending and Arms Sales
10.5: Deterrence
10.6: Misunderstanding, Misperception, Miscommunication
10.7: Bush’s Preventive War Doctrine
10.8: Nukes and Cold War Strategy
10.9: Chemical and Biological Weapons
10.10: Nuclear Proliferation
10.11: Disarmament and Loose Nukes
10.12: Missiles
10.13: Coercive Diplomacy
10.14: Economic Sanctions

11: Realist Paths to Peace – Alliances, Dominance and Treaties

11.1: Balance of Power Alliances
11.2: Hegemonic Stability

2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/52283
 11.3: The Concert of Europe and NATO
11.4: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties
11.5: Other Arms Control Treaties

12: Idealist Paths to Peace- International Law

12.1: Reciprocity and Collective Action
12.2: Sources of International Law
12.3: Sovereignty- Rights and Duties
12.4: Laws of War

13: Human Rights, Population, the Environment

13.1: Human Rights
13.2: Population
13.3: The Environment

Index
Detailed Licensing

3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/52283
Licensing
A detailed breakdown of this resource's licensing can be found in Back Matter/Detailed Licensing.

1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/173288
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

1: Introduction
1.1: Why Study World Politics?
1.2: Characteristics of World Politics

This page titled 1: Introduction is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

1
1.1: Why Study World Politics?
https://cdn4.dogonews.com/images/6b7014da-bbf2-48e5-a30d-3441fe3062c5/south_tower_gets_hit_on_911-1.jpg

The 9/11 attack (dogonnews.com) [photo of World Trade Center buildings fire and explosion]
Unit 1 - Introduction

Why Should Americans Study World Politics?

1. It can kill you. That’s why you have to take your shoes off at the airport - world politics could hijack or blow up your plane. Or
you could be at your desk minding your own business in the World Trade Center on 9/11 when two planes hit the buildings. Or you
could be at a party in San Bernardino or a night club in Orlando when Internet-inspired crazies come in and start shooting. Or you
could be walking down a sidewalk when an Islamic State wannabe drives a truck into the crowd.
Active duty military, reservists and members of the National Guard are still going to Afghanistan and Iraq, where roadside bombs,
car bombs, suicide bombs, shootings and other attacks have killed thousands of U.S. soldiers and marines and wounded many
more.
2. It costs you money. Even if you don't get directly involved in a war, you help pay for it with your taxes. The military consumes
over $700 Billion a year, 20% of our national budget. The Department of Homeland Security spends another $38 billion.
3. It affects your job. You could lose your job if the company moves it to China, India or Mexico. Several million jobs moved
overseas in recent years as companies reduced or closed their U.S. plants and offices. On the other hand, you could get a raise if
your company makes successful exports. Hollywood and U.S. farmers could not survive without their exports. Seattle depends on
Boeing, which is the largest exporter in the U.S. Many of the big corporations in the Fortune 500 make more than half their sales
overseas. They are hiring, but not in the U.S.
4. It affects your shopping. When we buy Chinese-made cell phones or Mexican-made jeans, we save money. When we buy
strawberries in the winter, they didn't come from the U.S. We depend on cheap oil imports to fuel our SUVs. Most of the clothing,
shoes, video recorders and TVs sold in the U.S. are made overseas. People love to buy cheap imports, even as they complain about
jobs moving overseas.
5. It affects your health. In 2016, all branches of Genki Sushi in Hawaii were closed after hundreds of people caught Hepatitis from
raw scallops imported from the Philippines. (An estimated 15 percent of the U.S. food supply is imported, including 50% of fresh
fruits, 20% of fresh vegetables and 80% of seafood, and only 5% of imported food is inspected.) Meanwhile, pollution respects no
man-made boundaries. Dust from the Gobi Desert becomes heavily polluted as it blows across China. Then it blows across the
Pacific to land on snow in the Rocky Mountains, contaminating American water. Twenty-five percent of the smog in L.A. comes
from China and five percent of the smog in Honolulu comes from L.A. Acid rain from the American Midwest and Germany
destroys forests in Canada and Scandinavia. Smoke from huge forest fires in Indonesia spreads all over Southeast Asia.
In another dimension, increased trade and travel means local diseases are carried to new places. The corona virus spread all over
the world in a few months. Zika spread from Brazil all over the Americas. Ebola spread from West Africa. African Swine Flu has
spread all over the globe, requiring the killing of millions of pigs. Various bird flus from China have killed hundreds of people
around the world. The latest H9N9 version has a human mortality rate of 25% and is more infectious. AIDS is also a global disease.
West Nile disease is now established throughout the U.S. Drug-resistant TB is spreading from Russia. MERS (Middle East
Respiratory Syndrome) is spreading from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, invasive species hitch rides on planes and ships - brown tree
snakes from the Solomon Islands kill birds and attack babies in Guam, zebra mussels from Russia and Ukraine choke the Great
Lakes, and Asian carp invade U.S. rivers.
6. The world is becoming more and more globalized, more and more quickly. Twenty-four percent of NBA players and 27% of
Major League Baseball players are foreign born. Half of KFC’s sales are in China. There are huge amounts of international trade,
international organizations, international culture and international travel. Today, 30% of the US economy is trade. In many
countries it is more. Big ships and planes carry more people and more goods faster and cheaper. Indeed, travel is the world’s largest
industry. There are thousands of non-state actors like Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Islamic State and Facebook that are
engaging large countries. The K-Pop group BTS had three #1 hits in the U.S. in 2019 and brought in $4.3 billion. PSY’s Gangnam
Style has had 3 billion views since it went up on YouTube in 2012. American movies play everywhere, and Indian, Iranian,
Japanese and other movies are also finding overseas audiences. South Korean, Mexican, Turkish and Brazilian TV dramas play all
over the world. The Beverly Hills Hotel is facing a boycott because of the conservative anti-gay Islamist policies that its owner, the

1.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51683
Sultan of Brunei, has imposed in his home country in Southeast Asia. Many other American businesses are also owned by foreign
companies. Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Instagram, texting and blogs make it ordinary to communicate quickly and easily to
people thousands of miles away, coordinate revolutions at home, foment lynchings, riots and genocide, or find and arrest
government critics.
Whether we like it or not, world politics affects us greatly. So it is a good idea for us to know what is going on out there.

This page titled 1.1: Why Study World Politics? is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

1.1.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51683
1.2: Characteristics of World Politics
1. Nobody is in charge. A continuing feature of world politics is that there is no overall authority such as the federal government
in the U.S. Each country has sovereignty, which means that it has the authority to make its own domestic and foreign policies.
The notion of sovereignty came about after the Thirty Years War killed about one third of the European population in an orgy of
battles, massacres, atrocities, starvation and switching sides. The weary survivors agreed in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia that
maybe it wasn’t so important after all whether a kingdom was Protestant or Catholic. Each ruler could decide for himself the
religion of his state. From this beginning arose the notion of sovereignty, or the ability of each country to decide its own domestic
and foreign policies.
The flip side of sovereignty is that each country is on its own, plus whatever support it can gain from allies and international
organizations. Technically, this is called anarchy, but this does not imply the colloquial meaning of "chaos." There is plenty of order
in the system, since most nation-states follow the international rules. However, there is no formal authority enforcing the rules.
Each country follows what it sees as its national interests. For instance, North Korea believes it is in their interest to have nuclear
weapons to increase their power in the world system and as deterrence against a U.S. attack. We can’t call World 911 to stop their
program because there is no World 911.
Nation-states frequently work together when it is in their interests, sometimes within organizations such as the United Nations. For
instance, after many years of negotiations, in 1983 the U.N. put together a comprehensive Law of the Seas Treaty, which made
activities on the oceans much more orderly and predictable.
On the other hand, nation-states sometimes do not follow international law and violate the sovereignty of other countries. For
example, since 2015 China has illegally taken over seven islands, built military bases and claimed 90% of the South China Sea,
ignoring the rights of seven other countries. In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq without U.N. approval and in spite of disagreements
from many of its allies. Russia invaded its tiny neighbor Georgia, took over the Crimea and occupied part of Ukraine. Israel has
built hundreds of illegal settlements in the West Bank. There is no world police to stop any of these.
In Syria, fighting between rebels and the dictatorial Asad regime has killed about 500,000 people. Russia has backed up the
government, its longtime ally, with planes, supplies and troops, totally destroying the ancient city of Aleppo and other
communities. Iran also supplies also the Syrian government with weapons and fighters. The UN is helpless to stop the killings
because Syria exercises its sovereignty in refusing to allow any outside intervention, and the Russians and Chinese support them in
the UN Security Council.
2. Nation states are still the primary international players. Although international organizations such as the United Nations and
other nonstate actors such as ISIS and Coca Cola are much more numerous and important, nation states remain the primary players
in world politics. This is despite repeated predictions that they will weaken and eventually disappear. Ain’t gonna happen in the
foreseeable future. Within international organizations, nation states are again the main players.
3. Domestic factors affect world politics and vice versa. In order to stay in power, British Prime Minister David Cameron
promised the anti-European Union faction of his Conservative Party that he would hold a national referendum on whether to stay in
the EU. To everyone’s shock, in 2016 the country narrowly voted to leave (Brexit), which is causing all kinds of problems in a
country that imports 70% of its food from Europe. On the other hand, leaders sometimes use foreign policy to gain stature and win
elections (e.g. Bush 2 used 9/11 to win in 2004), while failed foreign policies can result in leaders being pushed out of office.
(Lyndon Johnson did not run for re-election in 1968 because of the Vietnam War. Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair lost in 2007
because of the Iraq War. U.S. Republicans lost in 2008 partially because of the Iraq War.) Political parties, the military and other
bureaucracies may want or oppose war. Domestic industries complain about foreign imports and demand help in increasing
exports. Exiles from other countries try to affect policy toward their home country. For instance, Iraqi exiles had a big influence on
the decision to Invade Iraq in 2003.
4. Perceptions Affect Reality. Perceptions influence and can become reality. People, including national leaders, see the world
through filters that organize and sometimes distort reality. For instance, Russian President Vladimir Putin sees the U.S. as trying to
hurt Russia and is fighting to regain world power.
How maps are drawn is another example. One humorous map turns the world upside down and puts Australia at the top and center
instead of ‘down under.’ Some U.S. maps cut Eurasia in half to put the U.S. at the center. Japanese maps put Japan at the center.
Maps from the 1600s through the 1900s used the Mercator projection, which exaggerates the size of the Northern hemisphere,
where most maps were produced. Today’s more accurate maps show that Africa is 2 ½ times the size of the U.S.

1.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51684
Also, we all make snap judgments based on stereotypes. Today, many Americans see Muslims as radical terrorists and many
Muslims see Americans as militaristic bullies. The U.S. obsesses about jihadists when domestic white nationalists kill many more
people. Sixty percent of the population in the Middle East believes that 9/11 was carried out by the CIA and Israeli intelligence in
order to cast blame on Muslims for the attack.
The U.S. comedian Ahmed Ahmed always gets stopped at airports because there is a terrorist with the same name. He has to
explain, “I’m not the terrorist, I’m the comedian.” He wonders if people go up to the other Ahmed Ahmed and say, “Tell me a
joke,” and he says, “I’m not the comedian, I’m the terrorist.”
Sometimes we interpret others peoples’ actions in a negative way while expecting them to see our actions in a positive way -
‘mirror imaging.’ Both the U.S. and USSR saw each other as hostile and aggressive during the Cold War (and are doing so again
today), and this is how Israeli and Palestinian, Indian and Pakistani, and Iranian and American leaders still see each other.
Perceptions also come from historical experience. China suffered 100 years of encroachments, military humiliations and
exploitation at the hands of arrogant westerners and Japanese before becoming strong and independent in the late 1900s. They still
don't trust the West and want to regain the power and respect they had in the 1600s. Russia is paranoid about invasion after
suffering huge casualties from centuries of attacks by the Mongols, Swedes, French and Germans. Iran mistrusts the U.S. because
they suffered under the Shah after the CIA engineered a coup to put him in office. The U.S. has been protected by its oceans and
Britain by the English Channel. Both often see the outside world as corrupt, something either to be avoided or reformed.
5. Cooperation and Conflict. There is a huge amount of unnoticed cooperation in the international system that we take for
granted. For instance, an international organization called ICANN decides on each country’s internet suffix. In 2009, they decided
to allow new suffixes and the use of Chinese, Arabic and other non-Roman languages. Intelsat decides where communication
satellites should be placed in orbit. Even during the Cold War, the U.S. and USSR cooperated in numerous ways to avoid conflict.
NATO members work together on military matters, e.g., intervening to stop the Yugoslav civil wars in the 1990s.
Increased international trade and investment increase interdependence and further more cooperation. It’s not a good idea to bomb a
country that supplies you with oil or computer chips.
The G7 countries (the big democracies) meet in regular summits to cooperate in economic matters, and also in fighting terrorism -
by freezing assets, extraditing suspects and sharing information. However, the G20, which also includes rising countries and
constitutes 85% of the world economy, is becoming more important.
There has also been cooperation in developing a series of international treaties on acid rain, the ozone layer and global warming.
In contrast, the media focuses on numerous conflicts over security, trade and other matters. Usually these are resolved through
diplomacy, but there are also plenty of military conflicts in spite of the United Nations and other international organizations.
6. Continuity and change. Today, things are changing more and faster, but many things remain the same. Years after 9/11
supposedly changed everything, global trade continues, China continues to rise, and India/Pakistan, North Korea and
Israel/Palestine remain flash points. The nature of war has changed dramatically, with precision bombs that can go through the
doorway of a building, drones that can be controlled from several thousand miles away and cyberattacks that can cripple
governments, banks and utilities. However, much of war is still being fought by infantry walking down alleys and kicking in doors.
Today almost half the world economy is trade, travel is so cheap and routine that ordinary workers in Europe fly to other countries
for weekend parties, and international Internet communication is so normal that a recent TV ad showed several guys in different
countries competing in a video game. But Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Hollywood still depend on close geographic proximity.
And personal relationships still count. Bush 1 was a compulsive networker - his family sent out 20,000 Christmas cards each year.
He was always making phone calls, visiting and receiving visits from foreign leaders. When it came time to invade Iraq, he was
able to assemble 28 allies to participate. Eleven years later, Bush 2, who had an arrogant attitude toward other countries, could only
assemble a few.
Questions
1. Give three examples of how world politics affects you personally.
2. List five characteristics of world politics today and an example of each.
3. What kind of a) system, b) domestic and c) individual factors affect world politics? Give one example of each.
4. Take off all your clothes, check the labels and list the countries where they are made.

1.2.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51684
This page titled 1.2: Characteristics of World Politics is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

1.2.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51684
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

2: System History- The Rise of the Modern World System

2.1: 500-1500 AD
2.2: European Imperialism
2.3: Concert of Europe
2.4: Unification of Germany
2.5: World War I
2.6: The Middle East
2.7: Peace Efforts
2.8: World War II
2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The Cold War
2.10: Detente and Cooperation
2.11: The Post-Cold War Era

This page titled 2: System History- The Rise of the Modern World System is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored,
remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

1
2.1: 500-1500 AD
For most of world history, Western Europe was insignificant and weak. After the fall of Rome in the 5th century, the dominant
powers in the Mediterranean and the Middle East were Byzantium (today’s Istanbul) and various Muslim empires, which quickly
expanded from the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century and controlled the area from Spain to India. The Mongol Dynasty reached
all the way to Europe. China dominated East and Southeast Asia and Admiral Zeng He’s trade missions extended all the way to
India and Africa. At that time, nine out of ten of the largest cities in the world were outside of Europe.
Meanwhile, from 500 to 1500 AD, Europe was mostly divided among constantly warring local feudal leaders who were poor and
weak. However, starting in 1500 and going until the end of WWII in 1945, Europe underwent agricultural, demographic and
industrial revolutions and came to dominate world politics and economics.
Various powers arose in Europe through this period, but only a few spread out into the rest of the world. In the 1500s and 1600s,
first Portugal, Spain and then the Netherlands/Holland developed better weapons, ships and navigation. The Portuguese and the
Dutch pushed around the coast of Africa to Arabia and Asia and the Spanish went across the Atlantic to the Americas. (Typical of
the Eurocentric psychology of the time, in the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas the Catholic Church had divided the world in half when
they didn’t really know what was where, giving the Americas to Spain and giving Africa and Asia to Portugal. (Part of Brazil
happened to fall on the Portuguese side of the line - thus Brazil is the only Portuguese-speaking country in Latin America.)
In the Americas, the Spanish made fortunes ripping off huge amounts of gold and silver and using Native American slave labor to
mine more. The Portuguese first made money in the gold and slave trade from Africa. Then they and the Dutch made a lot of
money bringing spices and other goods from Asia. (At that time, pepper, cinnamon and cloves were literally worth their weight in
gold.) The Spanish and Portuguese never industrialized in a big way, but tiny Holland took a big step forward by integrating a
modern system of trade, manufacturing and finance on a world scale, which made them the richest nation in the world for several
decades.

This page titled 2.1: 500-1500 AD is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

2.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51686
2.2: European Imperialism
However, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands were pushed aside by the British and the French. During the 1700s, Britain and
France industrialized, emerged as the strongest world powers and spent the next 100 years struggling for dominance. France’s
advantages were its central location in Europe, large population and rich agriculture. Britain’s advantages were its island location
(it has not been successfully invaded in modern times), stronger industrial development and strong navy.
Improved agricultural productivity in the 1600s and 1700s increased food supplies and European populations, and the industrial
and scientific revolutions increased their lead in military technology, leading to lopsided battles between rapidly-improving
European small arms and artillery versus traditional low-tech weapons around the world. The industrial revolution also increased
European competition for overseas territories, raw materials, captive markets and cheap labor. The result was the outright takeover
or domination in the 1700s and 1800s of virtually the entire world. The so-called ‘scramble for Africa’ in the late 1800s was
particularly blatant, with the European powers drawing straight border lines on maps with complete ignorance and disregard for
which peoples lived where and sometimes without even knowing the actual location of landmarks. The resulting artificial borders
split populations and put traditional enemies in the same country, while captive trading in mercantilist economic systems distorted
local economies in favor of export crops and minerals. Those decisions still affect these nations today in the form of ethnic conflict
and dependence on colonial-era exports.
Wars in this period were limited in time and scope by slow transportation and restricted material and human resources, lack of
motivation by mercenary armies and rulers’ unwillingness to engage in total war against other monarchs who were sometimes
relatives. There were several great powers (i.e. those with large populations and territory, a strong military and strong economy)
competing in this multipolar environment. They engaged in constantly changing alliances and constant wars. Britain won the
Seven Years War vs. France and its other rivals in 1763. The French struck back by helping Britain’s American colonies become
independent in the 1780s. However, after the bloody French Revolution and Napoleon’s rise, international conquests and eventual
defeat in the early 1800s, Britain again emerged as the strongest world power.
Britain’s manufacturing, financial and naval muscle resulted in its gaining the largest share of colonies and trade around the world,
with France second and others with smaller shares. By 1900, Britain controlled a quarter of the world. In Asia, they held what are
today India, Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore, plus special rights in parts of
China. In the Middle East, they controlled Egypt and the crucial Suez Canal. They held Canada and Australia. In Africa, they held
Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Botswana and South Africa. (“The sun never sets on the British empire.”)
France held much of Northern Africa (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco), much of Central Africa (today’s Ivory Coast, Niger, Burkina
Faso, Mauritania, Central African Republic, Chad, Mali, Senegal, etc.), Madagascar and what is today Laos, Vietnam and
Cambodia. On a smaller scale, the Dutch had Indonesia and the Portuguese had Angola, Mozambique and some small ports.
Meanwhile, in the early 1800s the Spanish lost their colonies in Latin America to home-grown revolutions.

This page titled 2.2: European Imperialism is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

2.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51687
2.3: Concert of Europe
Back in Europe, after finally defeating Napoleon in 1815 following a series of masssive wars, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Britain set
up the first modern system of collective security to contain France, maintain stability and restore the monarchies that
Napoleon had overthrown. Under the Treaty of Vienna, the countries in the so-called Concert of Europe agreed to help each other
in wars and to suppress internal unrest. They met regularly to settle disputes. The result was 99 years of relative peace among the
major European powers. However, they continued to carry out colonial wars. Britain averaged one a year under Queen Victoria.
In this period, Belgium became independent after the Concert powers brokered a peace. Greece was recognized as independent in
1826 after naval intervention by the Concert Powers against the Turkish Ottoman Empire. In France, Louis Philippe overthrew
Louis XVIII peacefully.
In addition, the Treaty of Vienna formalized rules of international law, including diplomatic immunity. In the modern era, the
Concert of Europe was the first international security organization. For instance, as conservative monarchists, they worked
together to crush the liberal democratic revolts of 1848
The one conspicuous failure of the Concert was the bloody Crimean War (1853-1856) between Russia and Britain.

This page titled 2.3: Concert of Europe is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

2.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51688
2.4: Unification of Germany
An important change in the world system was the unification of Germany in 1871. Under Otto von Bismarck’s leadership, Prussia
engaged in a policy of realpolitik (national interest) diplomacy to set up a web of alliances, used railroads to move troops quickly,
and used new tactics and weapons to win three short, sharp wars against Denmark, Austria and France. The last of these, the 1871
Franco-Prussian War, resulted in the unification of Germany for the first time in history.
The unification of Germany totally changed the balance of power in Europe. Germany was the most populous and one of the most
advanced countries in science, industry, railroads and military technology. Furthermore, in 1890 Kaiser Wilhelm II dismissed
Bismarck and began to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy. Germany already had the most powerful army in Europe. Now the
Kaiser also tried to overtake Britain in naval power, increasing friction between the two.
Meanwhile, the modernization and rise of Japan shifted the balance of power in Asia. It defeated China in 1895 and Russia in 1905,
took Korea and Taiwan as colonies, and signed an alliance with Britain.

This page titled 2.4: Unification of Germany is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

2.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51689
2.5: World War I
The relative peace during the 99 years after the Treaty of Vienna was shattered in 1914 by World War I. It was set off by a Serbian
nationalist assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Throne. Germany, which was rising
economically and militarily to challenge Britain’s dominance, backed Austria-Hungary. So did the Turkish Ottoman Empire. On
the other side, Serbia was backed by Russia, France and Great Britain.
The war erupted for many reasons besides the assassination. There was growing colonial and nationalist competition among the
various powers, and interlocking alliances led to a chain reaction of mobilizations between the two sides. The Germans over-
optimistically calculated they could first defeat France and then Russia in quick succession, securing a stronger position on the
European continent.
Instead of what everyone thought would be a quick and exciting adventure, there were years of trench warfare and traditional
frontal assaults against modern weapons such as machine guns, poison gas and long-range, rapid-fire artillery. There were 10
million deaths, sometimes as many as 20,000 in a single day.
After three years of seesaw results and stalemate, Germany was weakening and becoming desperate. Its submarines began sinking
U.S. ships that were supplying Britain. They hoped to starve the British into surrender before the Americans came in. Instead, the
United States came in on the Allied side (Britain/France/Russia), tilting the balance with more troops and supplies. After a last-
gasp offensive stalled, an exhausted Germany realized they could not win and decided to surrender. So the U.S. supplied the allies
and tilted the balance.
In the aftermath of the war, the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German and Turkish governments were overthrown and all
the European economies were fatally weakened.
With his idealistic Fourteen Points (national self-determination, no secret treaties, etc.), U.S. President Woodrow Wilson attempted
to establish a new, peaceful postwar international order at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles peace talks, most importantly by trying to
negotiate a fair surrender and by establishing the League of Nations (the second modern attempt to avoid war with a collective
security organization).
However, the Fourteen Points was sabotaged when France and Britain imposed a harsh peace that was more typical of the era,
in order to destroy German military and economic power. Germany lost its overseas colonies and had to disarm, take blame for the
war, and pay reparations. Meanwhile, the League of Nations was weakened when isolationists in the U.S. Senate didn’t ratify the
League Treaty (they felt it would violate U.S. sovereignty) and the U.S. didn’t join.

This page titled 2.5: World War I is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

2.5.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51690
2.6: The Middle East
Wilson’s proposals for self-determination were also ignored when Britain and France divided the Middle East between them
instead of granting the Arabs their promised independence from the dismembered Turkish Ottoman Empire. Instead, Britain and
France set up de facto colonies with artificial borders that split populations and put warring groups in the same country. In the
Sykes-Picot agreement, Britain took Palestine, Jordan and Iraq, while France took Syria and Lebanon. This set up many of the
conflicts that exist today. For instance, Britain formed Iraq out of three dissimilar provinces of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and put
in charge a king who had never been there. In addition, Britain’s Balfour Declaration supported the concept of a Jewish state in the
middle of an overwhelmingly Muslim Middle East.

This page titled 2.6: The Middle East is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

2.6.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51691
2.7: Peace Efforts
After the shock of WWI, isolationism in the U.S. led to attempts to reduce the threat of war with Naval Disarmament Treaties in
1921 and 1930, support for the anti-war 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact and neutralist laws in the 1930s.
However, the Great Depression and the backlash from the harsh peace imposed on Germany brought an aggressive nationalist
government led by Hitler to power in 1933. Under Hitler, Germany illegally rearmed and took over its neighbors.

This page titled 2.7: Peace Efforts is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

2.7.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51692
2.8: World War II
The lead up to WWII began when Hitler took over Austria in 1938. The European powers then appeased him at Munich by also
allowing him to take over part of Czechoslovakia. Then he took the rest. Britain and France finally declared war when he invaded
Poland in 1939. At first, Germany was successful, conquering France and most of continental Europe, pounding Britain from the
air, and even invading its supposed ally, the USSR, in 1941. The U.S. made big profits providing loans, food and arms to the
British.
Germany easily conquered France by bypassing its fortifications and using airplanes, tanks and other mobile forces in a new form
of coordinated high-speed mobile warfare called blitzkrieg (lightning war). Britain fought hard and narrowly withstood heavy
German air attacks in the Battle of Britain, thus avoiding invasion. On the European continent, the Russian-led Soviet Union
(USSR) did most of the fighting against Germany. (The Soviet Union accounted for 75% of German deaths and suffered 22
million dead. The U.S. lost 400,000.) After early defeats and heavy losses, the Russians won key battles such as Stalingrad and
Kursk, and took over Eastern Europe and part of Germany.
Meanwhile, the militarist Japanese government also invaded its neighbors - Manchuria in 1931, China in 1937 and Southeast Asia
in 1940. The U.S. enacted increasingly harsh embargoes on Japan in retaliation. However, only when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
in December 1941 did the U.S. directly enter the war.
In heavy fighting, Britain and Australia turned back the Japanese in Burma and New Guinea. After initial losses, the U.S. defeated
Japan in the Pacific in battles such as Midway, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
finally ended the war.
After Pearl Harbor brought the U.S. into the war in 1941, the U.S. also massively supplied the allies in Europe. The British and
Russians learned to enjoy Spam along with millions of tons of other food. The U.S. produced 300,000 airplanes, millions of trucks,
thousands of tanks, hundreds of Liberty Ships (Henry Kaiser’s shipyards were finishing a new ship every day!) and countless other
weapons and provisions. The U.S. fought in North Africa, Italy and eventually, after the 1944 Normandy invasion, France and
Germany.
On the system level, Germany and Japan saw WWII as their attempt to overturn the existing international order previously
dominated by Britain, France and the U.S., in order to gain territory and natural resources controlled by those countries. They were
also seeking revenge for the perceived wrongs done to them by the dominant international powers after WWI and in the Naval
Disarmament Treaties. WWII can also be seen in terms of the hyper-nationalism and personal ambitions of Hitler’s Nazis and the
Japanese militarists. Racism was also a factor. During the war, Germany exterminated 6 million Jews and 2 million other civilians
in concentration camps and massacred over a million more Jews during military operations. The Japanese also saw themselves as a
superior race that should rule Asia. They killed tens of millions of Chinese and other people, forced thousands of Korean, Chinese,
Filipino and Indonesian ‘comfort women’ into prostitution for the Japanese Army, and imposed harsh colonialism under the so-
called Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

This page titled 2.8: World War II is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

2.8.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51693
2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The Cold War
Weakened by the war, the Dutch in Indonesia, the British in India and the French in Vietnam found that they could not contain
independence movements. In the next decades, dozens of other colonies would also claim self-government
Meanwhile, Europe and Japan had been destroyed by WWII. Germany was divided. Conflict increased between the U.S. and its
WWII ally, the communist USSR, over removing Soviet troops from Iran, USSR support for the communist insurgency in Greece,
and attempts by the USSR to control the straits between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Ideological differences and mistrust
between Truman and Stalin were also factors.
But the most important events occurred in the late 1940s, when the Russia-led USSR imposed puppet communist regimes in the
countries of Eastern Europe. This was the primary cause of the Cold War. In this bipolar conflict, each side tried to stop the
other from gaining territory or influence, and each saw the other’s moves as a threat to their own existence. The two rival powers
engaged in proxy wars and a variety of ideological, political, economic and other conflicts that dominated world politics for the
next 43 years. However, it remained a Cold War because the two sides never fought each other directly.
Diplomat George Kennan wrote about attempted Soviet expansion and articulated the overall U.S. policy of containment. For
example, in the 1940s the U.S. developed the Marshall Plan of aid to rebuild Europe and prevent Communist Party election
victories. The Truman Doctrine gave military aid to any country under threat. The NATO military alliance was organized. There
was the 1948 Berlin Airlift to supply the city during a Soviet blockade. A key turning point was the 1950-52 Korean War, when
North Korea invaded the South and there was extensive fighting between Communist Chinese and U.S. troops when the U.S.
penetrated close to the Chinese border.
The CIA backed coups (government overthrows) in Iran in 1952, Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in 1964, Indonesia in 1965 and Chile
in 1973; attempted an invasion (the disastrous Bay of Pigs in Cuba in 1961); pushed for assassinations of radical leaders like
Congo’s Patrice Lumumba; and subsidized friendly political parties and publications.
The closest the two sides came to actual nuclear war was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the USSR set up nuclear
missiles in Cuba and the U.S. set up a naval blockade and successfully demanded that the USSR remove them. One positive result
from this was the 1963 Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty. One negative result was a large arms buildup by the USSR to reach parity
with the U.S.
The U.S. was also involved in the Vietnam War from 1962-73, at a cost of 58,000 American lives. The U.S. saw Vietnam as part
of the Cold War with the USSR, when it was primarily a nationalist war against foreign occupation by the French and then the
Americans. The rebel leadership had become Communists in their pursuit of independence, so the Russians and Chinese backed
them. As part of Cold War strategy, Eisenhower supported the partition of Vietnam, Kennedy backed South Vietnam with aid and
advisors, and Johnson and Nixon escalated with bombings and large numbers of U.S. combat troops. However, the increased
casualties and lack of progress in the war resulted in a loss of morale among the troops and an aggressive antiwar movement at
home (including many Vietnam War veterans such as future Secretary of State John Kerry). Nixon won the 1968 election by
promising to end the war, but continued it for another five years. When the U.S. left in 1973 and stopped providing aid to South
Vietnam, it collapsed and was taken over by the North.
Meanwhile, in the 1940s the USSR set up its own trade and military alliances in Eastern Europe and harshly suppressed rebellions
in East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland over the following decades. The Russians also built the Berlin Wall in 1961
to prevent East Germans from escaping to the free and prosperous West.
Today, it is difficult to convey the sense of threat that existed during the Cold War years. Each side believed the other wanted to
attack them. Each side spied on the other and found spies in their midst. After the USSR exploded its own atomic bomb in 1949,
both sides built up their nuclear forces and carried out extensive civil defense construction and operations to guard against nuclear
attacks. Students did ‘duck-and-cover’ drills in classrooms by hiding under wooden desks, in a futile attempt to protect themselves
from vaporization by nuclear fireballs five miles wide. All public buildings had fallout shelters in the basement, with canned water
and boxes of biscuits. (Like thousands of others, my uncle built a fallout shelter in his back yard.) The U.S. Strategic Air Command
kept one-third of its nuclear bombers in the air 24/7 for 40 years, with another third on 10-minute standby. Both sides tried to check
the other in Western Europe, Japan, Iran, Greece, Turkey, Berlin, Korea, Cuba, Congo, etc. Communists took over China in 1949,
leading to a burst of recriminations and fear in the United States. Many innocent Americans lost their jobs when demagogues such
as Senator Joseph McCarthy accused them of being communists.

2.9.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51694
This page titled 2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The Cold War is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored,
remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

2.9.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51694
2.10: Detente and Cooperation
Conflicts between the U.S. and USSR and their proxies were interspersed with periods of relatively less conflict (détente) and even
cooperation between the two powers. In the 1956 Suez crisis, when Britain, France and Israel attempted to retake the Suez Canal
from Egypt, both the U.S. and the USSR opposed it. On a system level, this can be seen as the two newly-dominant rivals
cooperating to prevent the old imperial powers of Britain and France from re-establishing their power.
Other cooperation included nuclear arms control treaties such the 1963 Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, the 1968 Nonproliferation
Treaty and the 1972 SALT I and 1979 SALT II nuclear arms limitation treaties. There was also some trade between the two
countries.
By the 1980s, discontent was growing within the USSR and the economy was stagnating. In 1985, a new factor appeared in the
person of Mikhail Gorbachev as a reformist leader. He withdrew the USSR from its disastrous war in Afghanistan, allowed Eastern
Europe countries to become independent, signed the START arms reduction agreements with the U.S. and tried to reform the USSR
through perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness). Capitalist West Germany and Communist East Germany, split by the
Cold War, were reunited and the USSR’s Warsaw pact in Eastern Europe fell apart. The Berlin Wall was destroyed by protestors.
After a failed 1991 coup against Gorbachev by Soviet reactionaries, the USSR broke up into different countries, and the Cold War
was over.

This page titled 2.10: Detente and Cooperation is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

2.10.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51695
2.11: The Post-Cold War Era
1. A New Pecking Order. In the old days, nation-states used their military to compete for territory and resources. The new pecking
order is based less on traditional measures such as military power, territory, resources and size, and more on so-called soft power,
such as a country's economy, diplomacy, education and culture. Japan’s power comes from its large, advanced economy and high
education levels, even though it has few natural resources and a small military. Some of its culture has proven exportable (karaoke,
sushi and anime). Nigeria has a larger population than Japan, plus good land and huge oil reserves, but because of its corrupt
government, poor economy and low education levels, has made much less impact on the world. In contrast, the small nation of
Cuba has earned considerable international good will by sending doctors and nurses to other countries.
The U.S. is one of the few nations with both hard and soft power on a large scale. It has the number one military, can send huge
task forces to disasters like the 2004 South Asian tsunami, dominates international organizations and the international economy, has
MacDonalds everywhere (with local adaptations like halal and vegetarian food), and is emulated by hip-hop artists everywhere. Its
main problem has been inconsistent leadership.
In particular, economic power has become more important. For example, Russia has thousands of nuclear missiles and bombs,
enough to destroy the world several times over, but its economy is one-tenth the size of the U.S., has widespread corruption, and is
dependent on oil and gas. (‘Nigeria with nukes.’) Russia uses the economic power it does have by leveraging its oil and gas
resources to gain influence in Europe and Asia. It has built plants to export Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), built pipelines such as the
Blue Stream pipeline to Turkey, the Nord Stream to Germany and the Power of Siberia to China, and twice cut off gas exports to
Ukraine. Its invasion of Georgia was not just a nationalistic spat. It also put the one non-Russian-controlled pipeline from Central
Asia in danger, and scared off financing for another non-Russian-controlled gas pipeline through the region. Russia also bought the
electricity networks in Georgia and Bulgaria. Obviously military power still counts, but economic power is more important in
today's world. For instance, after Russia’s recent takeover of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, the West is attacking Russia with
economic sanctions rather than making military threats.
China has gained wide soft power influence by building massive infrastructure projects quickly in 60 countries in its Belt and Road
Initiative, giving big loans to African, Asian and Latin American countries in exchange for copper, oil, and other commodities
without the environmental and other conditions required by western lenders. There are about 3 million Chinese working on projects
in Africa, who receive double pay plus free room and board to be separated from their families for years. The Chinese also export
cheap consumer goods and start local businesses.
When the Libyan war broke out, China sent ships to extract the 10,000 Chinese living there. China has also exported arms,
surveillance cameras, facial recognition, phone and internet hacking and other spying software to other countries. Diplomatically, it
has participated in every possible committee in every possible international organization and gradually worked up into senior
leadership positions, but it has also set up alternatives to the existing western-dominated structures with organizations like the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the 2016 Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
China has not attracted large overseas audiences with its politically correct radio, TV and films, but it has succeeded in gaining
visibility with its TikTok app, by lending pandas to western zoos, setting up Confucius Institutes to promote Chinese language and
culture, helping Philippine typhoon victims, participating in anti-piracy patrols off Somalia and helping rescue stranded scientists in
Antarctica. It has also bought or had proxies buy media outlets in many countries in Africa and Eastern Europe and provided local
outlets with free news with the Chinese point of view. China also has a network of radio and TV stations in the U.S. China also
reserves veto rights over the content of Hollywood movies before they can be distributed in the world largest market.
China also retaliates when they feel disrespected. When the mayor of Prague in Czechoslovakia met with representatives from
Taiwan and would not pledge to an anti-Taiwan policy, the Chinese embassy cancelled a lucrative visit to China by the local
symphony, reneged on lending pandas to the zoo and threatened to cut off future investment. When a Houston Rockets executive
tweeted a slogan from the anti-China Hong Kong protests, China pulled NBA games from television, demanded the executive be
fired and cut back NBA activities in China. When a player on the popular British soccer team Arsenal tweeted criticism of Chinese
oppression of the Uigurs in Western China, the team’s broadcasts in China were first cut, then finally resumed without the
announcers ever once mentioning the player’s name.
2. The Rise of the Rest. Another way there is a new pecking order is that the western powers are not as dominant as previously,
with China, India, Brazil and several other NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries) such as South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia,

2.11.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51696
Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey rising economically and in other dimensions as well. In contrast, the U.S. has massive budget and
trade deficits and declining infrastructure and schools, and Europe, Russia and Japan’s populations are declining.
3. Weapons Proliferation. One reason that military power is less important is that the spread of both weapons of mass destruction
and conventional weapons around the world has leveled the playing field between the great powers and smaller countries and
groups. There are now eight countries with deliverable nuclear weapons, and North Korea is trying to join the club.
In addition, cheap conventional weapons plus ‘asymmetric’ tactics such as roadside bombs, guerrilla war and cyberwar level the
playing field between weak and powerful nations. In the 1960s and 70s, the U.S. was defeated by Vietnamese fighters with inferior
weapons but superior guerrilla war tactics and strategy. In the 1980s, the Russians were defeated in Afghanistan by tribesmen
armed with cheap AK-47s and portable anti-aircraft missiles supplied by the U.S. Iranian-trained-and-equipped Hizbollah fighters
used cheap roadside bombs to fight the extremely well-armed Israeli military to a stalemate in Lebanon. The 9/11 attackers used
plastic box cutters to hijack multi-million dollar airplanes. Roadside bombs, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47s are
effective weapons against the high-tech U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The proliferation of arms has another result; even small groups can be armed and have large impacts. In civil wars in the Congo,
Liberia and Sierra Leone, even poorly-organized and lightly-armed rebel groups managed to control local populations and
resources such as diamond mines.
4. Integration and Disintegration. Integration is most obvious in economics. The U.S., Mexico and Canada have the NAFTA free
trade agreement (slightly renegotiated as the USMCA under Trump). The European Union goes further, with farm subsidies;
infrastructure and regional development funding; free trade, investment, travel and study; a central administration with the
European Commission, a European Parliament and Court, and a single currency. There is ASEAN in Southeast Asia; Mercosur in
South America; the African Union, SADC and ECOWAS in Africa, and many others.
Meanwhile, there is also plenty of disintegration and devolution. The biggest example is the breakup of the Soviet Union into
several countries in 1991. Yugoslavia broke up soon after. Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. In
Britain, the Scottish and Welsh parliaments were given more power and Scotland may vote again on independence, while Britain
voted to leave the European Union (“Brexit”) in 2016. In 2017, Catalonia voted for independence from Spain, but Spain cracked
down and did not allow it. In Canada, Quebec tried to break away and in 1999 the native Inuit and Aleut peoples gained
jurisdiction over huge areas in the North. There was a 30-year civil war in Sudan between the North and South that only ended in
2005. Other local cultures are also reasserting their identities, such as Native Hawaiians.
5. Nonstate actors are becoming more important. Although nation-states remain the primary players in world politics, there are
more international organizations with more power. The number of IGOs (International Governmental Organizations), NGOs (Non-
Governmental Organizations) and other non-state actors has skyrocketed. Multinational corporations dominate the global economy,
constituting half of the largest 100 economic organizations in the world (the other half are countries). Terrorist and crime groups
are also globalized. As a result, nation-states must increasingly deal with nonstate actors.
6. Global trade has increased twice as fast as economic growth overall, and this means the nation-states of the world are
increasingly interdependent. For instance, we get a lot of our computer chips from Taiwan and China, so if China attacked Taiwan,
we would have a problem. Globalization of production, finance and labor has also increased.
7. The disparity between the rich and poor is growing, both among and within nation states. About a quarter of the world is
getting left behind as the top of the world gets richer. As the poor see the lifestyles of the rich on TV and cell phones, they are
getting angrier. Thus more crime and terrorism.
8. Finally, environmental and human rights issues, once ignored, are becoming increasingly important. Their importance is
increasing, there is more attention paid to them, they are causing more conflicts and there are more international agreements.
Questions
1. In the 1,000 years before 1500, who were the dominant world powers?
2. Who were the major European powers in the 1500s and 1600s?
3. List two purposes of the Concert of Europe/Treaty of Vienna. Give one example of success and its worst failure.
4. Who were the two dominant colonial powers in the 1800s? Give two examples each of their colonies.
5. How the Concert Powers respond to the revolts of 1848?

2.11.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51696
6. What result of the 1871 Franco-Prussian War changed the balance of power in Europe?
7. Briefly outline two causes and two aftereffects of WWI. What were two U.S. roles?
8. What happened to Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points and the League of Nations?
9. Briefly outline what France and Britain did in the Middle East after WWI. Who got what?
10. What caused WWII in a) Europe and b) Asia. c) Who did most of the fighting against Germany? d) What was the U.S. role in
the war in Europe and Asia?
11. What was the most important reason for the start of the Cold War?
12. What was the overall system structure during the Cold War? (multipolar, bipolar, etc.)
13. What was the overall U.S. policy during the Cold War? Give three specific examples.
14. Describe the system structure since the end of the Cold War.
15. List five tendencies of the post-Cold War world system.

This page titled 2.11: The Post-Cold War Era is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

2.11.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51696
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

3: Images and Theories of World Politics

3.1: The Modern World System
3.2: Nations and States
3.3: Theories of World Politics- Realists
3.4: Theories of World Politics - Idealists
3.5: Theories of World Politics - Neoconservatives
3.6: Theories of World Politics - Isolationists
3.7: Theories of World Politics - Constructivists
3.8: Theories of World Politics - Marxists and Feminists

This page titled 3: Images and Theories of World Politics is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Lawrence Meacham.

1
3.1: The Modern World System
For most of world history, the main political units were empires. consisting of many different peoples (nations) ruled by a central
state through local authorities. The system of nation-states that we see today is a relatively recent invention. Nation-states began to
emerge in the Middle Ages in Europe, but it took many centuries to solidify their power and boundaries and to develop a common
history and culture. We think of countries like France, Britain and Japan as unified, homogenous countries, but in fact they are
relatively recent constructs layered over very different regions, cultures and even languages.
The modern system of autonomous, territorial states formally emerged after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. The Treaty marked the
end of the horrendous Thirty Years War, which killed millions in Europe and was marked by numerous atrocities. The war was
originally about religion (Protestant vs. Catholic), but also involved internal conflicts within the power structure of Europe.
Exhausted by the slaughter, the warring parties decided to let each local territory go its own way and decide its own religion. The
expanded concept of sovereignty that has since emerged means that each nation-state controls its own territory, domestic policies
and foreign policies. In other words, there is no legal authority above the state. (This is another way of saying that there is no
overall authority, as we said in Unit 1.)
Sovereignty is the bedrock of world politics. For instance, Pakistan strongly objected when the U.S. violated their sovereignty by
sending Navy Seals into their territory without permission to kill Osama Bin Laden. The UN Charter acknowledges sovereignty as
a primary principle and so does everyone else. That is why it has been difficult to do anything about the war in Syria. In spite of
international pressure, Syria insists on maintaining its sovereignty and saying that foreign troops cannot intervene without its
permission.
In such a world, every country pursues its own national interest. Nation-states can enter into alliances, coalitions and treaties to
advance national interests, (e.g. Nixon and Kissinger signed arms treaties with our then-arch-enemy the USSR/Russia), and work
with international organizations such as the United Nations. On the other hand, nation-states may build up their military for defense
or aggression.

This page titled 3.1: The Modern World System is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

3.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51698
3.2: Nations and States
A nation is a people with a common history and culture. A state is a territory with a population, borders and a government with the
power to exercise its authority within those borders.
Today, most countries are nation-states, combining nations - a people with a common history and culture, and states - having a
formal government structure exercising sovereignty within its borders.
But there are also weak states such as Pakistan, which has little power to exercise sovereignty within some of its regions and
borders, e.g. Northwest Pakistan. Within Pakistan, some Punjabis, Beluchis and Pushtuns, who are divided by artificial borders
originally drawn by the British, claim their own nationhood. Al Qaeda and the Taliban freely cross the border between Pakistan and
Afghanistan to work with their fellow Pushtuns. There are also Tajiks and Uzbeks in Afghanistan, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
right next door.
There are many other mismatches of nations and states.
There are nations without states, such as the Kurds, who are scattered over Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. There are states containing
different nations, such as the former Yugoslavia, which later broke up into seven countries. The borders of African states, set by
European colonial powers, often have several nations within them. Sudan had an Arab Muslim North and a black Christian and
animist South which were in conflict for 30 years at a cost of two million lives. Sudan finally split into two countries, but now the
Dinka and Nuer are fighting within South Sudan. Nigeria has 250 ethnic groups and there have been major conflicts among the
major Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa tribes. There are unreconciled nations within states, such as the French in Canada, Tibetans in
China, and Native Americans and Native Hawaiians in the U.S.

This page titled 3.2: Nations and States is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

3.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51699
3.3: Theories of World Politics- Realists
“Survivor/Dog Eat Dog,” aka Realists
Building on the ideas of Thucydides, Hobbes and Machiavelli, Realists such as Morgenthau, Walt and Mearsheimer are cynics who
focus on national interest, international competition for power, self-help and the selfish and aggressive aspects of human nature.
In the Realist view of Presidents Bush 1 and Obama, there is constant competition for power and influence among nation-states that
sometimes leads to conflict and requires a strong military, but used cautiously. Realists believe that military power is sometimes
necessary, since there are always some people who do not play well with others. However, they are cautious in using military force
only when it serves the national interest, and they are also willing to use diplomacy such as the Iran nuclear freeze agreement,
treaties such as the Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS), alliances such as NATO, and international organizations such as the UN,
World Bank and IMF to advance national political and economic interests.
Realists also believe that ethics and morality do not apply in international relations except when it is in the national interest. If
drones can kill Islamic State leaders, never mind international law.
After the shocking slaughter of millions in WWI, people searched for alternatives to classical power politics with the League of
Nations, arms treaties and antiwar treaties. However, none of these were any use against the aggression of Germany and Japan,
which led to WWII. Similarly, during the Cold War, it was clear that the USSR would not be persuaded by sweet talk. Therefore,
U.S. policy during the Cold War, including the Bush 1 administration, was generally realist. We formed alliances with bad guys like
Osama Bin Laden and Panama’s Manual Noriega because they supported our national interests in opposing the Soviet Union in the
Cold War. There is a classic photo of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with bloodthirsty Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein during a visit in the 1980s. Why? Saddam was fighting Iran, who was our enemy. However, by 2003 Saddam was
our enemy, and Rumsfeld organized an invasion of Iraq. To paraphrase Lord Palmerston, we have no permanent allies, only
permanent interests.
Sometimes these alliances resulted in ‘blowback’ effects, such as when Muslim radicals in Afghanistan later used our training
against us. In addition, when nation-states try to increase their security through increased military power, it often results in their
rivals building up their own power, and so on. The ironic result of this spiraling arms race is that both sides feel less secure and
more suspicious. This is called the Security Dilemma. This is what happened during the Cold War. The U.S. and the USSR each
eventually built over 15,000 nuclear warheads, with each side having enough to blow up the world ten times over and each feeling
very insecure about the other. This greatly increased the level of conflict and tension.
But the realist view has considerable validity, since some leaders and nations do engage in aggression. Diplomacy failed in dealing
with Hitler’s Germany, Imperial Japan, Stalin’s Russia and Slobodan Milosovic’s Yugoslavia; military power was required.
However, realists are cautious; they believe in military intervention only when vital national interests are threatened, not
engaging in needless military adventures that cost money and lives.
In the first Gulf War 1991, realists in the Bush 1 administration assembled a broad coalition and engaged in a limited war to oust
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. (They did not continue to Bagdad to overthrow him. Bush 1 and then-Defense Secretary Dick
Cheney said it would lead us into a quagmire.) Before the second Gulf War in 2003, the Realists criticized the Bush 2
administration’s coming Iraq invasion, saying that Saddam was not a threat, that the war would increase terrorism, that Iraq would
distract us from hunting down Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the Al Qaeda leadership, and that the cost in money, lives and
reputation would weaken the U.S. All of these turned out to be correct.

This page titled 3.3: Theories of World Politics- Realists is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Lawrence Meacham.

3.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51700
3.4: Theories of World Politics - Idealists
“It’s A Small World/We are the World,” aka Idealists
Building on the ideas of Hume, Rousseau and Kant, Idealists are optimists who focus on international cooperation and the
positive, altruistic and cooperative aspects of human nature. They advocate peaceful resolution of disputes, diplomacy, reciprocity,
collective security, international cooperation, international law, humanitarian assistance, win-win solutions and the mutual benefits
of working through international organizations. They try to spread democracy, human rights, free markets and free trade
through peaceful means. The Clinton administration is a good example. It intervened in Haiti, Yugoslavia and Somalia only to
protect human rights and provide humanitarian assistance. It expanded the NATO alliance to include several Eastern European
countries. It helped finalize the 1993 Middle East peace accord. Both idealists and realists support increasing national economic
power through international organizations like the World Bank, IMF and WTO, and trade treaties such as NAFTA.
Idealists see conflict arising from poor economic conditions and oppressive institutions. They believe that reforming these
institutions through democracy and free markets will reduce conflicts.
Idealists also support international organizations such as the League of Nations (set up in 1920), which was supposed to end war
through collective security (all countries defending against an attack against any of them). They also set up the Permanent
International Court of Justice in 1922 to resolve international disputes and negotiated arms control treaties, starting with the
Naval Disarmament Treaties of 1921-2 and 1930. The United Nations was established in 1945 to carry on the League of Nation’s
work, the International Court of Justice continues to work, and many arms control treaties were signed in the post-WWII era.
Idealists also believe that capitalism and trade will lead to democracy (although China and others are determined to disprove this by
allowing economic reform, but not political reform). In addition, Idealists believe that trade will reduce international conflict
through increased contact, understanding and interdependence. For instance, one of the purposes of the European Union is to foster
international trade and peaceful conflict resolution among previously warring countries.
There is a lot of successful international cooperation. For instance, how is it that we can travel, email, call, ship goods or send mail
to other countries? Because there is a huge, unseen network of international agreements and international organizations to enable
and regulate passports, visas, and international mail, phones and email. We take for granted and depend on a lot of mutually
beneficial international cooperation.
Idealists cite the Prisoners’ Dilemma as a parable of the benefits of cooperation. If two captured criminals remain silent, they will
both receive one year in jail for a lesser crime. If one of them accuses the other, he will go free, while the other will get three years.
If they both accuse each other, they will both get two years. Often they do the selfish thing, but their best bet is to cooperate.
However, critics point out that peaceful cooperation is not always possible with some countries and leaders (such as Hitler’s
Germany, Saddam Husseins’ Iraq and Putin’s Russia). Also, liberal and idealist action works well in trade and financial issues, but
security issues are less tractable, and sometimes end up being settled by violence or threats of violence. Critics also say that there
are so many repressive regimes in the world that intervening for human rights would result in an endless series of wars.

This page titled 3.4: Theories of World Politics - Idealists is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Lawrence Meacham.

3.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51701
3.5: Theories of World Politics - Neoconservatives
Historical and political analysts such as Robert Kagan give the U.S. credit for building and maintaining an orderly world system in
the post-WWII era with military power and U.S.-led international organizations such as NATO, the World Bank and the IMF. Other
neoconservatives are aggressive militarists and take a moralistic view of world politics as a battle between good and evil. Thus,
Bush 2 referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as, “The axis of evil.” Unlike traditional hawks, who focus on national power and
sovereignty, the neocons feel that our values of democracy, human rights, free enterprise and free trade are desired by all peoples
and that it is our responsibility to spread these values worldwide.
Within the Bush 2 administration, a group of neoconservatives emerged who believed in using U.S. military power to change the
regimes of foreign countries into capitalist democracies. This was the group (ironically, including former Realist Dick Cheney)
behind the disastrous 2003 Iraq war.

This page titled 3.5: Theories of World Politics - Neoconservatives is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed,
and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

3.5.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51702
3.6: Theories of World Politics - Isolationists
Isolationists of both the left and right basically say we should stay home and not get involved in overseas conflicts unless we are
attacked. On the right there Rand Paul and Pat Buchannan and on the left there are Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Donald
Trump has also shown isolationist tendencies. He withdrew from the TPP trade pact, the Paris Accords on global warming, the INF
missile treaty, the Iran nuclear freeze treaty, UNESCO and the International Criminal Court. He also insisted on a renegotiation of
NAFTA trade pact with Canada and Mexico and has questioned the NATO alliance.

This page titled 3.6: Theories of World Politics - Isolationists is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Lawrence Meacham.

3.6.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51703
3.7: Theories of World Politics - Constructivists
Constructivism has become popular among academics by focusing on the role of ideas in world politics. Certainly ideas can
powerfully mobilize people and justify actions. The construction and manipulation of ideas has always been part of the behavior
and competition among leaders, nation-states and non-state actors. For instance, where borders are drawn is often socially
constructed instead of following human and physical geography. Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities showed that
nationalist persuasion can make people feel they are citizens of a country instead of their local region.
Many leaders use nationalism to whip up their citizens and increase their own power. The Roman Empire used the concept of
citizenship for the foreign-born as glue to keep things together. Racism and colonialism were used to justify the European
empires. The ideas of freedom and opportunity in America are a powerful magnet for immigrants. Human rights and
environmental issues are championed by groups who bring change with very few resources, as in the international treaty against
anti-personnel land mines, anti-whaling protests and campaigns against Feminine Genital Mutilation. The idea of democracy is
part of what destroyed many dictatorships, including the USSR/Soviet Union.
All nation-states and groups develop ideologies to justify and explain their policies. And when ideas change, reality can change as
well. For millennia, slavery was taken for granted. However, a group of committed anti-slavery activists used persuasion to make
it socially unacceptable and ended slavery in Britain in 1833. So, let us acknowledge the power of ideas such as Marxism and
Islam without drowning in postmodernist jargon such as, “material resources acquire meaning for human action only through the
structure of shared knowledge in which they are embedded.” Constructivists say that ideas construct social reality. Realists would
counter that nations and leaders USE ideas to construct social reality.

This page titled 3.7: Theories of World Politics - Constructivists is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Lawrence Meacham.

3.7.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51704
3.8: Theories of World Politics - Marxists and Feminists
Marx, Hobson, Lenin, Dependency theorists and world system theorists like Wallerstein provide a critique of the international
order, basically that it is based on the rich countries exploiting the poor countries. Marxists document economic exploitation of
workers on the domestic and international level, and show how capitalists seeking resources, new markets and investment
opportunities go overseas. In their view, the rich industrialized countries exploit the poor countries in a modern form of imperialism
and mercantilism, by buying their cheap raw materials and using their cheap labor, while selling them expensive manufactured
goods and services. Interestingly, mainstream capitalist economists agree with the basic facts of the process, while justifying low
wages, low commodity prices and poor working conditions as an efficient division of labor that provides jobs and economic
development in the poor countries.
Feminist critiques focus on several issues. The broadest issue is the inequality and economic and sexual exploitation of women
all over the world. Women get lower wages and less education, work longer hours and have fewer rights. Women are subjected to
forced and child marriages, sexual violence, domestic abuse, bride burnings, honor killings and Feminine Genital Mutilation.
Besides fairness, it turns out that improving the status of women is one of the most effective ways to grow the economy.
Educating women also lowers birth rates, and empowering women to start small businesses is enormously effective. Educating
women, empowering women, enacting equal workplace and other rights and making birth control available mobilizes a huge,
previously untapped source of productivity that advances societies at all levels of development. This is an important reason for the
prosperity of Europe and the United States today and conversely, the slow development of Arab countries and others that keep
women back.
Schools and Sub-schools
All of these schools have various sub-schools that we have not covered.
QUESTIONS
1. Define sovereignty, nation and state. Give an example of a mismatch.
2. Outline the Idealist, Realist, and neoconservative theories of foreign policy and give an example of
each.
3. Briefly explain the Prisoners’ Dilemma and the Security Dilemma.
4. Outline the feminist and Marxist critiques and give an example of each.

This page titled 3.8: Theories of World Politics - Marxists and Feminists is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed,
and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

3.8.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51705
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

4: Foreign Policy Decision Making

Like world politics as a whole, foreign policy decision making can be studied by focusing on 1) the world system as a whole, 2)
national/domestic factors and 3) individual factors. All three types of factors are influential.
4.1: System Factors
4.2: National and Domestic Factors
4.3: Individual Factors
4.4: Rational Decision Making

This page titled 4: Foreign Policy Decision Making is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

1
4.1: System Factors
One aspect of system factors is that there have been different system structures at different times. Under the vast Roman Empire,
Europe and the Mediterranean were unipolar, which is rare. During the 1947-91 Cold War, the system was bipolar, with two
powerful nation-states (the U.S. vs. the USSR/Russia). In most periods, it was multipolar, that is, with several powerful nation-
states (e.g. 1871-1945, with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan and the U.S.).
Some analysts say that today we have a mixed system, with what the Chinese call one superpower (the U.S.) and many great
powers. In The Paradox of Power, Joseph Nye says that since the fall of the USSR, the U.S. has overwhelming military power,
but in economics and politics, the world is multipolar. Thus, the U.S. had the military power to go to war in Iraq in 2003, but did
not have the political power to convince the other members of the UN Security Council to officially authorize it. In economics, the
U.S. economy has decreased from about 50% of the world after the total destruction of its economic rivals in WWII to a more
historically normal 22% today. The 29 nations of the European Union have a population larger than the U.S. and an economy
second only to the U.S., and they do not hesitate to file World Trade Organization complaints against the U.S. or to find Microsoft
or Google in violation of European anti-trust laws. China openly competes with the U.S. and will probably be the world’s largest
economy in another generation. As China’s and other nations’ military power increases, we may return to a system that is
multipolar in all dimensions.
The relative power of the different powers is also an important system factor. For 200 years, the Western powers had
overwhelming military and economic power. Now many Asian nation-states, especially China, are rising both economically and
militarily. Indeed, the biggest factor in world politics today is the rise of China. As a result, there have been many changes and
adjustments. For instance, the U.S., India, Japan and Australia (the Quad) have developed closer relationships in order to counter
China.
Another system factor is the degree of integration among the various players. During the Cold War, the U.S. organized the NATO
alliance and the USSR organized the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe. Today, the major powers are all linked by numerous trade and
other economic ties.

This page titled 4.1: System Factors is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

4.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51707
4.2: National and Domestic Factors
Besides the system level of analysis, there are important factors in a nation-state’s domestic capabilities, decision-making and
policies that affect its actions in world politics.
Geopolitics (Location, Location, Location)
Even with the easy travel and communication of today, traditional factors like geography, natural resources and population affect
foreign policy.
For instance, the U.S. has an advantage in sitting behind large oceans and having friendly and relatively weak nations on its
borders, which has sometimes encouraged isolationism. Similarly, the English Channel has protected England from invasion.
Compare this to Germany, which was surrounded by sometimes hostile neighbors and has no natural defenses. Russia’s borders
consist of open plains that have been invasion routes for centuries. Korea is located between China, Russia and Japan, a tough
neighborhood! Mexico and Canada must cope with the giant on their borders. Mexican President Porfirio Diaz once said, “Poor
Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.” Indeed, the U.S. took half of Mexico, twice tried to take over Canada, and
still dominates both economies. The Caribbean countries and Central and Latin America have similar concerns about the nearby
U.S., especially after dozens of military interventions. Obviously, these geographic factors will influence outlooks and decisions.
The U.S. and Europe have many navigable rivers and good ports, which were particularly important before the existence of
railroads, good roads and cars. (Even today, over 75% of goods move by water.) Since shipping by water is 50% cheaper than by
land, countries with good rivers, coastlines and ports have an advantage in trade and can develop strong navies. Many of Russia’s
rivers run to the North and many of its ports are frozen in the winter. (However, the melting of the Arctic is opening up the
Northern Sea Route.) Many of Africa’s rivers are less navigable because they fall steeply through waterfalls from the interior
plateau.
In addition, the topography and fertility of the land affect a country’s economy, power and behavior. The U.S. has large amounts of
good land for farming, whereas only 20% of China’s land is arable. Looking ahead for future food security, Saudi Arabia and China
have bought large tracts of land in Africa. Russia is so far north that much of its land is difficult for farming (although global
warming has also improved this situation). Much of Afghanistan is mountainous, which makes agriculture and travel difficult.
Availability of water is also a factor. For thousands of years, the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers caused huge, deadly floods in China.
Today, because of increased industrial use, the Yellow River sometimes runs dry before it reaches the ocean. Lack of water may be
a serious constraint on growth in the Chinese economy. So, they have dammed the Yangtze and are transferring huge amounts of
water from the South to the dry North. In Pakistan, India and most other countries, water tables are falling. The world will soon be
divided into water-rich areas and water-poor areas like the Middle East, North Africa and Southwest Asia. The cities of Sao Paolo
in Brazil, Capetown in South Africa and Chennai in India have already experienced water emergencies.
Other natural resources are also important. Russia has plenty of oil, gas and minerals, while Europe and China have to import oil
and gas. (China does have plenty of coal.) Europe gets more than a third of its gas from Russian pipelines, and is vulnerable to
cutoffs such as the ones Russia imposed on Ukraine during price and political disputes. Until recently, the U.S. was importing most
of its oil. However, new fields, fracking and new drilling methods greatly increased production, and it is close to being self-
sufficient.
A large population means military and economic power. However, having too large a population can cause problems of supplying
food, jobs, and other services (China, India). A well-educated population is clearly a big advantage, as countries as different as
Japan, Malaysia, Costa Rica and Ireland have shown. The population profile is also important. Not only are the populations of
Japan, Russia and Europe decreasing, they are becoming older, which will lead to problems of retirement costs and workforce
shortages. On the other hand, poor countries in the Global South have many young people who need jobs (typically, half the
population is under 30). High unemployment in many of these countries increases instability.
All these geopolitical factors will influence the outlook and actions of countries.
Military Capabilities
Today, the U.S. spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. The resulting power may be one reason why the
Bush 2 administration favored military action in Iraq Russia’s conventional military forces greatly diminished after the Cold War.
But Putin has strengthened the military, emphasizing special forces and new weapons, invading their tiny neighbor Georgia, taking

4.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51709
the Crimea and part of Ukraine, and intervening to prop up longtime ally Syria. Britain and France have small but effective and
modern militaries. Japan is rearming. China is modernizing its military. India is the most powerful in South Asia.
Economic Capabilities and Technology
Nations with strong economies and technology have more international interests and the resources to pursue them. Having rich
natural resources helps, but today, technology, education and government policy are more important in developing the economy.
Europe has a higher average income than the U.S. and the latest technology. India, China, and other Newly Industrialized Countries
are also using technology to advance rapidly. For instance, instead of spending trillions of dollars on phone lines, they are moving
directly to cell phones. Furthermore, in many places in the Global South even the poor use cell phones to pay for goods and
services and to transfer money, allowing their countries to skip over the costs of developing banking, checking and credit card
systems. In Japan and South Korea, internet speeds are far faster than in the U.S. and people use their phones to join affinity groups
and buy cold beer from vending machines (one benchmark of an advanced society). In Chinese cities, even street food stalls and
beggars use QR codes.
Type of Government
Dictators don’t allow independent legislatures, media and interest groups. In contrast, living in a democracy means that Bush 2 had
to consult with Congress before the 2003 Iraq war (they rolled over and authorized him to use force). When U.S. public opinion
turned against the Iraq war, he lost his Republican majority in Congress. Sometimes the Congress supports the president strongly,
and sometimes they attack him relentlessly, such as what Johnson endured during Vietnam or what Obama got during his term.
Furthermore, because of elections, leaders in democratic countries have to steer a course that keeps most people happy.
Interest groups
The powerful American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has a strong influence on U.S. policy regarding Israel. Iraqi
exiles’ promise of an easy ‘liberation’ had a large effect on the Bush administration’s outlook and decisions on Iraq. The U.S. farm
and drug lobbies overcame the influence of the anti-Castro Cuban American community to sell their products to Cuba despite the
U.S. economic embargo. The military industrial complex keeps defense expenditures high with expensive weapons. Big U.S.
corporations who have moved their factories to China are a powerful lobby against trade restrictions. Different groups ran TV ads
for and against the Iran nuclear deal.
Bureaucratic Politics
Sometime bureaucracies put their programs, goals and interests first, or even define the national interest in terms of bureaucratic
interests. During the first four years of the Bush 2 administration, the Defense Dept. consistently had its way over the State Dept.
and CIA. For instance, after 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to let the military help the CIA in Afghanistan
unless the Defense Department was in charge of the operation. The military leadership’s subsequent focus on conventional tactics
such as capturing the capitol city of Kabul allowed Osama Bin Laden and thousands of his men to escape over the border to
Pakistan. When an Army general was asked in an interview why the Army did not respond to the CIA’s request to block the
mountain passes to trap Bin Laden, he answered, “First of all, the CIA doesn’t tell the Army what to do.” In other words,
protecting their bureaucratic turf was more important than the mission.
The Defense Dept. also insisted on handling all aspects of the war in Iraq, which caused problems when they ignored State Dept.
plans for the postwar occupation, made none of their own, and made many serious errors. For instance, they disbanded the Iraqi
Army, putting 400,000 men out on the street with no jobs or pensions and plenty of weapons, and fired all members of the
ruling Baath party, stripping the country of its managers and educated professionals. This drove both groups into the arms
of the insurgency.
Bureaucratic attitudes influence policy decisions. Diplomats prefer diplomatic solutions even when dictators like Hitler or
Yugoslavia’s Milosovic abuse the process for their own ends. Some military leaders prefer military solutions even when diplomacy
is possible. Furthermore, in order to justify their budgets, each military service competes for a share of all operations, whether it is
appropriate or not. Some of the aircraft that Reagan used to bomb Libya in 1986 were Air Force planes that flew several hours from
Britain to be part of the action, even though there were plenty of Navy planes on nearby aircraft carriers. Another problem is that
competing agencies don't cooperate, whether it is Army and Navy units whose radios are on different frequencies or rival agencies
like the FBI and CIA who didn’t share information on Al Qaeda terrorists before 9/11.
Groupthink is the name given to the conceptual constraints that arise within organizations. People in the same organization tend to
see things through the filters of their experience, procedures and bureaucratic goals, accepting only the information that conforms

4.2.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51709
to their template (confirmation bias) and only supporting action that will serve the organization. For example, in 1914, all the
militaries had plans for quick mass mobilizations because quick mass mobilizations had won the most recent wars. But it became a
self-fulfilling prophecy - each side saw the others’ mobilizations as a threat and started their own, a major factor leading to the
outbreak of WWI.
Before 9/11, the Bush 2 administration refused to deal with terrorism, partly because they felt that anything the previous (Clinton)
administration emphasized must be wrong. Then, after 9/11, Vice President Cheney and his group cherry-picked intelligence that
agreed with their view that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) such as nukes, and ignored information that
contradicted that view.
Sometimes the bureaucracy simply disobeys. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Navy disregarded Kennedy's orders to shrink the
blockade line closer to Cuba. The Navy also flouted orders by chasing Soviet subs, nearly causing a nuclear counterattack. And
despite Kennedy’s orders, the CIA provocatively sent a U-2 spy plane over the USSR during the height of the crisis.
The Media and Public Opinion
In 1993, TV pictures of starving children in the war in Somalia pressured the UN and U.S. to intervene. But when American
soldiers were killed and their bodies dragged through the streets on CNN, the U.S. pulled out. In 2003, the Bush 2 administration
spread scary media stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that caused the public to support an invasion. Later,
pessimistic TV coverage helped the public sour on the war. Voters may simply tire of the human and financial costs of intervention
in far-off, unknown places. Americans demanded revenge after 9/11, but now a majority supports leaving Afghanistan.
Ideology and Political Culture
During the Cold War, the USSR preached Marxist ideology, including the inevitability of class struggle, conflict with capitalist
countries and eventual world communist revolution. Today, Islamists such as Islamic State (IS) believe in pushing the West out of
the Muslim world and establishing a theocratic Caliphate. The U.S. tries to bring American-style democracy and capitalism to all
countries, regardless of their history or culture. The political descendants of former French President Charles DeGaulle insist on a
leading role for France in world politics. The Chinese world view is that it should dominate Asia and the world.
In addition, each country has a different political culture. France, Japan and Britain’s bureaucrats are openly elitist, while American
bureaucrats must feign humility. Pervasive corruption in China, India, Russia and other countries causes many problems. The level
of political participation of women varies widely among countries, with the U.S. lagging behind many others. There was surprise
when Clinton appointed a woman (Madeleine Albright) as Secretary of State. There was amazement when Bush 2 appointed a
black woman (Condoleeza Rice) as Secretary of State. When Obama appointed Hillary Clinton, her gender no longer elicited
comment.

This page titled 4.2: National and Domestic Factors is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

4.2.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51709
4.3: Individual Factors
Leaders are not the only factors that make history, but they are important. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan
and Clinton all instituted major doctrines affecting U.S. foreign policy. However, although leaders’ personalities may be important
(Jimmy Carter was brilliant in personally negotiating between Israeli and Palestinian leaders to reach the Camp David agreements),
they also operate under many political, legal, historical, organizational and resource constraints.
The most important factor is the extent of the leaders’ knowledge and experience in foreign affairs. Truman had little experience
but did fairly well by using common sense and advice from experienced officials. Kennedy had some foreign policy knowledge,
which helped in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Johnson had none, which meant that his unthinking anti-communism allowed his
advisors to lead him into expanding the Vietnam War. Nixon, a former Senator and Vice-President, had a lot of experience and
knowledge; he and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger created the historic opening to China and signed arms limitation agreements
with the USSR, but also unnecessarily prolonged the Vietnam War. Reagan and Clinton had little foreign policy experience or
knowledge, following their instincts and advisors to mixed records.
Bush 1, a former ambassador to China, CIA chief and Vice-President, had many international connections, which helped him
assemble a large alliance in the 1991 Gulf War. It also helped that he followed a policy of restraint when the USSR unexpectedly
collapsed. In contrast, Bush 2 had no foreign policy knowledge or experience, which accounted for Vice-President Cheney and
other neoconservatives’ leading him into Iraq. Obama also had no foreign policy experience and had to rely heavily on advisors,
who convinced him to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. Trump has no foreign policy experience, but he has definite
ideas about how allies exploit the U.S. and how Vladimir Putin of Russia and Kim Jong Un of North Korea are his friends.
Part of attitudes, knowledge and experience is generational. Before WWI, leaders believed that any war between the major powers
would be small and short, as most had been for 99 years. Then WWI’s 10 million deaths traumatized everyone so much that they
repeatedly appeased Hitler in the 1930s to avoid another bloodbath. When 40 million deaths occurred in WWII anyway, the leaders
of that generation took the lesson of avoiding appeasement and stood up to the USSR with containment policy.
Later, the Vietnam War was such a bitter experience that U.S. leaders tried to avoid similar entanglements. Bush 1 grew up when
other countries tried to pacify Hitler at Munich, and he was a heroic pilot in WWII. He learned not to appease aggression, and sent
troops to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991. Clinton grew up during Vietnam and tried to avoid big military adventures.
The 9/11 generation is paranoid about Islamic terrorism, although white nationalists kill far more Americans than Islamists do.
Psychological factors also come into play. Leaders’ beliefs about international politics and their political style can be an important
factor. For instance, during the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson, a creature of compromise from his years in the Congress, faced
hardline nationalist North Vietnamese Marxists who believed in communist revolution and were determined to achieve victory at
any cost. He thought his military escalations would convince them to make a deal, but he was wrong.
The Middle East is full of conspiracy theories. Sixty percent of people believe that 9/11 was carried out by the U.S. and Israel.
Turkey’s president blames U.S. plots for everything bad that happens. Shark attacks at an Egyptian beach resort were blamed on
Israeli intelligence.
Stress can also be an important factor. Stress can result in mistakes, overreaction and lashing out. Japanese leaders in 1941 felt
pressured when the U.S. imposed economic embargoes after Japan’s invasion of China, and this contributed to their decision to
attack Pearl Harbor. On the other hand, some leaders freeze or have mental breakdowns. After Hitler invaded in 1941, feared USSR
dictator Josef Stalin had a nervous breakdown, disappearing for 10 days and spacing out in meetings for several weeks thereafter.
There is also what is called cognitive consistency or confirmation bias. In complex, high-stress situations, people tend to
simplify, see what they want to see, and fit the facts to their beliefs and experience. Conflicting information is ignored or dismissed.
Before Pearl Harbor, American leaders discounted Japan’s willingness and ability to attack the U.S. Similarly, Japan discounted the
U.S. backlash from the attack. In 1967, the Arabs though they could defeat the hugely outnumbered Israelis, but the Israelis carried
out a pre-emptive attack that led to a stunning victory. After the success of the 1967 war, the Israelis thought the Arabs would not
attack in 1973. When the attack came, Israel suffered heavy losses before they finally prevailed. In Vietnam, the U.S. saw the
USSR as the instigator, when the war was primarily a nationalist war against foreign occupiers. Before 9/11, American leaders
discounted Al Qaeda’s ability to attack the U.S. Similarly, Al Qaeda discounted American’s willingness to fight back. And going
into Iraq in 2003, American leaders believed they would be greeted as liberators and that, despite centuries of autocracy, religious
violence and tribalism, Iraqi society would somehow instantly turn into a peaceful, secular, capitalist democracy.

4.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51710
People also use double standards in assessing others. They attribute negative motives and intentions to others but expect others to
believe in their own good motives and intentions. Their military buildup is a threat, ours is just for self-defense. Both Arabs and
Israelis explain their own actions as necessary due to circumstances and the other side’s actions as proof of bad character and goals.
(You may have noticed that this can also happen in personal relationships.)
Another factor is the tendency to make analogies with previous situations. Generals tend to fight the previous war. French generals
got ready for another static trench war conflict like WWI and were completely unprepared for the German WWII blitzkrieg, which
used airplanes and tanks in high-speed maneuver attacks. The U.S. military prepared for a rerun of the conventional 1991 Iraq war
and were not ready for the insurgency in the 2003 Iraq war.
Finally, of course, much depends on the situation. Truman responded to the beginning of the Cold War. Kennedy responded to the
Cuban Missile Crisis. Gorbachev ended the Cold War and Bush 1 managed the situation with restraint. Bush 2 rode the wave of
American patriotism after 9/11.
-----------------------------------
So, in general, you can articulate system factors, national factors and individual leadership factors in foreign policy. Hopefully,
each situation will be analyzed in all these dimensions, including the relevant specific factors in the immediate situation.

This page titled 4.3: Individual Factors is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

4.3.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51710
4.4: Rational Decision Making
In Rational Decision Making, supposedly all these factors are integrated by: 1) Defining the problem, 2) Ranking and choosing
goals, 3) Identifying alternative actions and 4) Choosing an alternative.
Kennedy’s dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis is usually cited as the classic example. Once they realized there were Soviet
missiles in Cuba, the Kennedy team discarded the goal of overthrowing Castro, instead deciding that their primary goal was to have
the missiles removed. He took a middle course of setting up a naval blockade, rather than diplomacy or war, as the best alternative
to achieve their goal. As part of the deal, they secretly promised the Russians not to invade Cuba, since that was less important than
removing the missiles.
Similarly, the Obama administration decided that the problem in Afghanistan was Al Qaeda, the goal was to degrade or eliminate
them, and that the alternatives they would use were counterinsurgency, counter-terrorism and drone attacks.
However, each of the four steps can be disputed:
1) People may disagree on what the problem is. In Iraq in 2003, was the problem that Saddam Hussein was in power or that he had
WMDs (weapons of mass destruction such as nukes)? Vice President Dick Cheney said the U.S. should remove Saddam if there
was even a 1% chance that he had WMDs. (It turned out that he didn’t have any.)
2) People may disagree on ranking and choosing goals.
After 9/11, was invading Iraq more important than tracking down Osama Bin Laden or making peace between Israel and the
Palestinians? Allies in the Middle East told the U.S. that Saddam was in his box and that they should instead concentrate on getting
Bin Laden. Then the U.S. could use the momentum from the sympathetic international backlash from 9/11 to push Israel and the
Palestinians toward peace.
3) People may disagree on which actions are practical or prudent.
The U.S. civilian leadership thought the invasion and occupation of Iraq would be easy. When Kauai-born Army Chief of Staff
General Eric Shinseki told Congress that the occupation of Iraq would probably require several hundred thousand troops to be
effective, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his civilian subordinates publicly disparaged Shinseki’s assessment. But the
experienced military man was right – the small number of troops Rumsfeld initially sent were spread too thin to control the
insurgency. In addition, King Abdullah of Jordan warned the Americans that toppling Saddam would destabilize the entire Middle
East. He also was right and also ignored.
4) People may disagree on the best alternative.
The Bushies wanted to invade Iraq ASAP. Others wanted to continue economic sanctions. The UN wanted to finish WMD
inspections first. Hawks favor military action, diplomats favor diplomacy.
5) Other problems.
Different goals may conflict with each other. The U.S. wants democratic elections in the Muslim world, but is unhappy when
Islamist groups win those elections, as in Gaza or Egypt. Also, several options may be good, or all of them could be bad. (Bad
things happened when the U.S. stayed out of Syria. Bad things happened when the U.S. bombed but did not invade Libya.
Bad things happened when the U.S. invaded Iraq. Bad things happened when the U.S. left Iraq.) There are errors and
uncertainties in information (e.g. inaccurate intelligence- Bin Laden was in the tribal areas of NW Pakistan – NOT) and errors in
judgment (Al Qaeda won’t attack the U.S. at home). People also try to avoid acknowledging failures. (Nixon and Kissinger stayed
in Vietnam instead of cutting their losses and getting out.)
Foreign policy and domestic policy goals may conflict. For instance, U.S. presidents allow foreign imports to help allies, but face
pushback from domestic producers. They work to win farm states votes by continuing to give U.S. farmers subsidies, which
encourage more production, increase world supplies and lower prices for farmers in other countries. Bush tried to pull steel state
votes by setting high tariffs on foreign steel imports, angering foreign steel producers.
The result of all these constraints on rational decision making is that in reality officials frequently move incrementally by trial
and error (muddling through), choosing the first available option that seems positive, rather than choosing long-range, goal
oriented options.
Questions

4.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51711
1. Explain the principle established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia.
2. Give one example each of multipolar and bipolar periods in world politics. Briefly describe today’s structure.
3. List three system factors that affect world politics. Give two specific examples.
4. Briefly define sovereignty, nation and state. Give one example where nations and states do not coincide.
5. List three national/domestic factors that affect world politics. Give three specific examples.
6. Briefly outline Rational Decision Making theory and two problems with it. What usually happens instead of rational decisions?
7. List three individual/leadership factors that affect world politics. Give three specific examples.

This page titled 4.4: Rational Decision Making is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

4.4.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51711
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

5: Non-State Actors- IGOs, NGOs, MNCs

IGOs are international organizations in which governments are the members. Thus, we call them International Governmental
Organizations or Intergovernmental Organizations. NGO members are not governments - thus we call them Non-Governmental
Organizations. Generally, the term NGOs is used to refer to social welfare, human rights environmental and similar organizations.
In addition, there are many other non-state actors.
5.1: United Nations
5.2: World Bank, IMF, WTO
5.3: G7, G20, G77
5.4: EU, NATO, OPEC
5.5: Other Regional Organizations
5.6: NGOs and Other Non-State Actors
5.7: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs)

This page titled 5: Non-State Actors- IGOs, NGOs, MNCs is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Lawrence Meacham.

1
5.1: United Nations
The successor to the 1800s Concert of Europe was the League of Nations, which was set up in 1919 to prevent a repetition of
WWI. Hampered by rules that required unanimous agreement and an inability to enforce its sanctions because of lack of
cooperation by members, it did not succeed. But, with the much greater loss of life and destruction of WWII, the Allies tried again
in 1945 with the United Nations. The UN Charter takes the nation-state as a given, recognizing the sovereignty and equality of all
countries.
The UN has sometimes been successful as a forum for diplomacy and to try to solve international problems. During the Cold
War, it was hampered by Security Council vetoes by the USSR and U.S. However, because every country has full-time
ambassadors there available for consultation at any time, it serves as a continuous worldwide forum for discussion, reduction and
resolution of conflicts. For instance, the UN put together the 1983 Law of the Sea Treaty, which resolved numerous issues
regarding the world’s oceans. The UN also carries out economic and social programs to address poverty, health, women’s and
children’s rights, environmental and other issues, and has sent many peacekeeping forces to maintain cease fires and truces in
various wars. Also, as an impartial international organization, it has credibility on issues like global warming.
Governance
To avoid the weaknesses of the League of Nations, on the UN Security Council, which can authorize the use of force, only five
"permanent" members have veto power (the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain - the WWII allies). There are also ten
rotating members who do not have veto power. Since the end of the Cold War, use of the veto has declined in favor of consensus,
but it remains a powerful tool - as in France and Russia's refusal of Bush 2's request for a resolution authorizing force against Iraq
in 2002; Russia’s resistance to moving against its longtime ally, the vicious Asad regime in its Syria; Russia’s veto on resolutions
condemning its taking Crimea from Ukraine and its shooting down a Korean Airlines passenger plane; the United States’ numerous
vetoes of resolutions against Israel; and China’s resistance to action against the genocidal wars in Sudan (they have lucrative oil
deals there). Also, China is against international intervention in general because it doesn’t want to set a precedent that might be
used regarding Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan. The Security Council does not only engage in the use of force; it has imposed
economic sanctions against countries such as North Korea.
The 75-year old composition of the P5 - the permanent veto members - clearly does not reflect the world power structure today,
but proposals to add Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, and other large and powerful countries are stalled. China doesn’t want Asian
rivals Japan or India to be permanent members. None of the current permanent members want their veto power diluted. And there
is a valid concern that with more possible vetoes, it would be even more difficult to reach decisions. Meanwhile, there is another
old-fashioned aspect of the UN; over 70% of its leadership are men.
In the General Assembly, all countries are members and each has a vote. Decision on most matters is by majority rule. As the
number of UN members from the Global South has grown, they continually push for focusing on their priorities, such as foreign
aid, trade and debt, but without much success. The Secretary General is nominated by the Security Council, where the P5
countries have veto power, and elected by the General Assembly.
There are continual conflicts over money at the UN. The spending is quite low for a world organization - about the size of the New
York City Fire Department budget. This conveniently limits its reach in confronting the major powers. Since the rich countries pay
for most of the budget, their priorities get more attention. At one point, the U.S. withheld dues to press for reforms. The
bureaucracy was reduced somewhat, and the U.S. has nearly caught up in paying its dues. One interesting practice has emerged
over the years; countries that become rotating members of the Security Council get more foreign aid from the major powers in
hopes of gaining their votes. There have also been corruption scandals.
Double Standards
There are criticisms of double standards at the UN. There was intervention against the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, in order to save its
oil for the major powers, and intervention in Yugoslavia, to stop the killings and the flow of refugees into Europe. But no action
was taken to stop a much worse genocide in Rwanda, a poor agricultural country in Africa with no significant resources, or the
mass killings during the civil war in Sri Lanka. Another double standard concerns Israel, which has been excluded from many UN
functions and has been the target of dozens of resolutions condemning Zionism, the West Bank Settlements and other actions (the
then-Secretary General even criticized Israel’s rescue of terrorist hostages at Entebbe). Meanwhile severe human rights violations
by China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and others have been ignored. Similarly, the UN has supported
nationhood for the Palestinians, but not for the Kurds, Tibetans and others.

5.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51713
Peacekeeping and Peacemaking
Under the Security Council, the UN has engaged in dozens of peace-keeping operations after diplomacy ended the fighting in
countries such as Cambodia, East Timor, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast. Most of these have been successful.
However, UN troops work under very restricted Rules of Engagement (rules on using their weapons), and sometimes there were
problems. In Cambodia, the UN was not able to prevent President Hun Sen from forcing people who beat him in elections into
‘coalition’ governments, jailing opponents, conducting fraudulent elections, and engaging in massive corruption and numerous
human rights abuses. There have also been scandals about UN peacekeepers engaging in sex trafficking and causing a cholera
outbreak in Haiti.
Efforts at peace-MAKING, such as in wars in Congo, Somalia or the former Yugoslavia (where NATO action was finally
required), went badly. In Somalia, U.S. forces under UN command were ordered to take sides in a multi-sided civil war and
suffered casualties when help was slow in arriving (Black Hawk Down). In Bosnia, UN soldiers were taken prisoner and
handcuffed to prospective bombing targets. In addition, UN troops were under orders not to interfere when Serbian troops took
6,000 Bosnian men and boys from a supposed safe haven in Srebrenica in 1995 and massacred them. The UN has also taken no
action during the genocide in Darfur that has killed over 300,000 since 2003 - it only has unarmed observers. In Congo, the war has
flared up repeatedly because of neighboring countries’ hunger for its diamonds and coltan ore (valuable for cell phones and other
electronics). At one point, 750 UN troops were taken prisoner there, and in 2017 fifteen were killed. Recently, the UN has
supposedly authorized its local commanders to take stronger defensive action. We shall see if it can give up its usual
micromanagement.
So overall, UN peacekeepers have been effective where there is a settled peace, such as in the Sinai between Egypt and Israel, but
have not been successful in peacemaking, i.e., where a war is still going on.
Other UN Organizations
There are other important UN organizations. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors nuclear programs
such as Iran’s for compliance with the Non Proliferation Treaty and the 2015 nuclear freeze treaty. The World Health
Organization (WHO) led the fight to wipe out smallpox and is leading the fight to wipe out polio and to control the coronavirus,
bird flu, Ebola, AIDS and Zika. The UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) runs camps that help people displaced by
wars and natural disasters. The World Food Program feeds the hungry at these and other sites. There is the World Court, aka
The International Court of Justice or ICJ, which adjudicates cases involving international law. The Economic and Social
Council works on economic and social programs such as fulfilling Millennium Goals for food, water, health and education for the
poor. There was pressure to improve the UN Human Rights Commission, which major violators like China and Saudi Arabia
joined in order to prevent action against themselves. Starting in 2014, the Commission did issue very critical reports on North
Korean violations of human rights.
As China has become the second largest contributor to the UN, it has also pushed for more power. In 2019, it easily outmaneuvered
Trump’s appointee to win the election to head the Food and Agriculture organization, which has 110,000 employees. Reportedly,
Chinese diplomats pressured countries to whom it was giving aid, asking for screenshots of their votes and peering over their
shoulders to see how they were voting. China now heads four of the 15 UN agencies.
There are dozens of other UN agencies, commissions, programs, conferences and affiliations with other IGOs and NGOs which
help focus efforts and resources on a variety of issues. There has been some progress on improving health and reducing poverty.
However, the UN is criticized for being ineffective and bureaucratic compared to more agile and successful NGOs. UN officials are
notorious for sitting behind their desks instead of going into the field, pushing up local rents when they snap up all the upscale
housing and driving around in their white air conditioned SUVs. Another example: UNESCO spends 70% of its budget on its Paris
headquarters.

This page titled 5.1: United Nations is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

5.1.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51713
5.2: World Bank, IMF, WTO
The 1944 Bretton Woods conference set up two important international institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund. The World Bank was set up to give development loans, initially to the ruined countries of Europe, and later to the poor
countries of the Global South. The International Monetary Fund was set up to give out loans for currency emergencies.
Governance
Critics point out that in both institutions, voting power is based on the amount of funds put up by each country. In both institutions,
the U.S. subscribes the largest amount and, with its allies, holds the largest, controlling percentage of the votes. (The U.S. also has
enough for a veto). Recently, the U.S. agreed to give China more senior posts and more voting power, but within the existing limits.

The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development)

The World Bank has also been criticized for focusing on big, unneeded, showy projects such as state-of-the-art airports and
superhighways that are usually constructed by big companies from the rich countries. Steel mills were built when there was a
worldwide glut of steel, and the mills soon fell apart from lack of maintenance. Some never produced any steel at all. The Bank has
repeatedly claimed that it is focusing on projects to help the poor, but studies show that very little of the money actually trickles
down. For instance, the first year after the Taliban was overthrown in a totally-destroyed Afghanistan, instead of building roads and
bridges, 25% of development funds went to building a new Marriott hotel in the capitol city of Kabul. Presumably this was so that
bureaucrats from the World Bank and other international agencies would have a comfortable place to stay during their endless
rounds of fact-finding visits.
The Bank has also been criticized for pushing loans beyond the ability of countries to repay, resulting in huge debts. Then, when
the country gets in trouble and cannot keep up its payments, the Bank makes demands before it will restructure the loans. These so-
called Structural Adjustment Programs include severe loan conditions that require countries to cut budgets for education and
health, to privatize government-owned telephone, energy and other companies (which typically means foreign takeovers, layoffs
and increased unemployment), to reduce food and fuel subsidies for the poor, and to allow free trade, unrestricted foreign
investment and unlimited currency flows. These hurt the poor while enabling banks, investors and corporations to make money.
There is sometimes public resistance to such policies. For instance, privatization of water authorities in Peru and steep price
increases led to massive protests in 2000, and the foreign companies were forced to pull out. Riots erupted in Egypt in 2010 when
food and fuel prices were increased.
There have also been problems with corruption in the countries receiving the loans. For instance, the leaders of Chad reneged on an
2001 agreement to use the revenues from a World-Bank financed oil pipeline for community needs like schools, housing and
health. Instead, the money is going to government officials’ Swiss bank accounts. In the Philippines under Marcos, one former
World Bank staffer wrote about how he objected that a proposed $50 million loan did not appear to have an actual project.
Nevertheless the loan was approved. The money disappeared, with the loan to be repaid by Filipino taxpayers. The staffer and his
boss got promoted for making lots of loans.
Finally, many World Bank projects have also been criticized for their negative environmental impacts. The problems arising from
deforestation by timber projects and pollution from mining and power plants are borne by local residents, while the products and
profits typically go to the rich countries. The Bank has made some efforts to reduce and mitigate the environmental problems from
its projects.
For years, critics called for the Bank to forgive its loans to the poorest countries. After all, loans were forgiven when Egypt signed
the U.S.-sponsored Camp David Agreements with Israel and when Pakistan allied with the U.S. against Al Qaeda. However, the
Bank resisted in the name of accountability. In 2005, the Bank did agree to forgive some loans to the poorest countries, in return for
promises of cleaner, more open government. But billions in debt payments continue to cripple many countries.
The Bank has recently had competition from China, which is willing to lend large amounts without lengthy environmental,
corruption or human rights reviews, has now lent more money than the World Bank and IMF combined, and is able to finish
major infrastructure projects in less time than it would take the World Bank to approve a loan and begin work. China greatly
expanded its overseas development projects with its Belt and Road Initiative, but has also been criticized for using Chinese
companies and workers for construction and for building unaffordable projects that increase debts. In one famous case in 2018,
China took over a port it had built in Sri Lanka after the government could not repay the loan.

5.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51714
Also, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa set up a BRICS development bank in 2014 (mostly with Chinese money) and
China set up an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2016, with over 50 countries around the world participating.

The IMF (International Monetary Fund)

The IMF gives loans to countries with currency problems in order to prevent defaults and crashes. In general, the IMF is criticized
for intervening too little, too late. One example was in 1997, when the IMF refused to help Thailand when its currency fell; the
result was a huge meltdown and recession that spread throughout Asia. Critics also say that the IMF’s policies bail out banks,
corporations and other investors while compelling policies that increase suffering by the poor. For instance, during the 1997 crisis,
the IMF required that Indonesia cut government subsidies and institute steep price increases on food, fuel and electricity, leading to
massive unrest which toppled the government.
IMF loan conditions also generally require that countries raise interest rates and cut health, education and welfare budgets,
which slow down the economy and hurt the poor. For instance, it told Honduras that it must cut its budget to reach a deficit of less
than 2.5% of GDP, which was less than the budget deficits of the U.S., Germany or France. Since this is exactly the opposite of the
deficit spending strategy used by rich countries to stimulate their economies in troubled times, there is intense criticism of these
conditions as being hypocritical.
Interestingly, after decades of European and American IMF officials imposing such conditions on African, Asian and Latin
American countries, when they imposed austerity programs on white people in European countries during the 2008 Euro crisis and
got massive protests and very poor results, they suddenly discovered that these policies are ineffective in promoting growth and
actually increase poverty, unemployment and budget deficits. Nevertheless, Germany and other lenders continue to demand
austerity policies in Greece and Italy.
After the worst of the Euro crisis passed, Portugal did the opposite of the IMF prescription and instead followed conventional
policy of stimulating the economy with more government spending. It worked and the economy grew. But don’t bother me with
facts - the austerity theory is correct.
IMF and World Bank demands to allow foreign investment have also been controversial. During the 1997 crisis, the IMF
insisted that foreign corporations be allowed to take over struggling South Korean companies as a condition of emergency loans.
U.S. companies bought the companies cheap and later sold them at large profits, infuriating the Koreans.
Finally, the IMF has joined the World Bank in calling for privatization of government corporations, deregulation, free foreign
investment and unrestricted currency movement. For instance, the IMF encouraged deregulation and privatization in Russia in the
1990s. This was followed by a financial crash. Russia defaulted on their loans, had to accept large currency devaluations and
experienced increased unemployment and poverty. This is only one of many instances of financial deregulation causing a bubble
and crash.
In contrast, China and Malaysia, which followed exactly the opposite of IMF policies e.g., controlling foreign investment and
currency flows during the 1997 Asia meltdown, suffered less than other countries and recovered faster because they were not at the
mercy of international speculators.
There have been a recurring series of crises over unpaid loans and currency drops over the decades since WWII involving Brazil,
Mexico, Africa, Pakistan, etc. In each case, the financial restructuring by the World Bank and IMF has been criticized for
intervening too little and too late, while pushing the usual policies such as higher interest rates, budget cuts and free trade that help
banks and other corporations but are painful for ordinary citizens. For instance, NAFTA and IMF requirements on Mexico for free
trade resulted in a flood of cheap corn imports from huge mechanized farms in the U.S., which impoverished farmers and increased
illegal immigration to the U.S..
As more countries develop significant foreign exchange reserves and China has been willing to finance projects with no questions
asked, the World Bank and IMF weren’t as needed any more. Business decreased. In an effort to generate more demand, the IMF
said it would no longer set conditions for loans. However, when it was brought in to help Greece and other European countries
facing budget problems, it set the usual harsh requirements.
In 2019, Pakistan used the competition between China and the IMF to play both sides of the street. It got conditional loans from the
IMF and loans from China that probably include approving a big pipeline and transportation corridor from China through Pakistan
to the Arabian Ocean.
Which policies work best?

5.2.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51714
Differing responses to the 2008 crash provided an interesting natural experiment over which policies work best. China increased
government spending and lending on a large scale and only suffered one quarter of decreased growth (although its debt increased).
The U.S. passed a proportionally smaller spending stimulus that was partly counteracted by cutbacks in spending in the states and
Republican-imposed austerity on the federal level, and suffered a deep recession, a slow recovery and an increase in debt. Europe
followed a full austerity strategy of spending cutbacks and still has high unemployment, high deficits and increased debt. But the
austerity theory is correct, regardless of the evidence, right?

World Trade Organization

At Bretton Woods in 1944, the U.S. tried unsuccessfully to set up an international free trade regime. By 1948, they settled for
GATT, the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, a series of non-binding tariff reduction treaties among dozens of countries that
continued through the 1980s. Finally, in 1994 the World Trade Organization was established to institutionalize and enforce free
trade. The key difference between the WTO and previous trade agreements under GATT is that the WTO can set penalties such as
tariffs against countries for violations.
Critics cite several problems. The WTO has not pushed for cuts in the tens of billions in subsidies given to U.S. and EU farmers or
U.S. and EU import tariffs on agricultural goods. These hurt farmers in the poor countries, who would normally have a comparative
advantage because of cheap labor. On the other hand, the WTO has pushed free trade in manufactured goods, in which the rich
developed countries have a comparative advantage because of their advanced technology.
In addition, environmental and worker concerns are consistently overruled in favor of free trade, to the point of declaring some
domestic labor and environmental laws illegal; the costs of filing complaints is beyond the resources of many poor countries; poor
countries don’t have enough trade with the rich countries to enforce significant tariffs even if they win a case; poor countries are
excluded from many negotiations; and the deliberations of the arbitration panels are secret. Examples abound. The EU banned
hormones in beef but the WTO said this was an unfair restraint of U.S. beef exports. The WTO also banned U.S. gasoline
regulations that hurt Venezuelan imports.
Large anti-WTO protests occurred at its 1999 meeting (the so-called Battle of Seattle) and the WTO has been a focus of criticism
and protests ever since. Most recently, Donald Trump has refused to appoint any members to the WTO’s dispute resolution board,
paralyzing the process.
Obama proposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade treaty among twelve Pacific Rim countries (but not China).
Supporters claimed it would increase jobs and U.S. exports to the other countries and counteract Chinese influence, while
providing new labor and environmental protections. But, like the WTO, it was criticized for being written by industry and business
lobbyists, allowing the loss of U.S. jobs, having secret tribunals with the power to overturn domestic laws, and protecting the high
prices of drug companies. Opposition to TPP became a campaign issue in 2016, and when Trump was elected, he immediately
withdrew from the project. However, Japan has stitched the remaining eleven countries together to salvage the agreement.

This page titled 5.2: World Bank, IMF, WTO is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

5.2.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51714
5.3: G7, G20, G77
The G7 has annual summits of the big democracies to discuss and work together on economics, energy, security and nuclear
proliferation. Having regular meetings allows for more effective coordination. However, the G7 is increasingly overshadowed by
the G20.
The G20, which includes the G7 plus many Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs), constitutes 85% of world economy. Including
rising countries such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey and South Korea, they push for lower tariffs on their
exports and other economic reforms. After the loss of credibility of the U.S. model of financial deregulation and free trade in the
2008 global financial crash, the G20 countries took the lead and recovered faster. As the G20 eclipses the G7, that where the
protestors go.
The G77’s members (the poor countries) have expanded their numbers to more than 130. They are pushing for debt forgiveness,
more foreign aid, more trade, lower tariffs on their exports, and an end to farm subsidies in the rich countries that encourage
more production and push down world prices for agricultural goods. A few loans were forgiven and some aid increased (Bush 2
doubled aid to Africa), but there have been few results on trade.
OPEC
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries includes the Arab oil producers plus Venezuela, Nigeria and Indonesia. (Russia
and the U.S., major producers, do not belong.) After taking their oil back from Western companies, they control 40% of world oil
reserves and try to influence prices by adjusting their production levels. When OPEC started in 1960, they were generally poor and
poorly paid for their oil. However, their boycott of Israel’s allies during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War quadrupled world oil prices and
greatly increased their income and influence.
OPEC meets periodically to decide on production quotas, with the aim of keeping prices stable and as high as possible without
causing an economic recession (which would decrease demand). However, increasing demand for oil from China and other
developing countries and declining production in many producing countries meant that prices rose to $100 a barrel in 2008, far
above their stated goal. OPEC didn’t mind – they were making more money. But the high prices supported increased fracking and
sideways drilling in the U.S., which increased production 60%. High prices also caused less consumption and an economic
slowdown in China and other economies and more use of renewable energy, so that the price of oil fell to as low as $30 in 2016.
OPEC and other big oil producers like Russia took big hits in their incomes. Saudi Arabia and others refused to cut production,
determined to maintain their market share. Until recently the Saudis and the rest of OPEC, along with Russia, pledged to restrict
production and oil prices rose to $60 a barrel. However, the Saudis and the Russians fell out over the proper response to the
coronavirus, and the Saudis massively increased production, causing a drop in prices.

This page titled 5.3: G7, G20, G77 is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

5.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51715
5.4: EU, NATO, OPEC
The EU
The European Union is the most important IGO besides the United Nations, having a larger population (512 million) than the U.S.
and the world’s the second-largest economy. In an attempt to prevent a repeat of the mass casualties and destruction of WWI and
WWII through functional cooperation, it was started in 1952 with an agreement between perennial enemies France and Germany
plus four other countries to coordinate coal and steel production. This was so successful that is was followed by successive
programs on free trade, farm subsidies, regional development, common governance structures, free movement of labor, students,
services and investment, standardization of laws and products (e.g. 750 mil wine bottles), budget rules (the U.S.’s large budget
deficits and debt would disqualify it from membership), a European Central Bank and a single currency (the Euro, which is
currently used by 19 EU countries, including Germany and France). It has expanded from the original six to the current 29
countries, and the result has been 60 years of peace, increased prosperity and freer interaction cross the European continent. The
EU gives preferential trade treatment to former European colonies, but has high tariffs against other countries outside of Europe.
The EU has also developed political dimensions. The countries' leaders meet periodically in the European Council, which appoints
the Council of Ministers and supervises the 20-member European Commission, where most of the day-to-day work occurs and
most of the rules are made. The popularly elected European Parliament has increasingly asserted itself, developing policies,
overturning European Commission rules, vetting and sometimes rejecting European Commission nominees and even removing
them for corruption. The European Court of Justice has also become more assertive, issuing a number of rulings against human
rights violations in member countries, such as British mistreatment of Irish Republican Army prisoners. The European Central
Bank has also started to make more independent decisions on monetary policy.
In practice, power is now shared between the EU and its member governments. There is dislike of the large number of regulations
made by the EU bureaucracy, so the “Eurocrats” must periodically back down. One proposed rule in 2014 would have prohibited
olive oil from being served at restaurants. It was shouted down. In 2019, there was a backlash in Italy when the EU confiscated
local handmade pasta that did not have sufficient documentation regarding its origin. In another case, a traditional cheese factory
was allowed to keep the mold growing on its walls because it was a necessary part of the ripening of the cheese. Allowing local
exceptions is called ‘subsidiarity’ in EU speak.
Because of resentment of the central bureaucracy and fear of immigration, two attempts to approve a new European Constitution
foundered because of resistance from voters in Denmark and France. However, the so-called Lisbon Treaty was finally approved by
EU parliaments in 2007 and set up reforms such as proportional voting based on population and having a long-term EU president
and foreign minister.
Although the EU has become more prosperous overall, has a high quality of life and is a model for other regional organizations,
many EU countries face problems with slow economies and lack of jobs for young people, especially outside the cities (there are
continuing anti-poverty protests in small French towns by the so-called Yellow Vests), expensive welfare states, and discrimination
against Muslim immigrants. They also face problems integrating the new, poor, member countries from Eastern Europe.
There is continuing fallout from the recession and unemployment following the 2008 Euro property bubble and crash, with
Greece nearly defaulting on their loans and leaving the Euro zone, arguments over who should take the losses from bad loans and
bonds, and questions on how to reform economies like Greece and Italy, which have large, unsustainable debts. The crisis over the
EU economy has been grinding on for over ten years with only incremental responses, revealing the weakness of the financial and
governing system.
The flood of millions of refuges from Syria and other countries, the anti-immigrant vote in Britain to leave the EU (Brexit) and the
rise of anti-immigration and anti-EU parties across Europe have shaken the EU. However the 2019 EU parliament elections saw
only small gains by these parties, suggesting that their support has leveled off.

NATO
There are several overlapping European organizations dealing with security and other issues. The most important is NATO (North
Atlantic Treaty Organization), a mutual security pact between Western Europe and North America. It was started during the Cold
War against the USSR/Russia and has now expanded to include countries in Eastern Europe. It was NATO that belatedly stopped
the genocidal civil war in Yugoslavia. NATO has successfully coordinated military defenses among its members and is now
bolstering defenses in Eastern Europe to stave off the renewed threat from Russia.

5.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51716
This page titled 5.4: EU, NATO, OPEC is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

5.4.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51716
5.5: Other Regional Organizations
The Americas
Countries in the Andes, Central America and Caribbean formed free trade blocs, and the U.S. recently signed the CAFTA free trade
agreement with several countries in Central America. But the strongest regional trade group is Mercosur, originally composed of
Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile. There is also the U.S.-dominated Organization of American States and several
others.
Asia
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) started as an independent economic development alliance, and has lowered
tariffs and increased trade under the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). China, India and Australia have joined as affiliate members.
ASEAN has become an important independent regional political and economic forum working on trade and security issues such as
piracy in the Straits of Malacca. Starting in 2010, it declared free trade between its members and China.
To counteract U.S. influence in Central Asia, China’s and Russia’s back yard, China started the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, consisting of China, Russia and most of the Central Asian countries,
Also, in 2016 China set up the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank (AIIB). The World Bank does not have sufficient funds
for all of Asian’s infrastructure needs, and operates very slowly. In contrast, China has trillions of dollars to spend (thanks to export
profits from the U.S. and others) and can finish a project in less time than it takes the World Bank to start. The U.S. tried to prevent
anyone from joining the AIIB, but even such close allies as Britain did so. It now has more than 50 members and is approving its
initial projects.
Africa
As in Europe, Asia and the Americas, there are several overlapping African organizations, including the African Union (AU),
which includes all African countries. It is the AU that sent observer troops to Darfur. In 2019, all 55 African countries in the AU
also agreed to set up a free trade union. Earlier, thirteen southern African states established the Southern Africa Development
Community (SADC), thereby gaining access to the rich market of South Africa. And sixteen countries previously formed the
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), in which Nigeria is the largest member. They reduced tariffs, built
infrastructure and supplied troops for UN peacekeeping missions. In 2016, ECOWAS even threatened to send troops to ensure that
the legally-elected President of Gambia was able to take power.
There are dozens of other regional organizations, such as the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia and the
small states vs. Iran), and the Arctic Council. There are more than a dozen regional organizations just for free trade.
NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations)
When we use the term NGO, we usually mean human rights, social welfare and economic development organizations. NGOs have
done some amazing good things. The French group Doctors Without Borders has given medical treatment to hundreds of
thousands of people in war and disaster zones all over the world. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch helped get
thousands of political prisoners freed. Greenpeace was instrumental in stopping French nuclear testing in the Pacific. Sea
Shepherd protests reduced Japanese whaling. Oxfam and other groups help poor farmers increase their crops with cheap water
pumps and irrigation hoses. Groups of doctors from Hawaii go to the Philippines and other countries to provide free medical
services for the poor. In 2019, Hawaii’s Lieutenant Governor, a licensed doctor, led a large group of volunteer health workers to
Samoa to vaccinate the population during a measles epidemic. Other groups work against the arms trade, sweat shops and
exploitative child labor; protect the environment; help stop trafficking in endangered species; and help prevent honor killings of
women. A network of NGOs even got an international treaty against anti-personnel landmines approved by the UN.
The civil wars in Congo and Sierra Leone were fueled by the illicit diamond trade. NGOs pressured the diamond industry to set up
a system for registering diamonds by point of origin, so that there would be less of a market for these "conflict diamonds."
Unfortunately, some dealers found ways around the system. NGOs are also pressuring jewelers not to use ‘dirty gold’ from mines
that cause pollution. NGOs pressured drug companies to allow cheap generics or provide cheap drugs to be given to millions of
patients in the poor countries in the Global South who cannot afford the usual high costs. Some drug companies implemented some
programs. Millions of people are still left out, however.

5.5.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51717
This page titled 5.5: Other Regional Organizations is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

5.5.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51717
5.6: NGOs and Other Non-State Actors
This page titled 5.6: NGOs and Other Non-State Actors is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Lawrence Meacham.

5.6.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51718
5.7: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs)
The number of both IGOs and NGOs has grown enormously. In 1909, scholars listed 37 IGOs and 176 NGOs. By 2000, there were
251 IGOs and 27,077 NGOs, and there are many more by now. These organizations may be regional or global. They may be
specialized or deal with many issues. Also, there is considerable interaction between IGOs and NGOs, with the NGOs often
affiliated with and raising new issues that are eventually dealt with by the IGOs.
There are many different kinds of IGOs. Some of the oldest are very mundane and functional. For instance, since 1874 the
Universal Postal Union has allowed you to send mail to other countries. Otherwise, why should they accept mail with foreign
stamps? Telephone, satellite and internet communications are facilitated by international agreements and organizations such as the
International Telecommunications Union and Intelsat. Otherwise, how could you make overseas phone calls, send international
emails or look up web sites in other countries? Otherwise, how can we prevent satellites from crashing into each other? There is a
network of such organizations facilitating every kind of international interaction, ranging from aviation, science, commerce and
transportation to professional work and social and welfare services. There are also disputes. For instance, there was controversy
because other countries didn’t want the U.S. to continue to control ICANN, which governs Internet web site and domain names.
ICANN wanted to maintain the same structure because it didn’t want politics interfering with their operations. They finally agreed
to international participation.

5.7: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
LibreTexts.

5.7.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51836
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

6: The World Economy

6.1: Rise of World Trade
6.2: Post WWII Economy
6.3: Balance of Payments
6.4: Liberal Free Trade Policy
6.5: Mercantilist Trade Policy
6.6: Protectionism
6.7: World Finance - Bretton Woods and Today
6.8: Economic Power

This page titled 6: The World Economy is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

1
6.1: Rise of World Trade
There has been extensive trade since ancient times. Objects from thousands of miles away have been found in prehistoric sites.
However, the volume and speed of international trade increased enormously with the era of western expansion. This was primarily
because of larger and better ships and the industrial revolution producing more, better and cheaper goods, all with strong
government support. The Spanish and Portuguese never industrialized on a large scale, but the Dutch and later the British and
French developed worldwide industry, finance and trade from the 1600s through the 1800s, and established limited liability trading
companies such as British East India Company (1600), the Dutch East India Company (1602), the Virginia Company (1606), the
French East India Company (1664) and the Hudson’s Bay Company (1670).
In the 1800s, as the dominant military and financial power, the British enforced the gold standard, set fixed exchange rates that
were policed by the European central banks, and set the British pound as the world’s reserve currency. During the 1860s and early
1870s, there was increased free trade in Europe, expedited by the spread of Most Favored Nation treaties that gave every country
the same low tariffs. New technology, new production methods and more efficient transportation such as railroads and steamships
led to a great increase in the volume of international trade.
British trade and financial dominance continued until the beginning of WWI. However, Britain’s share of global steel and other
industrial production had gradually slipped in the competition with newly industrialized, faster growing countries with the latest
technology. (Sound familiar?) The United States had pioneered machine-made interchangeable parts (“The American System”),
rapidly developed electricity and other new technologies, built huge railroad mileage and made large government investments in
infrastructure and economic development, until the U.S. economy was almost three times the size of Britain’s. Germany also
exceeded Britain by eliminating internal tariffs, building railroads and pioneering chemistry and other new technologies.
Wheat and other commodity prices fell because of improved farming techniques, increased production in the U.S., Russia and
Argentina, and easier transportation to world markets. However, agricultural and industrial overproduction contributed to the crash
of 1873 and led to a protectionist backlash, which increased tariffs to protect local industry. Nevertheless, by 1900 international
trade and the world economy were thriving and driving a wide sense of optimism in the Global North.
WWI (1914-18) was a catastrophe. Besides killing 10 million working-age men, it severely damaged the economies of Europe and
helped outsiders like the U.S. (to whom Britain owed huge war debts) and Japan (an ally of the U.S. and Britain in WWI) to
become stronger.
After a bubble in the 1920s, in 1929 the U.S. stock market crashed, which led to the 1930s Great Depression across the world, and
increased international protectionism (like the U.S. Smoot-Hawley tariff), further decreasing trade and causing further economic
damage.
Meanwhile, hyperinflation in the 1920s had ruined Germany’s economy. Prices went up by the hour, savings became worthless and
unemployment soared. When the Great Depression hit, the economy crashed and in 1933 Hitler came to power.

This page titled 6.1: Rise of World Trade is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

6.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51765
6.2: Post WWII Economy
The League of Nations could not stop the aggression of nationalist leaders in Germany and Japan in the 1930s. This eventually led
to WWII (1939-45), which completely destroyed Europe and Japan, leaving the U.S. as the only undamaged economy. Its huge
production had fueled the Allied war effort and by the end of the war it accounted for half of all world output. The U.S. Marshall
Plan of financial aid helped Europe recover, and the world economy and individual incomes grew quickly across the board from the
1950s through the 1970s with regulated free markets. One factor was the spread of the freight container in the 1960s. By
eliminating slow, labor-intensive loading and unloading, containers made shipping much cheaper and faster. Today, ships can
unload hundreds of containers in hours.
However, in the early 1970s, the U.S. faced problems with trade deficits resulting from more competition from foreign
imports, the costs of the Vietnam War, and more dollars overseas than there was gold to support them. In response, in 1971
Nixon set a 10% tariff, cut the dollar from gold and let the exchange rate float.
Later, in the mid- and late 1970s came a large rise in oil prices. The first increase came during and after the 1973 Arab-Israeli
War, when Arab countries carried out an oil embargo against the U.S. and other Israeli allies. Oil prices quadrupled, gradually fell
and then rose again after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran further reduced supplies. Gasoline shortages, mile-long lines at
service stations and higher fuel costs resulted in higher prices and a slower economy, or stagflation. Poor countries were even
harder hit. High oil prices forced them to borrow large sums from the World Bank and IMF.
In response, Europe and Japan reduced their oil dependency through conservation and nuclear power (and later, wind and solar).
Today, they use one half the energy that the U.S. does do per unit of production and Germany is a leader in solar power. The U.S.
conserved and focused on renewable energy for a few years until Reagan came to office in 1980 and threw out Carter’s policies for
energy independence. (Symbolically, Reagan took down the solar panels that Carter had put on the White House.)
Meanwhile, from 1977-81, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank steeply increased interest rates to cut inflation. This increased the price
of the dollar, increasing both the price of U.S. goods abroad and the trade deficit, while causing a deep recession at home.
Furthermore, Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich led to record budget deficits, a tripling of the national debt and increased
inequality. His attacks on unions and increased international competition flattened wages. During the 1980s, increased trade and
budget deficits and declining productivity, growth, trade and research and development compared to other countries eroded U.S.
status as the dominant world economic power. With the rise of other countries, a multilateral world economy had arrived.
The next big event was the breakup of the USSR in 1991. After the breakup, Russia followed the advice of neoliberal U.S.
economists to engage in so-called shock therapy of instant privatization to overcome the stagnation of their government-owned and
centrally-planned economy. Despite predictions of an economic boom, the actual result was that the economies of the USSR and its
Eastern European satellites collapsed, as a few well-connected officials and businessmen used government bank loans to buy huge
amounts of government-owned property and natural resources for pennies on the dollar. Russia defaulted on its debts, the ruble
became worthless, production decreased 40%, most of the population got poorer, and organized crime grew very powerful. Some
countries (e.g. Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic) later took advantage of good economic policies, low labor costs and good
computer and other technical education to grow their economies, but most of the countries of the former Soviet Union (including
oil-and-gas-dependent Russia) are poor and corrupt.
In Asia in the 1970s and 80s, Japan had served as a successful mercantilist/protectionist model of government-supported-and-
guided industrialization, subsidized exports and protection of local industries with import tariffs. By 1980, Taiwan, South Korea,
Hong Kong and Singapore were booming with these policies. Since then, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Turkey,
Vietnam and others also began to grow their economies using similar models. However, many of the economies in Central and
South America and in Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia are falling behind.
In the 1990s, Clinton’s economic policies of increasing taxes on the rich and giving tax breaks to poor working families stimulated
the economy, changed U.S. budget deficits to surpluses, reduced unemployment, maintained low inflation and added 17 million
new jobs. However, Clinton also supported free trade policies, leading to the approval of most-favored-nation status for China
(which meant low tariffs on Chinese imports), approval of Bush 1’s NAFTA free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, and the
formation of the World Trade Organization. These agreements did increase trade and keep prices low. But this also meant more
foreign imports, while U.S. jobs went to countries like China and Mexico with much lower pay.
U.S. influence in the World Bank, IMF and G7, the size and stability of the U.S. market, and the credibility of the dollar reinforced
American economic power. However, free trade and high oil imports meant that the U.S. trade deficit remained high, while

6.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51766
competition from low-wage countries depressed the pay of U.S. jobs.
After 2001, Bush 2’s tax cuts for the rich again led to record budget deficits, and allowing China into the WTO helped
increase trade deficits to a record 10% of total GDP. One result of all this was a 40% decline of the dollar against the Euro and
other currencies. One third of U.S. manufacturing jobs went overseas in just eight years.
The lower dollar made U.S. exports cheaper and more competitive, but further increased the trade deficit because it took more
now-less-valuable dollars to buy imports. The dollar has since risen because of comparative weaknesses of other economies, but
the U.S. continues to buy more from other countries than it sells.
The 2008 financial crash, the result of speculation in the U.S. housing market and on Wall Street, destroyed the credibility of the
U.S. model of deregulated finance and free trade by causing huge investor losses and a worldwide recession. China and other
countries say that this disaster proved that their systems of state capitalism and the mercantilist model of government
intervention and managed trade were superior methods for economic development.

International Political Economy Today

As wars between great powers become less frequent, economic power and competition (‘soft power’) have become more
important, affecting jobs and standards of living. Furthermore, international trade has expanded faster than domestic economies, so
it has become a larger factor for all countries. Global trade is now over 50% of the world economy. About 2/3 of it is within the
Global North (North America, Europe, East Asia).

This page titled 6.2: Post WWII Economy is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

6.2.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51766
6.3: Balance of Payments
The balance of payments measures a country’s buying vs. selling in world trade. For instance, China has a trade surplus of $1
trillion/year with the rest of the world, selling more than they buy. The U.S. has been buying more than it sells for almost 50 years,
with trade deficits now running about $700 bil/yr or about 6% of its total economy. After the Reagan, Bush 2 and Trump tax cuts
for the rich, the U.S. has also run record budget deficits. Although it continues to run these large trade and budget deficits, since
the U.S. has a large, stable and prosperous economy, the rest of the world still has faith in the dollar. Everything is relative -
the U.S. economy has troubles, but is stronger than Europe and others.

This page titled 6.3: Balance of Payments is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

6.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51767
6.4: Liberal Free Trade Policy
Adam Smith’s classic 1776 The Wealth of Nations advocated free trade to push down prices. Specifically, he advocated
abolishing Britain’s so-called Corn Laws (grain import tariffs). Starting in the 1830s, David Ricardo and his successors’ theory of
the benefits of free international trade stated that all countries benefit if they export products for which they have a comparative
advantage, such as climate, natural resources, labor and capital. The classic example was exporting wine from Portugal and
exporting wool from England.
Since Ricardo’s theory has math, most economists still believe in comparative advantage. They say that trade benefits all countries
with greater economic efficiency and lower prices. However, critics point out that millions of Americans lost their jobs to low-
wage countries like China, Mexico and India. This is the classic tension of free trade - lower prices versus keeping jobs.
Free traders also claim that despite lost jobs and companies going bankrupt, overall the economy benefits because consumers get
cheaper goods and services. But critics ask who will be able to afford to buy those goods and services if they are unemployed or
have low-paying jobs? The U.S. economy currently has large excess production capacity and high credit card debt because
people cannot afford to buy. And economists admit that the competition from low wages overseas has held down pay for the
jobs that remain in the U.S.
Finally, economists claim that people who lose their jobs will get other jobs. But when thousands of workers were laid off from the
GM plant at Lordstown in Ohio in 2019, they did not suddenly get highly-paid jobs as web designers the next day. Only 15% of
laid-off workers get retrained and most end up with 50% less pay or no job at all.
The fact is that most of the benefits of free trade go to increased profits by big corporations and to the top 10% who own most of
their stock. Outsourcing is now spreading from manufacturing jobs to financial analysis, legal research and software engineering.
How will economists feel when their jobs are outsourced to India?
(Note: In addition to the effects of imports and outsourcing, there is also mass job displacement by robots, computers and
artificial intelligence, and increasing replacement of full-time jobs by temps and gig workers. The result of all these factors is
that the incomes of the bottom 70% of the U.S. population has gone down and the percentage of people who are working has
decreased.)
Non-economic factors also come into play against imports. For instance, countries want food security and do not want to depend
on other countries. Also, for national and economic security reasons, countries want to maintain their own industrial and
technical base, i.e. the capacity to make weapons, technology and other manufactured goods. Most people would disagree with
Reagan official Richard Darman, who said, “It doesn’t matter if we export computer chips or potato chips.”
Some are calling Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage outdated. In The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman presents arguments
that in today’s world, technology, education and government economic policy are the most important inputs into economic
development, and that no country has a natural advantage. The rise of Japan, South Korea, China, India and others seems to
confirm this.
Today, leadership in manufacturing and technology changes quickly and new techniques and knowledge spread faster and faster.
Malaysia went from rubber plantations and tin mines to computer chip manufacturing in 30 years. China and India are gaining a
large economic advantage by producing more scientists and engineers. Should the U.S. follow Ricardo’s theory and outsource its
engineering to China and India because they are cheaper? Most countries would rather maintain control over such crucial aspects of
their economies. For instance, observers criticize Boeing because it has outsourced the technology and production of much of their
new airplanes to other countries, causing loss of jobs, coordination problems, technical problems and delays. Along with the shift
of Boeing headquarters to Chicago and the opening of a nonunionized plant in South Carolina, this was an outgrowth of Boeing
being taken over by financial executives instead of engineers.

This page titled 6.4: Liberal Free Trade Policy is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

6.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51768
6.5: Mercantilist Trade Policy
A U.S. reporter asked a Chinese engineer where they got the money for their huge Three
Gorges Dam. The engineer laughed incredulously and said, “From you!”
In contrast to the free traders, Realists see trade as another aspect of competition among nation-states. Therefore, they believe in
using government to develop a strong industrial and technology base, helping domestic industries with tariff protection and
subsidies, managing trade to develop a trade surplus (exporting more than they import), and building up foreign exchange reserves.
In earlier centuries, trade surpluses were used to increase gold and silver holdings to gain a financial and military advantage. Today,
they are used for economic development by making investments in infrastructure, education, technology and research and
development.
For instance, in 2016 the Chinese government embarked on a $300 billion Made in China 2025 program to develop world
dominance in high-tech industries such as chip design and production, robotics, artificial intelligence, pharmaceuticals, aerospace,
biotechnology and electric cars. Accordingly, companies like telecom giant Huawei receive large government subsidies, contracts
and infrastructure funding, enabling them to sometimes sell their products for less than the cost of production. (The company’s
2018 annual report lists $222 million in government grants.) Huawei also has $100 billion in customer financing available from a
Chinese government bank. Its equipment is cheap and reliable, and has been installed in 120 countries, including the U.S. As China
increasingly develops its own system of fast innovation, in some fields such as 5G, voice recognition and facial recognition, they
are now ahead of the U.S. For example, Tencent’s WeChat allows messaging, purchases, games, flight and restaurant reservations
and many other functions all in one app.
Behind their free-trade rhetoric, China, Germany, Japan and many others actually manage their trade to earn surpluses, protect jobs
and accumulate foreign currency reserves. China now has a trade surplus of over $400 bil/yr with the U.S. After China kept its
currency and prices artificially low for years by buying U.S. dollars, it has accumulated over $3 trillion in the Treasury bills
that the U.S. issues to finance budget deficits. So there is now a peculiar situation in which China finances U.S. budget
deficits so that the U.S. can buy Chinese goods. Obviously this gives the Chinese some leverage. On the other hand, they need
the U.S. market and technology to keep growing. Trump’s tariff war with China has thrown this co-dependency into sharp focus.
However, as China’s technology improves, its domestic market grows and it diversifies its exports to more countries, it is becoming
less dependent on the U.S. market.
The U.S has relatively low tariffs, mostly engages in free trade and has a deficit with many of its trade partners. Partly this is
because during the Cold War it wanted to help its allies develop their economies. Partly it is because American companies are
satisfied with the large U.S. domestic market and have not tried hard enough to increase exports. Contrast their poor export
performance with Germany, which has an economy only one-fifth the size of the U.S. but is the world’s second largest exporter.
The Obama administration did succeed in increasing exports, even as Republicans cut funds for the Export-Import Bank, but the
U.S. has a long way to go to become an export power.
There is also a constant struggle over technology transfer. In the 1600s and 1700s, Western priests stole silkworms from China to
start a European silk industry and European potters copied Chinese porcelains. In the 1700s, Americans stole British textile
technology, which had been stolen from the Dutch. In the 1970s and 80s, Japan used various legal and illegal tactics to gain access
to U.S. technology and wipe out whole sectors such as video recorders and the machine-tool industry. For decades, China has
routinely pirated Western technology by reverse engineering Russian fighter jets, Ford F-150s, etc. (Huawei first became successful
by copying Cisco servers.) More recently, it has engaged in by large-scale hacking, e.g. copying the new F-35 fighter jet. It also
picks the brains of U.S. scientists in the high-paying Thousand Talents program, and asks Chinese scientists, tech workers and
students in the West to pass on what they learn. Chinese businessmen have even been caught digging up Iowa corn fields in order
to steal seeds. In 2019, the FBI reported that it has about 1,000 espionage cases, virtually of which lead back to China.
In addition, in order to do business in China, Western companies must share their technology. Once Chinese workers and managers
master the technology, the government helps them set up competing companies. For example, European and Japanese high-speed
train companies and American solar and wind power companies now must compete against their own technology, sold cheaper by
Chinese companies who dominate the world market. Westinghouse recently gave the Chinese tens of thousands of pages of
specifications of its nuclear power plants, and will no doubt face Chinese competition using that same technology.
Meanwhile, 90% of the software, DVDs and CDs sold in China are pirated, costing Hollywood, Microsoft and others billions of
dollars a year in lost sales. The Chinese government periodically engages in symbolic acts such as crushing illegal DVDs with

6.5.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51769
bulldozers, but the production of pirated technology and consumer goods continues, sometimes in factories owned by the
government.

This page titled 6.5: Mercantilist Trade Policy is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

6.5.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51769
6.6: Protectionism
National governments want to protect their companies and jobs from foreign competition. Protectionism takes many forms. The
simplest kind is tariffs, which are simply import taxes. For instance, South Korea charges 100% tariffs on imported cars. Japan
charges 700% duties on imported rice. Bush 2 imposed 30% tariffs on imported steel.
There are also a large variety of non-tariff barriers. One type is quotas on imports, as was done on Japanese cars entering the U.S.
in the 1980s. (The Japanese responded to the quotas by building car manufacturing plants in the U.S., which at least generates U.S.
jobs.) Another dispute was over cheap textile and clothing imports from China. Clothing manufacturers in Europe and the U.S.
demanded that quotas be reinstated on these goods. In fact, the Chinese imports were so cheap that even companies in the Global
South demanded that quotas be re-imposed.
There are also subtler barriers, some of which are very ingenious. French skis were once banned from Japan because ‘Japanese
snow is different.’ The French only allowed Japanese video recorders to be imported into the inland city of Tours, where Charles
Martel defeated the Huns in 741 AD. U.S. soybeans are subjected to special inspections in China which significantly raise their
cost. Fruits and vegetables from Thailand are delayed so long by Chinese inspections that they spoil. The Chinese government only
buys Chinese products and services, allows only 34 foreign films a year, and has banned foreign animated films to help protect the
local industry. So much for their commitment to free trade when they joined the WTO. Hollywood is trying to crack the Chinese
market by engaging in co-production deals with Chinese companies to evade the quota. (This means giving roles to Chinese actors,
avoiding ‘sensitive’ political subjects and toning down the sex scenes.) Meanwhile, the Chinese are buying U.S. theater chains,
movie studios and production companies, and are also building their own mega-studios.
Some countries give exporters subsidies, price supports, tax breaks, free infrastructure, and worker training programs. For
instance, the U.S. complained that the European aircraft company Airbus has an unfair advantage from cheap government loans.
Airbus countered that Boeing is subsidized by tax breaks from the State of Washington and U.S. defense contracts. (Both are
correct.) China gives exporting companies like solar cell companies government contracts, cheap loans and free land, buildings
and infrastructure. The U.S. shipbuilding industry cratered when Reagan stopped matching the subsidies given by Japan,
South Korea, Europe and China.
The Doha round of global trade talks deadlocked and died because countries in the Global South demanded that the U.S. and
European Union stop their farm subsidies, which encourage over-production, cause a glut on the world market and lower prices
for corn, wheat, cotton and other crops for farmers across the world. These countries have resisted allowing cheap U.S. farm
imports, saying this will hurt poor farmers. In Mexico after NAFTA, massive imports of cheap corn from high tech U.S. farms
ruined Mexican farmers and increased illegal immigration to the U.S. So far there has been little change on U.S. and EU farm
subsidies because the farm lobbies are so strong.
A humanitarian issue is drug patents. Patients in the poor countries of the Global South cannot afford $10-20,000 a year for AIDS
and other drugs. So, a thriving illegal copycat industry has developed in India, Thailand and Brazil to provide these and other
important drugs cheaply or for free. The western drug companies made some moves to license their drugs or allow them to be sold
cheaply in the poor countries. However, U.S. drug prices remain the highest in the world.

This page titled 6.6: Protectionism is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

6.6.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51770
6.7: World Finance - Bretton Woods and Today
International business involves money from more than one country. How to manage the exchange of these different currencies?
Under the 1944 Bretton Woods system set up by the U.S. and its allies, exchange rates between major currencies were fixed,
the currencies were backed by gold and the U.S. dollar was the global reserve currency. This was not sustainable as other
countries rose, increased exports to the U.S. and held more dollars, so in 1971 Nixon cut the dollar from gold, let it float and
imposed a 10% tariff.
Today, exchange rates constantly rise and fall in a $5 trillion/day money trading market; currencies are backed by the
credit of the issuing governments; and the dollar, Euro and Yen are all held as reserve currencies. (Check your wallet - the
currency is Federal Reserve Notes, i.e., backed by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.) In the Bretton Woods era, the national banks
could usually control exchange rates. However, today trading volume is so huge that the central banks can influence but cannot
control the flood of currency trading. For instance, Japan and China buy dollars to keep the price high and keep their currencies’
prices low, in order to make their exports cheaper.

This page titled 6.7: World Finance - Bretton Woods and Today is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Lawrence Meacham.

6.7.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51771
6.8: Economic Power
The size of the economy, productivity and technology (including research and development) are crucial.
As we said earlier, geography (size, ports, location, climate, etc.) and natural resources (especially energy and food production)
contribute to power. Location in terms of trade routes can also be a factor. Countries in the interior of continents are at a
disadvantage because land transportation costs are much higher. (It costs the same amount to send a container from New York
thousands of miles to the coast of Africa as it does to send the container 200 miles inland.)
The U.S. and Europe are blessed with many navigable rivers and good ports. This is important, since over 75% of goods are still
shipped by water because it is so much cheaper. Many of Russia’s ports are frozen during winter, which is why Russia has tried for
centuries to ensure access to the Mediterranean from its Black Sea ports. (However, global warming is now opening up the
Northern Passage through the Arctic.)
Domestic geography is also important. Most of China’s best land and therefore most of its population are concentrated within 200
miles of its coasts. Brazil’s tropical soils are leached by heavy rains, but its scientists learned how to add mineral nutrients, grow
export crops on former Amazon forest lands and become a world agricultural powerhouse. It is now challenging U.S. exports of
soybeans and other crops. (Some of your frozen orange juice may come from Brazil.)
Europe, Japan and China spend a lot of money on imported oil, while Russia has the advantage of large oil reserves, not to mention
large deposits of many other strategic minerals. China has lots of coal and exports 90% of the world’s so-called rare-earth metals,
which are important in high tech products. During a dispute with Japan, China cut off these exports. After one of Trump’s tariff
threats, Chinese President Xi Jin Ping conspicuously went on a tour of a Chinese rare earth processing plant. The warning was
clear.
Population also affects the economy. Population size, age structure (e.g. size of the work force) and education are important. China
has overcome the problem of feeding its 1.4 billion people, but faces problems of inequality and unemployment of millions of
university graduates, millions of workers laid off from privatized and closed state factories and tens of millions of off-season
farmers. India also now produces enough food for its 1.3 billion people, but still faces problems of widespread poverty, inequality,
education and jobs. In developing countries typically half the population is under 30, and they need education and jobs. On the
positive side, large low-wage populations mean a large production base for exports.
Japan, Russia and Europe face the opposite problem - declining populations, workforce shortages and growing numbers of seniors
to take care of. Japan is responding by trying to hire more seniors, increasing child care so that more women can work, and quietly
allowing more immigrant workers.
Developing a large middle class is also essential for economic prosperity, but many countries have large gaps between the rich
and poor. China’s and India’s middle classes are growing, which helps their economies, but much of the population in India is still
poor. Some African countries are also developing a middle class and growing their economies.
Economic policies also have a large effect. Ireland boomed because of a strong education system and investor-friendly tax policies.
South Korea boomed with government financing of industry, technology and entertainment. In contrast, the United States has let its
K-12 education system stagnate and its infrastructure slip, is running large budget deficits, does not have a systematic policy of
supporting exports, and burns twice as much fuel per unit of production as Europe or Japan.
Questions
1. What led to the increase in global trade in the 1600s-1800s?
2. Which two countries developed as competitors to Britain before WWI?
3. List two global economic events after the 1929 Crash.
4. Briefly outline three reasons for the unraveling of post-WWII U.S. economic dominance in the early 1970s. What was Nixon’s
response in 1971?
5. What is the balance of payments? What is the situation of the U.S. balance of payments? Why do foreign investors continue to
invest in the U.S.?
6. Briefly outline Liberal and Realist trade goals and policies.
7. Why do countries resist depending on imports?

6.8.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51772
8. Why has the Doha Round of trade talks stalled?
9. What is Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage? What do its critics say is are the comparative advantages today?
10. Briefly outline the three main features of the Bretton Woods system and compare it to today.
11. List three types of protectionism and give an example of each.
12. List three factors that influence economic power and give an example of each.

This page titled 6.8: Economic Power is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

6.8.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51772
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

7: The Global North and South

7.1: European Imperialism
7.2: Colonial Independence
7.3: Global North and South
7.4: Four Theories of Development
7.5: Alternative Economic Development Policies for the Poor
7.6: Foreign Policies of the Global South

This page titled 7: The Global North and South is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

1
7.1: European Imperialism
In college and university courses, the history of world civilization is divided into one course covering the 6,000 years before 1500
AD and another covering the 500 years since. The reason is that 1500 marks the period in which a part of the world that had
previously been backward and insignificant for 1,000 years began to gain an advantage in weapons and ships that made it ruler of
the world. This was Western Europe.
In 500 AD, when the Polynesians were traveling thousands of miles across the open seas using sophisticated double-hulled canoes
and a star navigation system, some Europeans were still painting themselves blue. When the Indians, Chinese, Native Americans
and Africans had cities 25 miles around with huge markets, wide boulevards and police forces, many Europeans were living in mud
and thatch huts. At that time, nine out of ten of the world’s largest cities were outside of Europe.
After the Roman Empire collapsed in the 5th century, it took twelve centuries for Europeans to regain that level of development.
They gained knowledge from the Arabs, including translations of the Greeks and Romans. Because of constant warfare, they
developed superior weapons. Soon they had muskets and cannons. Although Europeans didn’t know yet what most of the world
actually looked like, in 1494 the Pope divided it in half, giving the Western Hemisphere to Spain (which conquered and plundered
it of huge amounts of gold and silver), and giving Africa and Asia to Portugal, which moved out to find new trade routes. The
Portuguese first crept along coasts of Africa, trading in slaves and gold. Gradually they used the open seas to reach the Persian
Gulf, India, Indonesia and China, setting up trading ports. They made so much money trading in spices that if they survived the trip
(generally only 50% did), a captain could retire after one voyage. The Dutch, and later the British and French, came hot on their
heels.
They could conquer because their ships and weapons (cannons, muskets and later rifles and machine guns) were consistently
ahead of the weapons of Africa and Asia. At first the margin was small, but by the 1800's the scientific and industrial revolutions
had produced weapons of overwhelming power. In The River War, a young journalist named Winston Churchill wrote poetically
about gunboats and Maxim machine guns mowing down thousands of Sudanese during the 1898 Battle of Omdurman.
With these weapons, the Europeans conquered the world and developed theories of European cultural and biological superiority.
Some European colonists studied and appreciated local languages and culture, but the majority were ignorant and arrogant. One old
photo from India shows a British officer lounging in his underwear in a wicker chair. One servant fans him and another gives him a
pedicure. In 1930s Shanghai, a sign in the park in the French concession read, "No Chinese or Dogs Allowed."
Setting up colonies as their political strategy, Europeans followed the mercantilist theory of developing trade surpluses and
maximizing their holdings of gold and silver in order to increase national power. They did this by setting up monopoly trading
systems in which they bought cheap raw materials - spices, cocoa, coffee, jute, copper, tin, gold and silver - and sold
manufactured goods at high prices. In some countries, they took over the best land and began growing cash export crops. In
Indonesia, locals were required to grow only spices, so that they would be dependent on selling their crops cheaply and buying
their food from high-priced company stores (like miners, plantation workers and sharecroppers in the U.S.).
The colonial powers also trained a small number of people (often local minorities or immigrants from other countries) in the
European language, government procedures and business, in order to help run things. Ironically, it was often from the ranks of
these co-opted educated locals that revolutionaries later sprang, demanding the rights that they had learned from western schools
and universities.
By the late 1800's, virtually all of Asia, Africa and the Middle East were controlled by the European empires. In the elegant rooms
housing the Berlin Conferences, European countries divided Africa among themselves. The Americans, Germans and Japanese also
joined the imperialist game. Japan took Taiwan and Korea. Germany took Namibia, Tanzania, Cameroon, part of New Guinea and
other Pacific islands, while trying to expand its influence in Latin America. Attacking a weakened Spain in the 1898 Spanish-
American War, the U.S. took control of Cuba, and took Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines outright (after a 2-year war to defeat
the Philippine independence movement). The U.S. also took Hawaii (in spite of a petition from a majority of the population asking
to restore the monarchy) and half of Samoa (without bothering to consult the Samoans). All provided ports for the newly-
constructed U.S. Navy.
Marx, Lenin and Hobson explained all this as the result of competition among capitalist countries for markets, raw materials and
investment opportunities. Wallerstein has added the factor of cheap labor in the ‘peripheral’ countries (such as Nike’s Indonesian
and Levi’s Chinese sweatshops) being exploited by multinational corporations from the rich, hi-tech ‘core’ countries. Capitalist

7.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51774
theorists more or less agree with the critics on how things work, but praise the system’s productivity and material progress. They
also say that workers in poor countries are grateful for even low-paying jobs.
The results of the imperialist era can be seen even today. Besides artificial borders that cause conflicts by dividing tribes into
different countries and lumping traditional enemies together in the same country, the economies of many of the former
colonies are still dominated by colonial exports and hobbled by export-oriented infrastructure. Sugar in Cuba, copper in
Chile, coffee in Kenya, cocoa in Ghana - these commodities continue to fall in price relative to the cost of imported manufactured
goods and solidify the poverty of the Global South. (Ghana’s Kwame Nkruma asked, “How many tons of cocoa does it take to buy
a tractor?” Answer - more each year.) The transportation systems and other infrastructure in these countries ran to the coastal ports
to facilitate exports. Before the recent rise of local airlines, a trip to a neighboring country often required first traveling to a former
colonial transportation hub. In the days before cell phones, calls to neighboring countries had to be routed through Paris or London.
Today, in some countries much of the best land is still owned by whites. In addition, the local leadership trained by the colonial
powers has been corrupt and repressive.

This page titled 7.1: European Imperialism is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

7.1.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51774
7.2: Colonial Independence
The British colonies in North America became independent in the late 1700's. So did the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in Latin
America in the early 1800's. Then the Europeans destroyed each other during WWI (1914-18) and WWII (1939-45). In WWII,
Asians learned that they were not biologically inferior when they saw Japanese soldiers guarding long columns of bedraggled
European prisoners of war who had until recently ruled as colonial masters. From the 1940's through the 1970s, dozens of Asian
and African colonies fought for or peacefully received their political independence. But often their economies are still dependent
on the former ‘mother’ countries in what has been called neo-imperialism or neo-colonialism, and their politics are often controlled
by crooked westernized elites.

This page titled 7.2: Colonial Independence is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

7.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51775
7.3: Global North and South
Global North and South Today – 3x, 4%, 6x.
Today, compared to the North, the South has three times the land area, only 4% of the average income and six times the population,
(“3x, 4%, 6x”), much lower life expectancy (especially for women), less clean water, less good housing, fewer roads and lower
literacy rates (again, especially for women). Depending on how you define it, about one quarter of the world lives in extreme
poverty, with no clean water and not enough food. Poverty is made worse by population increases, and virtually all of the world’s
future population growth will occur in the Global South. There are also severe health problems with TB, malaria, AIDS, hepatitis,
dengue fever and increased smoking.
Some Newly Industrializing Countries (NICs) have closed the gap. First was Japan, then Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and South
Korea. Now Brazil, India and China and are rising (the so-called BRIC countries), although many of their people are still poor.
Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Turkey and Mexico are also rising.
Some Eastern European countries such as Estonia with good technical education systems are using their computer skills to move
up. India’s tech sector and middle class are growing thanks to the effect of universities such as the India Institutes of Technology. A
few countries are temporarily living large on oil money. However, there is a group of countries falling farther and farther behind –
in Africa and the Middle East, Southwest Asia, the Andean countries and Central America. Some are ‘failed states,’ where the
governments do not operate effectively.
There has been serious worldwide progress in decreasing extreme poverty and meeting basic human needs, but there is a long way
to go. The Human Development Index measures access to food, water, clothing, shelter, life expectancy, education, health care,
employment and human rights. Many countries in the Global South are low on the Human Development Index, with large numbers
of people in deep poverty – lacking food, clothing and shelter.
The photo book Material World shows the world’s huge disparities in wealth by displaying the few family goods of African
villagers and large yards filled with the possessions of Americans.

This page titled 7.3: Global North and South is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

7.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51776
7.4: Four Theories of Development
Modernization theorists like Rostow basically recommend capitalist industrial and technological development and believe that the
benefits will trickle down to the poor. The problem is that most people stay poor under this system.
In contrast, Dependency Theory and World Systems Theory writers like Wallerstein criticize the increasing North-South gap,
which comes from the ‘core countries’ in the North exploiting cheap natural resources and cheap labor in the ‘peripheral countries’
in the South.
Trade figures show that the rich countries do indeed export a lot of high-value items like manufactured goods and chemicals, while
importing energy (oil, gas and coal), agricultural products, minerals, and textiles (made with cheap labor). In contrast, poor
countries mostly export cheap raw materials (crops, minerals and energy) and textiles, falling farther and farther behind
(confirming Nkruma’s observation that it takes more and more tons of cocoa to buy a tractor). Oil exporting countries make money,
but it rarely trickles down to the people – look at Nigeria or Angola.
Neoliberalism (also known as the Washington Consensus), which has been pushed by the World Bank and the IMF for the last 40
years, says that lack of economic development arises from excessive government intervention in the economy. So, they recommend
deregulation, privatization and unrestricted foreign investment, free trade and unlimited currency exchange. Some of the
countries following this path experienced growth, but most of the benefits went to elites and western corporations. In addition,
increased imports and privatizations often resulted in more unemployment. Overall, most poor countries, e.g. in Africa and Latin
America, experienced slower growth and continued poverty under Washington Consensus policies.
An extreme example: After the end of the Cold War, Russia took the advice of neoliberal western economists to privatize quickly.
(A so-called Big Bang.). The result was that Russia defaulted on its loans and its money became worthless. Well-connected
businessmen, bureaucrats and party officials bought huge state companies cheaply, often with government bank loans, looted the
assets, fired workers and terminated their pensions. The result was a 40% drop in overall production and a big increase in poverty
and crime.
Mercantilism. Critics of neoliberal theory point out that all the countries that developed successfully, including Britain and the
U.S. in their early stages, and Japan, South Korea and China, followed a mercantilist policy, which is the opposite of the
Washington Consensus. For instance, for decades Britain only allowed imports via British ships. Under this policy of economic
nationalism, governments increase exports with subsidies and low currency exchange rates, set up tariffs and other barriers to
protect their domestic industries from imports, use large-scale government intervention (cheap loans, free land and infrastructure,
government contracts) to nurture new industries, and control foreign trade and currency exchange. All this enables a country to
build up trade surpluses and foreign exchange reserves. The money can then be used to build infrastructure, upgrade education, and
do research and development to improve the economy, in order to climb the export ladder from textiles to light manufactured goods
to consumer electronics to heavy manufacturing, cars, computer chips and software.
Historically, this is the strategy that has worked, although the western countries still try to convince the rising countries to
engage in privatization, free trade, foreign investment and other Washington Consensus policies which will benefit western
corporations, banks and their investors.

This page titled 7.4: Four Theories of Development is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

7.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51777
7.5: Alternative Economic Development Policies for the Poor
Many international top-down programs are not effective. One example of what not to do: In 2007, the U.S. Agency for
International Development admitted to Congress that 95% of its budget to fight malaria had gone for consultants and overhead.
Many government programs are wasteful and corrupt, but some are effective. In Malawi, the government disregarded Washington
Consensus policies against subsidies and gave one bag each of free fertilizer to small farmers, increasing agricultural production.
In Brazil, the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) plan gives cash to poor families if their children attend school and get vaccinations
and regular health checkups. Based on the earlier Mexican Oportunidades program, it has successfully cut poverty, improved the
education levels of the country and been copied in many other countries. Meanwhile, in India the Aadhar program of biometric
identification and ID cards has simplified giving help to the poor and cut out corrupt middlemen.
Other programs defy the conventional wisdom of using large-scale top-down foreign aid dispensed through governments. One
bottom-up is a program of micro-loans to the poor, most notably by the Grameen Bank in Bangla Desh. The idea is to lend small
sums, typically less than $100, to individuals to start small businesses. Most of the loans go to women, who will spend the money
to grow the business in order to send their children to school, rather than men, who may buy new motorcycles or drinks for their
friends. The borrowers must develop business plans and are organized into groups of five for mutual support and repayment of the
loans. Micro-loans have been successful, with high repayment rates and many women starting with small food stalls or single
sewing machines and developing them into successful businesses. Micro-loan programs have now spread to dozens of countries.
There is a lot of potential entrepreneurship out there. For instance, in villages without electricity some women sell minutes on cell
phones charged with car batteries, which they recharge during weekly trips to bigger towns.
Another type of program exemplified by the NGO Oxfam works with villagers to provide more clean-burning and efficient
stoves and cheap leg-powered irrigation pumps, drip irrigation and other equipment for farmers. These alternative technology
and grass roots development programs are effective because they circumvent the usual corruption, high expenses and high
overheads of government agencies, international organizations and large corporations.

This page titled 7.5: Alternative Economic Development Policies for the Poor is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored,
remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

7.5.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51778
7.6: Foreign Policies of the Global South
One way the Global South responded to the Cold War was the Non Aligned Movement (led by India, Indonesia, Yugoslavia and
others), which sought to find a third way between the U.S. and the USSR. But the NAM never had much effect on the policies of
the North.
In economics, the South first tried to reduce the cost of imports by producing the same goods at home (import substitution). This
only worked to a limited extent. More recently and successfully, some tried mercantilist policies, especially by exporting goods to
the North. The Asian NICs (China, Korea, Taiwan, etc.) continue to succeed at this. More recently, India, Ireland and Estonia have
prospered with software development and other high-tech services. This supports Friedman’s The World Is Flat theory that today’s
comparative advantages are technology, education and government policy, which can be developed anywhere.
The poor countries also call for more aid and trade, but much economic ‘aid’ to the Global South is in the form of loans, which the
poor countries have difficulty in repaying. In fact, many of the South’s problems today come from huge unaffordable loan
payments. Calls by U2 star Bono and other advocates to write off these debts rarely succeeded, and then only in reward for military
and diplomatic support (e.g. for Egypt’s treaty with Israel and Pakistan’s support for the U.S. fight against Al Qaeda). Instead, the
IMF and World Bank usually call for restructuring the loans, with onerous conditions. Recently, debts to China from its Belt and
Road Initiative projects are also increasing.
Questions
1. What advantages allowed Europeans to conquer the Global South?
2. What political and economic/trade policies did they follow and what is the result today?
3. What happened in the Global South starting in the 1950s?
4. Compare the Global North and South today.
5. Outline the four theories of economic development.
6. Historically, which policy has been successful?
7. Briefly outline the problems with Washington Consensus policies.
8. Briefly outline three alternative economic development programs for the poor.

This page titled 7.6: Foreign Policies of the Global South is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Lawrence Meacham.

7.6.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51779
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

8: Globalization
8.1: Information and Media
8.2: Sales, Labor and Production
8.3: Investment and Finance
8.4: Disease and Pollution
8.5: Theories of Globalization

This page titled 8: Globalization is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

1
8.1: Information and Media
There is globalization of information and media. When a celebrity having sex, a dog riding a skateboard, an Islamic State
beheading, or a Taiwanese animated cartoon of the latest scandal goes on the Internet, everyone watches. ‘Primitive’ people in
traditional villages use cell phones to make international calls to their overseas relatives. Email to Russia takes a few minutes,
regular mail can take a few months. Silicon Valley software engineers email their work to India for continued work while they
sleep and take up the next day where India has left off. Spotify and Netflix personalize your global media consumption based on
your preferences. Satellite radio includes foreign programming in its 100+ channels. Global YouTube stars like the Kardashians
parlay their fame into serious money and careers. (The company that Kylie spun off in 2016 is now worth a billion dollars.)
Pharrell Williams’ Happy inspired dozens of YouTube videos from all over the world. (However, the people who did the video in
Iran were thrown in jail.) Since 2016, the Chinese video app Tik Tok has taken the U.S. by storm.
Although U.S. media still dominate the world, with American movies and TV shows dubbed into many languages, Al Jazeera and
other Arab satellite networks dominate news in the Middle East, Japanese, Korean and Iranian films win international prizes, and
TV dramas from South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey and Egypt are shown all over the world. Bollywood in India and Nollywood
in Nigeria churn out hundreds of films a year. When a South Korean TV heart throb appeared at the Honolulu International Film
Festival for his movie debut, your author was almost trampled by female fans of all ages.
At its peak, ISIS had a highly professional media production center that could produce a new internet video in 24 hours, and
pumped out over 30 flashy new videos per DAY that put Al Qaeda’s boring lectures to shame. Local rappers around the world post
their videos online to boost their profiles. Tens of thousands of commentators post blogs and podcasts. Al Jazeera and CNN
documented and boosted the Arab Spring revolutions that started in 2010 in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria, while Facebook and
Twitter helped organize them. The 2011 London Riots were coordinated via Blackberry, which is still popular in Europe. In
Chicago, gangs taunt each other and arrange confrontations via Twitter and Instagram. Donald Trump built his campaign and
presidency with constant messages on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook to his millions of followers.
There is a considerable Digital Divide. Most of the information generation and consumption occurs in the Global North, the Newly
Industrialized Countries (China and India each have more internet users than any Western country) and among the young and well-
off in the Global South. However, there are now six billion cell phones in the world, and many people use them as their primary
access to the Internet. In fact, to many people Facebook or WhatsApp on their phones IS the Internet.
In Kenya and some other African countries, people make up for the lack of banking systems and credit cards for the poor by using
the Mpesa app on their smart phones to pay bills, shop in stores and take taxis, thereby leapfrogging over banks, checks and credit
cards. Bangla Desh uses a similar system. Internet sales on Jumia, ‘the African Amazon,’ jumped 58% in one quarter in 2019.
Overseas workers all over the world use their cell phones to transfer money home much more cheaply than Western Union or other
services.
On the dark side, there has been a flood of fake election news and political, ethnic and religious trolling in dozens of countries, with
Facebook and WhatsApp campaigns inspiring riots, lynchings and genocide in India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Myanmar. In
addition, at least 70 governments use Israeli, Italian, Chinese and U.S. software and equipment for surveillance, facial recognition
and targeting dissidents, and hire trolls to support the government and attack critics. In the Philippines, it is considered mandatory
to employ a troll farm for your election campaign. The elections of Duterte in the Philippines, Modi in India and Bolsonaro in
Brazil were preceded by a online flood of fake news supporting the candidates and trashing their opponents.

This page titled 8.1: Information and Media is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

8.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51780
8.2: Sales, Labor and Production
Then there is the globalization of sales, labor and production. Top MNC’s, including KFC, MacDonald’s and Subway, make over
half their sales overseas. When you call a technical support number, you get someone in India or the Philippines. U.S. hospitals
email X-rays to India for diagnosis. Medical bills are emailed for processing in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Indian IT guys are 15%
of Silicon Valley’s tech workers and account for some of its biggest startups. Two million Filipino immigrants work in health care
and other jobs in the U.S. And millions of illegal migrants from poor countries pay thousands of dollars to human traffickers to
work in the underground economy in rich countries.
“American” cars have up to 35% foreign-made parts. Nokia phones and servers come from Finland. Computers are made with parts
from many countries. China, Taiwan and Singapore export millions of computer chips. There are thousands of MNCs
(Multinational Corporations) doing business in hundreds of thousands of locations. MNCs design products in some countries, buy
or manufacture parts in other countries, send them to different countries for assembly and then ship them to yet other countries for
sale.

This page titled 8.2: Sales, Labor and Production is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

8.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51781
8.3: Investment and Finance
There is also globalization of investment and finance. International currency trading has reached $5 trillion a day, reducing the
power of the central banks of the large nation-states. Investors routinely buy foreign financial investments, so that when the U.S.
mortgage market and Wall Street crashed in 2008, banks, local governments and other investors all over the world suddenly found
themselves losing 50% or more on toxic American paper. The Euro’s problems and China’s stock market downturn caused drops in
markets all over the world. China, the world’s biggest pork producer and consumer (it is the only country with a strategic reserve of
frozen pork), bought Smithfield, America’s largest pork producer. Movie deals depend on financing from pre-sales in many
countries. Hollywood co-produces films with Chinese companies (and accepts Chinese Communist Party ’suggestions’ on content)
to gain access the Chinese market, the largest in the world. Nigerian con artists contact U.S. prospects by email. Japanese money
finances Korean competitors of Japanese companies. The billions of dollars that immigrants send to their home countries to help
their families is far more than all government foreign aid combined. In some countries, this is the largest industry.

This page titled 8.3: Investment and Finance is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

8.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51782
8.4: Disease and Pollution
Not to mention the globalization of disease and pollution. With cheap, easy travel and trade, diseases spread quickly. The 2020
Coronavirus travelled from Wuhan all over the world in just a few months. (Also see the app Plague Inc. and the movies Rise of
Planet of the Apes, 12 Monkeys, and Contagion.) Laurie Garrett’s 1995 The Coming Plague described how a man kept coughing on
a flight from Moscow to New York. It turned out he had drug-resistant TB and that he infected 13 other people on the plane. Since
then, Zika spread through the Americas from Brazil. Ebola spread from West Africa. MERS is spreading from the Middle East.
Bird flus spread worldwide from China. Most U.S. states now have West Nile virus. Meanwhile, pollution from China blows across
the Pacific Ocean to the U.S., acid rain from the U.S. and Germany ends up in Canada and Scandinavia, pollution from American
factories in Mexico ends up in the U.S. water supply, and rich countries export toxic waste to poor countries.

This page titled 8.4: Disease and Pollution is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

8.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51783
8.5: Theories of Globalization
Since the end of the Cold War, there have been fierce debates about the direction of world politics and the world economy.
Globalists focus on numerous integrative organizations such as the UN, WTO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund. NAFTA,
NATO and the EU, global MNC activities, the rise of tens of thousands of NGOs and increased cross-cultural influences. However,
Barber’s Jihad vs. MacWorld and Friedman’s Lexus and the Olive Tree point out that there is also a counter tendency for traditional
cultures to resist the homogenizing effects of globalization and to preserve local power, customs and lifestyles. Traditional local
bosses have re-emerged in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and many other countries and affirmations of local culture are everywhere.
There is plenty of evidence for both tendencies. Countering all the integration is the fact that 53 of the 56 wars between 1990 and
2000 were civil wars, with local populations in Sudan, Yugoslavia, Chechnya and other regions trying to separate from central
governments. This is not to mention Britain leaving the European Union and many other peaceful movements for local autonomy,
such as in Quebec, Scotland, Wales, Catalonia and Northern Italy.
As for global vs. local culture, many Iranians exchange text messages on the Internet, watch forbidden cable TV shows produced
by the Iranian community in the U.S., and wear sexy western fashions at private parties. However, the Iranian government does its
their best to resist these outside influences, with government thugs harassing couples who hold hands, women whose scarves show
too much hair, or young people with ‘decadent’ clothing or hairstyles. Indian MTV has rap music and sexy dancing, while militant
Hindus enforce traditional culture by threatening people who celebrate Valentine’s Day and killing people accused of eating beef.
In Pakistan, the government has sophisticated nuclear weapons, while mobs kill people accused of insulting the Koran. The second
and third generations of immigrants in many countries are torn between the culture of their ‘native’ land and the culture where they
grew up. Some immigrant children start high-tech companies. Others adopt militant Islam and carry out suicide attacks. Sometimes
a blend is achieved. Many marriages are now semi-arranged, with both parents and children having input.
Thomas Friedman's book The World is Flat looks at how globalization is now being driven by technology, education and
government policy (in contrast to Ricardo's theory of Comparative Advantage, which emphasized climate, natural resources,
capital and labor). Furthermore, Friedman points out that the increased importance of these new factors means that any country,
most recently China and India, can develop very rapidly and pose challenges to the West. Indian and Chinese engineers and
computer scientists not only work cheaper - many have equal or superior skills to their Western counterparts. Microsoft’s software
development office in Beijing has filed more patents than any other part of the company.
Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations says that the world’s different civilizations (eight or nine of them, depending on the
analysis) have basic differences in values, and thus will always be in conflict. Critics point out that there has been just as much
conflict within Huntington’s civilizations (e.g. WWI and WWII in Europe, Sunnis vs. Shiites in the Muslim world) as between
them, and that ‘different’ civilizations such as Confucianism and Christianity also share many values such as hard work, thrift and
family.
In The End of History and the New Man, Francis Fukuyama claimed that the post-Cold War era of globalized capitalism and
prosperity would also inevitably bring democracy, improving the political and economic life of the people it touches.
“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but
the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal
democracy as the final form of human government."
It hasn’t exactly worked out that way. New dictators rose and communist leaders reinvented themselves as nationalists and stayed
in power. Strongmen were elected in Turkey, Poland, Hungary, the Philippines and Brazil. Elections installed radical Islamic
governments in Egypt and Gaza and dictators like Venezuela’s Chavez and Russia’s Putin.
After being elected, Putin took over the media, set new election rules to exclude opponents, made regional governors appointed
instead of elected, and took over most of the large corporations in the Russian economy, not to mention arresting and killing
opponents. So much for the inevitability of free market capitalism and democracy.
Similarly, in 1913 the Chinese government’s Document Number 9 explicitly rejected Constitutional rights, the rule of law, free
elections, the free press, free speech and other civil liberties. Since 2013, Xi Jin Ping has jailed critics and their lawyers, closed or
taken over the media, increased censorship, required study of Communist ideology and increased support for government-owned
corporations. Not very democratic in spite of some capitalism.

8.5.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51784
In The Coming Chaos, Robert Kaplan is pessimistic on both politics and economics. Like Friedman, he sees part of the world as
globalizing and modernizing, but he points out that much of Africa, the Middle East, South and Southwest Asia, the Andean
nations and Central America remain poor, violent, corrupt and misgoverned. There are so-called failed states, where the
government is corrupt and ineffective. In Somalia, the so-called government only controls a few square blocks of the capitol city of
Mogadishu, a multi-sided civil war rages in the rest of the country, and piracy operates openly from its coastal cities. In
Afghanistan, former President Hamid Karzai had so little power outside the capitol that he was referred to as the Mayor of Kabul,
and Taliban violence and massive corruption at all levels of government continue today. Unfortunately, there are many other
examples.
In the age of modern travel and communications, it is easy for violence from these areas to spill over into the successfully
globalized part of the world. In The Pentagon’s New Map, military theorist Richard Barnett acknowledges the split and sees the
U.S. role as helping to stabilize and integrate these areas by giving them military assistance.
Questions
1. Briefly outline three types of globalization and give an example of each.
2. Briefly outline the globalization theories in The World Is Flat, The End of History, The Clash of Civilizations and The Coming
Chaos. What is your opinion?

This page titled 8.5: Theories of Globalization is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

8.5.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51784
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

9: War and International Security

9.1: Individual, National and System Causes
9.2: Less War, Irregular and Asymmetric War
9.3: History of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State

This page titled 9: War and International Security is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

1
9.1: Individual, National and System Causes
“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” Leon Trotsky
Causes of War
Thousands of books have been written on war. We cannot do justice to the subject in this brief discussion, but we will outline some
classic arguments.
Individual Factors
One school of thought sees war as part of human nature. In this view, man is by nature aggressive and territorial, and this
inevitably leads to war. However, Steven Pinker’s 2011 The Better Angels of Our Nature argues that the evidence shows that war
and violence have been steadily decreasing over the millennia, through a combination of changed culture and morality plus wider
understanding that war is not cost-effective.
Another cause of war is aggressive leaders (e.g., Hitler). Some may have aggressive personalities, believe in their personal destiny
or some ideology, or hate another country or group.
In addition, even ‘normal’ leaders can start wars through problems such as groupthink, misperceptions, selective screening of
information, wishful thinking and self-justification.
For instance, neither the Johnson administration going into Vietnam nor the Bush administration going into Iraq rationally
calculated the results of American intervention. Both made their decisions only within a small group, not listening to those who
disagreed with them (groupthink). They only paid attention to the information that agreed with their opinions (cognitive
consistency or confirmation bias). Interestingly, documents and interviews show that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was even
more out of touch with reality. No one dared tell him any bad news, and he thought things were going well until American forces
entered Baghdad. ‘Baghdad Bob,’ the official Iraqi government spokesman, gave the media wildly inaccurate and optimistic
accounts of the war right up until the moment he was captured by the Americans.
Misperceptions abound. The Bush 2 administration built up Saddam Hussein and his WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) as a
big threat, when in reality he was contained and had no WMDs. Osama Bin Laden believed that America was too cowardly to
respond to the 9/11 attacks. The Japanese thought the Pearl Harbor attack would knock America out of the war.
The Bushies also believed that the Iraqi people would welcome them as liberators and that Iraq’s oil would pay for the war (more
wishful thinking). Argentina’s leaders thought that Britain would not respond to the invasion of the Falkland Islands. German
leaders believed they could win a two-front war in WWI and WWII.
Later, the Bushies said the Iraq war was necessary to remove an evil dictator (self-justification). Leaders in Germany and Japan in
WWII claimed that they were entitled to more land, more natural resources and a more powerful role in world politics because of
their natural superiority and past injuries from other countries after WWI. Today, China continually justifies its aggressive behavior
by referring to its Century of Humiliation in the 1800s and 1900s at the hands of the West and Japan.
National Factors
Even the most aggressive leaders cannot wage war by themselves. Wars are carried out by large organizations such as empires,
nation-states or political, nationalist and religious movements, often competing for territory, resources and markets. Plunder was
considered a legitimate motivation in earlier times, and many colonial wars from 1500 to 1900 were openly fought over natural
resources and markets. The recent civil wars in West Africa have been characterized as resource wars, with control of diamonds
and minerals like coltan (used in cell phones and other electronics) as a motivation. Similarly, the U.S. was accused of invading
Iraq to get its oil, and ISIS made money from controlling oil wells in Iraq and Syria, in addition to extorting taxes, looting banks
and kidnapping Europeans for ransom.
In the modern era, nationalist competition in territorial, strategic, economic and ideological spheres has justified many wars,
whether by capitalist or communist countries. Germany and Japan in WWII, the US vs. the USSR in the Cold War and India vs.
Pakistan today are examples. (The civil wars so common today are a clash of two or more competing nationalisms held by different
political, ethnic or religious groups within the same country.)
A democratic system of government may decrease war, because of the need for leaders to maintain public support and because of
the reluctance of the public to get killed. So, it is rare for two democracies to go to war. In contrast, a dictator like Saddam Hussein
could force the people and country to go to war.

9.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51785
The most common conflict between nation-states is over territory. Today, borders in most areas are settled, but there are still many
disputes over sovereignty and territory. Perennial territorial flash points are China vs. Taiwan; Israel vs. Palestine, North vs.
South Korea and India vs. Pakistan (over Kashmir).
There are other border disputes- China vs. India, Israel vs. Syria, Ecuador vs. Peru, Bolivia vs. Chile, etc. There are disputes over
various islands- Japan vs. China vs. Korea vs. Russia; Greece vs. Turkey. Six countries claim the Spratleys in the South China Sea
because of their strategic location, fishing and possible oil and gas resources there.
Economic conflicts
Marxists see war as the conflict of capitalist countries over resources and markets. However, Marxist regimes have also instituted
nationalist wars, such as in the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the Russian invasions of Finland, Hungary, Poland and
Czechoslovakia. There have also been conflicts between Communist states - Russia vs. China and China vs. Vietnam.
Leaders may use war as a distraction from economic hardship - when people are angry about the enemy, they complain less about
the economy and the government. Argentina’s leaders tried this when they invaded the Falkland Islands, but they were defeated by
Britain and turned out of office.
Despite the Law of the Sea treaty (UNCLOS - the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), there are many disputes over territorial
waters. Because of competition for oil, fish and caviar in the Caspian Sea between Russia and other countries, there are different
interpretations over who controls which areas. (Is the Caspian a sea or a lake? Different rules and boundaries apply.)
China claims 90% of the South China Sea, disregarding the Law of the Sea and a 2016 international tribunal ruling that reaffirmed
its neighbors’ rights to their 200-mile EEZs (Exclusive Economic Zones). Chinese ships harass U.S. and other ships and Chinese
planes have repeatedly buzzed U.S. spy planes flying over international waters, once causing a collision which forced the plane to
land. China has used dredges to build up seven islands in order to install buildings, ports, airstrips and missiles, and has tested anti-
ship missiles. In 2014, they sent an oil exploration rig into Vietnamese waters, causing major riots in Vietnam. They send illegal
fishing boats equipped with radios to call for help if they encounter difficulties. China and the Philippines have had several
confrontations over fishing near islands claimed by both countries, including one that is within the Philippines’ 200 mile EEZ and
800 miles from China. In 2019, a large Chinese fishing boat rammed and sank a smaller Filipino boat, leaving the fishermen in the
water to be rescued by a Vietnamese ship.
The tiny island nations of the South Pacific have legal rights to large areas of ocean under the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones
surrounding them as specified in the Law of the Sea treaty, but for years ships from other powers refused to pay them licensing fees
for fishing rights. After some boats were seized, agreements were eventually reached. In Indonesia, the government has seized and
burned hundreds of illegal fishing boats from China and other countries. Chinese fishing boats have also repeatedly been caught
fishing illegally in African and Latin American waters, and one was even sunk when it tried to ram an Argentine navy ship.
There are also potential conflicts over the rights to water in multinational rivers. The Tigris, Euphrates, Jordon, Ganges, Mekong
and other rivers run through different countries. The Danube flows through or forms the border of ten countries and its drainage
basin includes ten others. What happens when one country spills toxic waste into the river and it flows downstream into other
countries?
The U.S. and Mexico have had disputes over the Rio Grande, which is so overused that it sometimes runs dry and does not reach
the sea. The U.S. and Canada had a dispute during the flooding of the Red River, which flows north into Lake Winnipeg.
Turkey has built dams on the upper reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates, which flow through Syria, Iran and Iraq. China has already
severely lowered water levels and the flow of nutrient-rich silt in rivers and lakes in Southeast Asia by building dams on the upper
reaches of the Mekong inside China, and is building many more inside Laos. It has also built hydroelectric dams inside China on
the upper reaches of India’s Ganges and Brahmaputra Rivers. India has warned China not to build containment dams that would
reduce the flow of the Brahmaputra. Ethiopia has built a dam on the upper reaches of the Nile and is unhappy with the colonial-era
treaty that gives 75% of the Nile’s water to Egypt. Someday we may see water wars. (There is a terrific novel on this: Water Knife.)
Ethnic and Religious Conflicts
Recently, we have seen the re-emergence of ethnic and religious conflicts previously suppressed by the two superpowers during the
Cold War. The Communist dictator Tito clamped down on ethnic nationalism in Yugoslavia, seeing it as a primitive vestige of an
earlier age. However, once he died and the Cold War ended, communist officials made themselves over as ethnic nationalists in
order to stay in power. In spite of decades of peace and intermarriage between various ethnic groups, Greek Orthodox Serbs,

9.1.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51785
Roman Catholic Croatians, Muslim Bosniaks and others broke up into seven different countries, with the Serbs leading the violence
in wars, ‘ethnic cleansing’ (forcing people of particular groups out of an area), mass rape and genocide.
Things often get nasty in separatist, ethnic or religious conflicts. The U.S. Civil War had more casualties that any other war in
American history. The separatist wars in the Russian province of Chechya were brutal. In Sri Lanka, Tamil immigrants, who are
mostly Hindus and a long-oppressed underclass, formed a separatist movement in the 1970s against the majority Buddhist
Sinhalese, igniting a long, vicious civil war that ended with a massacre of 40,000 Tamil fighters and civilians alike in 2009.
Continued discrimination again Tamils has resulted in radical Muslims carrying out terrorist attacks and Sinhalese retaliation
against Muslims.
Hindus kill Muslims and Sikhs in India. Sunni and Shia Muslims kill each other in Iraq. Christian Armenia invaded and took over
an Armenian enclave in Muslim Azerbaijan. The Kurds, divided among four countries, were repressed by and fought the Iraqi,
Syrian and Turkish governments. Sudan’s Muslim Arab North violently oppressed its black Christian and animist South for
decades, costing two million lives and resulting in the formation of the country of South Sudan. Then the leaders of the Dinka and
Nuer tribes within South Sudan began fighting each other. Besides a history of tribal conflicts, Nigeria’s Muslim North and
Christian South have had riots and bombings, while the radical Muslim group Boko Haram has kidnapped hundreds of girls and
killed 60,000 people in the Northeast. Algeria had a civil war between the government and Islamist radicals costing over 100,000
lives. In Afghanistan, after pushing out the Russians with U.S. help, several different ethnic and religious factions battled for ten
years. Radical Salafi Muslims in various countries have fought for the formation of a huge Islamic ‘Caliphate’ to reach from Spain
to the Philippines and from Central Asia to Central Africa. There are dozens of other such conflicts.
System Factors
There is a brisk argument over whether more wars come from having one dominant power or having several competing powers.
Competing alliances in a Balance of Power system may go to war when any of their allies get involved in a conflict and pull
them in. For instance, one reason WWI happened was that the conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary dragged in their
respective allies. Similarly, in WWII Germany joined its ally Japan in war against the U.S. after the Pearl Harbor attack. (Big
mistake.)
However, wars can also arise when there is Hegemonic Stability, when one dominant country has a preponderance of power.
There may be a rising country or alliance trying to knock off the top dog, or the top dog may start wars to its own
advantage.
During multipolar periods such as Europe from 1600-1800, there were constantly shifting alliances and constant wars. However,
wars also occur during periods of hegemonic power, e.g. in the 1800s, when Great Britain dominated the seas with its large navy,
dominated the world economy with its highly developed industrial technology, financial markets and investments, and had by far
the largest colonial empire. In this period, Britain averaged a war per year, mostly regarding colonies in the Global South. Then,
from the late 1800s, the rise of Germany was a challenge to Britain that eventually led to WWI and WWII. During the bipolar
Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR superpowers avoided direct conflict, but there were many proxy wars.
It seems there are wars regardless of system configuration. However, all the schools agree that conflict often occurs when the
system configuration changes, i.e. when strong powers become weak or especially when new powers rise. Some analysts claim
that there is a 100-year cycle of hegemonic powers rising and falling. When Germany was rising in the late 1800s and early 1900s,
it led to WWI and WWII. (In contrast, Britain and the rising U.S. managed to remain on relatively good terms.) In his 2017
Destined for War, Graham Allison found that throughout history the rise of a new power results in war about 70% of the time.
Today, the relative decline of Russian power and the rise of Chinese economic and military power both have the potential for
conflict. Declining powers like Russia have a history of lashing out (as Russia has in Georgia and Ukraine). And although China
previously proclaimed its intention to achieve a ‘peaceful rise,’ skeptics point out that it has been building up its military, setting up
bases around the Indian Ocean in Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Djibouti, and building bases and taking aggressive action in
the South China Sea. In response, Japan has begun to rearm; the U.S., Australia, Japan and India have formed an informal alliance
(the Quad); other countries in Asia are nervously asking the U.S. to stick around; and the official U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review
terms China a “strategic competitor.”
Overall, it seems that a combination of rising powers and other system changes, competition among nations or other large scale
organizations, and aggressive, sometimes mistaken leadership are the usual causes of war in the modern age.

9.1.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51785
This page titled 9.1: Individual, National and System Causes is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Lawrence Meacham.

9.1.4 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51785
9.2: Less War, Irregular and Asymmetric War
As nation states and technology developed, war became more frequent and more bloody, culminating in the gory 20th century.
However, since then wars between nation-states, especially among the major powers, have decreased. The first reason for
fewer wars is that WWI and WWII cost way more than any benefits they produced – showing everyone that wars are simply not
cost-effective. Similarly, the result of all the death and destruction of the Korean War and the Iran/Iraq war was restoration of the
original borders. And the U.S. spent far more on its Iraq war than the value of oil that has been pumped.
Another factor that discourages great-power war is the advent of nuclear weapons, which can result in terrifying mutual
catastrophe. So, the nuclear states - the major powers - have avoided war with each other.
In addition, the moral view of war has totally changed from the days when kings and generals thought of war as glorious proof of
their courage and vigor. The mass carnage of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, Congo, Yemen, etc. has made the
uselessness, futility and immorality of war crystal clear to most people.
Another factor is that the key elements in economic growth and power today are not only natural resources and military power, but
‘soft power’ factors such as technology, a well-educated population and good governance. If there is a war, international trade will
be disrupted, factories, schools, research labs and infrastructure will be destroyed, the best educated people will leave and the
country will be misruled by warlords (e.g., Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia). It can take decades for an economy to recover from
a war. War is just not good business for most people - only arms dealers and military leaders benefit.
Finally, the since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and USSR have reduced supporting proxy wars, while international
peacemaking and negotiations have increased, helping reduce or end conflicts in Northern Ireland, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo,
etc.
Civil War, Irregular War, Asymmetric War and Terrorism - the Weapons of the Weak
Today, most wars are unconventional, irregular or civil wars. This has been a change in the nature of war - from large-scale
conflicts conducted by nation-states to what is sometimes known as asymmetric warfare. For instance, there were two large civil
wars (Yugoslavia and Rwanda) in the early 1990s, and today there are large civil wars in Congo, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and
Southern Sudan. Two-thirds of the wars since WWII were civil wars.
Weaker groups see the impossibility of winning conventional conflicts against major powers or their own governments and so have
turned instead to guerrilla war, terrorism and other cheap, unconventional methods. Stealing a truck and running people over costs
nothing. Making a roadside bomb or outfitting a loner shooter or a suicide bomber only costs a few hundred dollars. Including
extensive dry runs, the 9/11 attack only cost about $300,000 and caused 3,000 deaths and tens of billions in damages. In June 2019,
Iran shot down a U.S., Global Hawk drone that cost $130 million using an indigenous missile that cost about $100,000.
Nation-states have also carried out terror against their own people (Asad’s Syria, Duterte’s Philippines, Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s
Germany, Mao’s China, South Africa under apartheid, Iran under both the Shah and the ayatollahs, and military juntas in Greece,
Argentina and Brazil). In fact, most casualties in modern times were the result of governments killing their own people, what
Rudoph Rummel termed democide.
Some governments (Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, North Korea) support terror and other irregular warfare against other countries.
Russia took over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, but instead of formally invading, it sent special forces without any insignia (“little
green men”) and supported local militias that want to break off and join with Russia. (One of those groups used Russian-supplied
missiles to shoot down an innocent Malaysian Airlines plane that was passing overhead.) Nation states also support different sides
in civil wars in other countries. For instance, Iran uses proxies and its own Quds Force in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen to
engage in hybrid war, i.e., a mixture of conventional and asymmetric tactics.
Revolutionaries have long used guerrilla and terror tactics. George Washington learned to avoid direct confrontation with the
British unless he had many more troops, instead using surprise attacks and shooting from behind trees and rocks. (The British
thought this was cowardly.) The Spanish used ‘guerrilla’ war (small war – avoiding direct confrontation) against Napoleon. Mao Ze
Dong used guerrilla war to defeat the Chinese Nationalist government and Japanese invaders in the 1930s and 40s. (“The enemy
advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue.”) The Algerians used
guerrilla war and terror bombs to drive out the powerful French military in the 1950s. The Vietnamese used guerrilla war and terror
bombs first to drive out the French and then the Americans from the 1950s to the 1970s. Guerrillas pushed the Portuguese out of
Mozambique and Angola in 1975. The mujahedeen guerrillas pushed the Russians out of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Hizbollah’s

9.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51786
roadside bombs and guerrillas pushed the Israelis out of Lebanon in 2008. Today, the Afghan and Iraqi rebels use hybrid war -
roadside bombs, car bombs, suicide bombs, assassinations and snipers in addition to conventional ambushes and infantry attacks
assisted by mortars and rocket-propelled grenades (poor man’s artillery). In Iraq, they disabled $5 million Abrams supertanks by
firing $100 RPGs up the big exhaust pipes. The U.S. had to put protective grates over the exhausts.
Asymmetric war and terrorism are the weapons of the weak, using attacks against civilians and government to gain attention
and try to advance a political agenda. Sometimes it is sponsored by nation-states (Iran, North Korea), sometimes by political or
religious movements (Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic State). The problem with fighting terrorist organizations is that often they have no
homeland to counterattack, so that deterrence is ineffective. They must be incrementally rolled up, cell by cell, individual by
individual. Terrorist groups may be ethno-nationalist (the IRA in Ireland, the ETA Basques, the PKK Kurds, the LTTE Tamil
Tigers), religious/political (Al Qaeda, IS, Hamas, Hizbollah), or mixed (Columbia’s narco-leftist FARC). Good intelligence and
police work, combined with military operations, have defeated many of these groups.
Osama Bin Laden saw how the U.S. military quickly defeated Saddam Hussein’s army, the 4th largest in the world, in two regular
wars, so like Mao Ze Dong before him, he wrote in his fatwas that since the United States military is so powerful, it is necessary to
use other methods. Similarly, in 1999 two Chinese analysts wrote in Unrestricted Warfare that in fighting a great power, guerrilla
warfare, terrorism, propaganda, cyberwar and other means must be used. (Examples include Russian Internet attacks on the U.S.
Democratic Party and the Estonian and Georgian governments, and Chinese hacks against U.S. companies and government
agencies.) The U.S. electrical grid, railroads and other infrastructure and industries are highly vulnerable to hacking and both the
Chinese and the Russians have apparently inserted Trojan Horses to disrupt them if there ever is a conflict. Not to mention financial
pressure from China’s holding over $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bills. Similarly, under the Gerasimov Doctrine of information
warfare, Russia has used ‘active measures,’ including ‘compromat’ (smears against Western leaders) and used bots to send out
millions of tweets and fake news stories to interfere in elections and cause chaos and division in Ukraine, Britain, France, Italy, the
U.S. and many other countries.
These are all forms of what the military calls irregular, asymmetric or fourth generation warfare, i.e. which uses different means
than the enemy’s strength. The U.S. “surge” in Iraq did not succeed in countering terrorism because it sent extra troops, but because
it changed tactics to counter asymmetric methods. One way was by forging alliances with local leaders and developing local
contacts by stationing small units within communities - counter insurgency (COIN). Another way was by conducting constant
special forces raids to gather intelligence and capture rebel leaders - counter terror (CT).

This page titled 9.2: Less War, Irregular and Asymmetric War is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Lawrence Meacham.

9.2.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51786
9.3: History of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State
1- The Muslim Brotherhood was started in Egypt in 1928 By Hassan Al-Banna to renew traditional Muslim values. (One of his
relatives later mentored the teenaged Osama Bin Laden.) One of the Brotherhood’s descendants was MAK, a support organization
co-founded by Bin Laden for Muslims from all over the world who were fighting the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
2- As the Soviets were being defeated in Afghanistan, in 1988 Bin Laden’s local mentor, who wanted to focus on ‘near enemies’
like Saudi Arabia, was mysteriously assassinated. Bin Laden instead established Al Qaeda (the base) to fight the U.S., the ‘far
enemy,’ which supported what he considered illegitimate rulers in the Muslim world. In his fatwas, Bin Laden criticized the U.S.
for having foreign troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia, for the suffering caused by the U.S. embargo of Iraq, and for U.S.
support of Israel, which is considered by Muslims to be imperialist. Al Qaeda’s goal is to drive the West from the Muslim world.
They carried out attacks on U.S. military housing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya; and the
warship USS Cole in Aden. The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq greatly added to the list of grievenaces.
3- Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack provoked a U.S. counterattack and the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which was Al
Qaeda’s base. In its current phase, Al Qaeda helps finance, inspire and coach (in person or via the Internet) Islamist groups such as
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb (AQIM, in what we call North Africa) and smaller
groups and loners in other countries such as the Boston Marathon bombers. They have carried out attacks on soft targets in Bali,
Morocco, Britain, France and Spain. The killing of Osama Bin Laden and his son Hamza by the U.S. means that AQ has been
unable to mount a mass casualty attack for years, but it is still dangerous.
4- One faction of Al Qaeda in Iraq founded Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS later became IS), which became larger and even
more radical than Al Qaeda. They killed large numbers of Shiite Muslims and Yazidis, beheaded people on Internet videos, sold
women into sex slavery, conquered large parts of Iraq and Syria for several years, proclaimed a caliphate (a Muslim kingdom) and
picked up affiliations from terrorist groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria, Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia and Abu Sayyaf in the
Philippines. Now that they have been defeated in Iraq and Syria, IS is back to inspiring people online, training, directing and
financing people in small-group attacks and calling for lone wolf attacks.
Questions
1. Outline the arguments on the causes of war, including system, national and individual factors and give an example of each.
2. Outline the causes of war under hegemonic and balance of power systems.
3. Has war between nation-states increased or decreased since the end of the Cold War? Why? What kind of wars are most common
in the post-Cold War era?
4. List three dangerous territorial flash points in the world today.
5. Give three examples of conflicting interests and ethnic/religious conflicts causing war.
6. Why do some groups engage in terrorism?
7. What tactics are Al Qaeda and ISIS using today?

This page titled 9.3: History of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Lawrence Meacham.

9.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51787
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

10: Military Power

10.1: Elements and Limits of Military Power
10.2: Comparative Military Power
10.3: Soft Power
10.4: Military Spending and Arms Sales
10.5: Deterrence
10.6: Misunderstanding, Misperception, Miscommunication
10.7: Bush’s Preventive War Doctrine
10.8: Nukes and Cold War Strategy
10.9: Chemical and Biological Weapons
10.10: Nuclear Proliferation
10.11: Disarmament and Loose Nukes
10.12: Missiles
10.13: Coercive Diplomacy
10.14: Economic Sanctions

This page titled 10: Military Power is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

1
10.1: Elements and Limits of Military Power
Military power depends on many factors – nukes, size and budget, but also training, leadership, morale and technology, including
the ability to project power to other locations. In a world without any overall authority, nation-states need military power to ensure
their safety.
However, superior military power does not guarantee victory. France could not win in Algeria or Vietnam. The USSR could not
win in Afghanistan. The U.S. could not win in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. In all these cases, it was because they faced guerilla
war and terrorism, forms of asymmetric warfare. In fact, the only recent wars the major powers have lost have been due to
asymmetric warfare.
In 1995, an undetected Chinese sub popped up near a big U.S. Navy exercise, as a reminder that they could have fired torpedoes
into the carriers and other ships. As relatively cheap missiles and subs have become more capable, even advanced ships, planes and
tanks are more vulnerable. China now has enough subs and anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles so that strategists say that a U.S.
naval force would have to stay about 1,000 miles away if there were a conflict over Taiwan. That is too far for U.S. planes to reach.
(The U.S. lost 18 out of 18 war game simulations in this situation.) So, China is spending millions to asymmetrically neutralize
multi-billion dollar American aircraft carrier groups. Furthermore, in 2007 the Chinese destroyed one of their own satellites, to
remind the U.S. that they could do the same to the satellites that America depends on for its military communications. Asymmetric
warfare again.
In addition, the Russians have developed jamming techniques against GPS and other hi-tech communications and data. The result
is that U.S. troops now have to learn to train without outside contact, just in case. Furthermore, dozens of countries now have cheap
Chinese drones such as those Iran used in the September 2019 strike against oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and those currently being
used in Libya.
Everyone has learned the lessons of the two Iraq wars – the futility of directly opposing U.S. forces, and the relative success of
asymmetric war such as terrorism, guerrilla war and propaganda. So Iraqi insurgents use cell phones to set off roadside bombs
made out of fertilizer and diesel fuel, pay unemployed Iraqis to fire one shot to kill one American, and disable high-tech U.S. tanks
with cheap rocket-propelled grenades. Terrorist groups Hamas and Hizbollah fire homemade rockets against Israel’s multi-million-
dollar computerized Iron Dome anti-missile system. The Vietnamese learned to ruin expensive U.S. “people sniffers” dropped by
airplanes into the jungle by urinating on them, and dug pits with excrement-covered bamboo “punji stakes” for U.S. soldiers to fall
into. All this was anticipated in Kipling’s 1886 poem “Arithmetic on the Frontier,” which described how a poor, unschooled
tribesman could use his homemade rifle to kill an expensively-educated British officer.
Another problem for big countries is that military power does not necessarily bring obedience in other dimensions. The U.S.
could not persuade the U.N. Security Council to authorize the use of force in the 2003 Iraq war, enact sanctions against Sudan for
the genocide in Darfur or intervene in the current civil war in Syria.

This page titled 10.1: Elements and Limits of Military Power is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Lawrence Meacham.

10.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51788
10.2: Comparative Military Power
smart bombs), training, communications, satellite and communications intelligence, and power projection, with bases in over 100
countries around the world. The U.S. spends as the next 10 countries combined. The U.S. is also the only country with multiple
large aircraft carriers and the logistical capability to send large forces anywhere in the world. (China is just starting to test its first
aircraft carrier, a refurbished ship from Ukraine. Russia has one that doesn’t work very well.) The U.S. also has by far the largest
and most advanced air force and navy, and has more precision-guided bombs. The U.S. has also maintained an edge because of
superior electronic warfare and satellite capabilities, but is being challenged in this domain by China and Russia. In addition,
constant, realistic training and the U.S. Non Commissioned Officer (NCO) leadership system, which gives experienced Army
sergeants and Navy petty officers flexibility and responsibility, are a big advantage over the usual rigid officer-centric top-down
systems with little training that exists in most countries.
Britain and France have small but well-trained, well-equipped and well-led militaries that can project power overseas. (Because
of budget problems, they have announced that their militaries are going to cooperate more closely.) Canada and Australia also have
small, well-trained, well-equipped militaries. The French easily handled Ivory Coast rebels and Australia quickly calmed down the
Solomon Islands and East Timor. France is also carrying out counterinsurgency operations in its former colony of Mali.
Russia’s conventional military forces greatly declined in size after the end of the Cold War, but they are still strong enough to crush
weak neighbors such as Georgia and Ukraine. Putin has been reforming the military, developing new weapons such as a hypersonic
missile, focusing on special forces such as those he used in Ukraine, and helping client state Syria with planes, bombs and troops.
In the last few years, Russian military, security and infowar advisors and government-connected mercenaries have also been
working in Libya, the Central African Republic, Mozambique and other countries. Russia cannot compete with Chinese money, but
it made many deals for arms sales, advisors and trade at its 2019 Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi.
China has a large army, has increased its military budget to #2 in the word, is modernizing its military by buying equipment from
Russia and Europe, and is developing its own weapons to counter U.S. power asymmetrically (anti-ship missiles, small missile
boats, stealth fighters, subs, drones, etc.). It has set up bases on islands in the South China Sea, and is developing bases (“A String
of Pearls”) around the Indian Ocean surrounding India in Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Djibouti. China is also selling cheap
but ‘good enough’ military equipment all over Africa and Asia.
China is also increasing its reach in the Western Hemisphere. It has instituted many trade, port and other infrastructure deals,
carried out visits by ships such as the hospital vessel Peace Ark, donated military equipment to Latin American and Caribbean
countries, trained military and security personnel, bought port companies on both sides of the Panama Canal and is building a
bridge over the Canal. When accepting military equipment from China, then-President of Bolivia Evo Morales said, “The United
States used to donate to the Bolivian Armed Forces. The big difference between Chinese and U.S. donations is that the U.S.
donated under conditions…which included the privatization or giving away of our natural resources to transnational companies,
[while] the People’s Republic of China donates without conditions, without blackmailing.”
With nearby Chinese and North Korean threats growing, Japan is rebuilding its military after depending on the U.S. for decades.
India has nukes and a large and modern military, but not the capability to project power beyond South Asia. Some countries have
small regular armies but large reserve forces, such as Switzerland, Sweden and Israel (by far the strongest military in the Middle
East).

This page titled 10.2: Comparative Military Power is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

10.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51789
10.3: Soft Power
In the post-Cold War world, military power is often not as important as soft power- economics, diplomacy, ideas, culture,
education, technology, infrastructure, research and development. A country that spends too much on its military spends less on
these other areas and can fall behind as a result. Critics say that one cause of the relative decline of U.S. power is overspending on
the military and neglecting the State Department and other soft power programs. (There are more people in U.S. military marching
bands than there are U.S. diplomats.) As we said in Unit 2, China has been very active in diplomatic, economic, and cultural
activities around the world, while it also builds up its military.
(From Unit 2) China has gained wide soft power influence by building massive infrastructure projects quickly in 60 countries in its
Belt and Road Initiative, giving big loans to African, Asian and Latin American countries in exchange for copper, oil, and other
commodities without the environmental and other conditions required by western lenders. There are about 3 million Chinese
working on projects in Africa, who receive double pay plus free room and board to be separated from their families for years. The
Chinese also export cheap consumer goods and start local businesses.
When the Libyan war broke out, China sent ships to extract the 10,000 Chinese living there. China has also exported arms,
surveillance cameras, facial recognition, phone and internet hacking and other spying software to other countries. Diplomatically, it
has participated in every possible committee in every possible international organization and gradually worked up into senior
leadership positions, but it has also set up alternatives to the existing western-dominated structures with organizations like the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the 2016 Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
China has not attracted large overseas audiences with its politically correct radio, TV and films, but it has succeeded in gaining
visibility with its TikTok app, by lending pandas to western zoos, setting up Confucius Institutes to promote Chinese language and
culture, helping Philippine typhoon victims, participating in anti-piracy patrols off Somalia and helping rescue stranded scientists in
Antarctica. It has also bought or had proxies buy media outlets in many countries in Africa and Eastern Europe and provided local
outlets with free news with the Chinese point of view. China also has a network of radio and TV stations in the U.S.
When local government in Czechoslovakia met with representatives from Taiwan and would not pledge to an anti-Taiwan policy,
the Chinese embassy cancelled a lucrative visit to China by the local symphony, reneged on lending pandas to the zoo and
threatened to cut off future investment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example: France punches above its military and economic weight by using trade, its enviable culture and aggressive
diplomacy (such as leveraging its seat on the UN Security Council), but also by selling advanced military equipment, carrying out
periodic military interventions such as in Libya, and using the disposable Foreign Legion to intervene in former colonies in Africa.
France’s influence is still considerable. For instance, only in 2019 have some of its former African colonies reduced their
dependence on France’s colonial currency.
Military spending worldwide has continued to increase even after the end of the Cold War. Some countries, including many poor
ones, impoverish their people to have a large military (e.g. North Korea, whose people go hungry while it spends 20% of its budget
on the military). Since it is often the military that keeps the leaders in power, it is their priority. Having hostile neighbors also
justifies a strong military.
In arms sales, the U.S. is first at 50%, with China, Russia and Europe accounting for most of the rest. Arms are usually sold to
allies or would-be allies, but sometimes alliances change and those weapons are used against the original seller. (For instance, the
U.S. gave military aid to Muslim radicals when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s.) There has been
criticism of arms sales as promoting war and supporting dictatorships, but the profits and influence gained have so far been
irresistible. In 2001, 140 countries signed a treaty to curb the sale of small-arms such as the cheap and indestructible AK-47, which
is the favorite weapon used in the low-intensity conflicts most common today. However, the Bush 2 administration declined to
participate in the treaty because of lobbying by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Today, the U.S. is criticized for selling arms
to Saudi Arabia, whose intense bombing in a fierce war in Yemen against Iranian proxies is also killing many civilians.

This page titled 10.3: Soft Power is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

10.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51790
10.4: Military Spending and Arms Sales
This page titled 10.4: Military Spending and Arms Sales is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Lawrence Meacham.

10.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51791
10.5: Deterrence
Military power is not enough to deter attacks: nation-states also need capability and will to be credible.
For instance, during the Cold War, neither the U.S. nor the USSR seriously threatened the use of nuclear weapons because the other
side had enough nukes and the determination to retaliate.
Another example: the U.S. has the capability to carry out large-scale military operations anywhere in the world. Normally, this
would give it credibility. However, in the early 2000s the American military was spread so thin because of heavy troop
deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan that its capability and credibility were diminished. This is why Iran and North Korea defied
the U.S. so cheerfully.
Whatever one’s opinion of the justification and morality of Israeli military responses to Palestinian attacks, it was long and clearly
understood that Israel had the capability and will to retaliate if they were hit. In contrast, the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon
against Hizbollah and the 2014 attack on Gaza were not successful and diminished Israel’s credibility.
A country with a weak or poorly led, trained and equipped military has little deterrent credibility. For instance, despite its nuclear
missiles, Russia’s previously huge and feared conventional forces lost capability and credibility after the collapse of the USSR led
to severe cutbacks. However, Putin has since rebuilt the military. Its recent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine and using personnel
and warplanes to support the genocidal government in Syria have restored Russia’s standing as a military power for the dark side.
In addition, it has repeatedly used disinformation and other ‘active measures’ like compromat and cyberwar, plus economic
pressure - cutting off gas supplies from their pipelines and demanding higher prices, imposing trade sanctions on Georgia, Ukraine
and Belarus, etc.
Sometimes leadership simply lacks military will. For instance, after the mass slaughter of WWI, Britain and France did not resist
German rearmament and expansion in the 1930s, instead trying to avoid war by appeasing Hitler.

This page titled 10.5: Deterrence is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

10.5.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51792
10.6: Misunderstanding, Misperception, Miscommunication
A deterrent threat must be communicated clearly and understood. Misunderstandings, misperceptions and miscommunications
frequently occur. In a 1950 speech, the U.S. Secretary of State omitted South Korea from a list of allies, leading the North Koreans
and their Soviet and Chinese sponsors to mistakenly believe that the U.S. would not respond to an attack. During the resulting war,
as American troops pushed through North Korea and approached the Chinese border, the Chinese communicated through third
parties (China and the U.S. had no diplomatic relations) that they would not tolerate American troops on their border. The U.S.
ignored the warning, and the Chinese intervened in massive numbers, prolonging the war for years.
In 1990, when the American ambassador to Iraq acted on orders from her superiors and told Saddam that the U.S. had no position
on his dispute with Kuwait, he felt it was a green light for an invasion. (The State Department later unfairly fired the ambassador
for its own mistake.)
Deterrence theory assumes that the attacker rationally understands the capability and determination of the victim to resist and
retaliate. However, sometimes the danger is not clearly understood. When Argentina invaded the British-held Falkland Islands in
the 1980s, it did not think that faraway Britain would have the will or capability to respond. In fact, Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher declared war, defeated Argentina, declared a special election and won a large majority.
Few in the Japanese leadership anticipated the disastrous consequences of the Pearl Harbor attack, which mobilized the U.S. to
destroy Japan. Nor did Russia anticipate the fierce battle it got from tiny Finland in the Winter War of 1939-40. Greece put up such
an unexpected fight against Italy in WWII that Germany had to intervene, disastrously delaying their invasion of Russia. Similarly,
the U.S. underestimated the difficulties of fighting in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Some analysts feel that Carter’s weak response to the taking of hostages at the U.S. embassy in Iran in 1979, Reagan’s withdrawal
after 241 U.S. Marines were killed in Lebanon by a Hezbollah suicide bomber in 1983, Clinton’s withdrawal after 18 U.S. deaths in
Somalia in 1993 and his responding to the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa in 1994 with a missile barrage but no troops on the
ground, all gave the impression that the U.S. lacked the will to respond to such attacks. So, the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan in
response to 9/11 was a surprise to the Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership.

This page titled 10.6: Misunderstanding, Misperception, Miscommunication is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored,
remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

10.6.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51793
10.7: Bush’s Preventive War Doctrine
International law has always allowed a preemptive attack if aggression is imminent. For example, Israel successfully struck first in
1967, when the Arab nations were building up their forces for an attack.
However, the Bush 2 administration took the idea another step forward, claiming the right to attack against ‘emerging dangers,’
with ‘anticipatory self defense.’ In 2003, Bush and Cheney claimed that Saddam Hussein had developed WMDs (Weapons of Mass
Destruction) and had to be stopped before he used them. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice proclaimed that the U.S. could not
wait for the mushroom-shaped cloud and Vice-President Dick Cheney said that they should attack if there was even a 1% chance of
Saddam having nukes. Critics pointed out that UN inspectors had found no WMDs in Iraq. Nor were any found after the U.S.
invaded.
More generally, critics point out that this concept of prevention is highly elastic and could be used to justify almost any attack.
However, advocates of preventive war say that in the age of WMDs and stateless terrorist organizations no one can wait for an
actual attack, since it would be catastrophic.
For instance, in 1981 the Israelis bombed Saddam’s nuclear reactor at Osirak before he could develop a bomb.

This page titled 10.7: Bush’s Preventive War Doctrine is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

10.7.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51794
10.8: Nukes and Cold War Strategy
Nuclear weapons brought big changes in deterrent strategy because even a few nukes could devastate a country. Both the U.S. and
USSR sought to insure against a nuclear attack by developing the ability to respond even after a surprise attack (a second strike
capability). In other words, even if the USSR successfully attacked the U.S., the USSR would still be destroyed by a U.S.
counterattack and vice versa. The name for this strategy was MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. Some analysts believe that
in the early phases of the Cold War, the American numerical superiority in nuclear weapons gave it a big advantage over the USSR
(so-called compellence). Then-Secretary of State John Foster Dulles liked to talk about “brinksmanship.”
However, both sides knew they were never actually going to attack because even if one side’s nukes killed more people than the
other’s, the casualties on both sides would still be numbered in the millions. It was no comfort that Herman Kahn’s On
Thermonuclear War claimed the U.S. would ‘win’ a nuclear war because it would ‘only’ lose 30 million dead, while the USSR
would lose 50 million dead. Hundreds of books and studies were written during the Cold War on nuclear strategy, counter-strategy,
counter-counter strategy, etc., justifying each side accumulating thousands of nukes. This arms race was another example of the
security dilemma - building up your own forces causes the other side to feel insecure and build up their own forces, in an endless
spiraling arms race.
Having even a few nukes totally changes the equation. For instance, China reportedly has about 260 warheads, versus about 5,000
controlled by the U.S. However, this is enough to ensure deterrence, because the U.S. would not do anything that would result in
the destruction of U.S. cities and millions of deaths. This deterrent effect is why nation states struggle so desperately to obtain
nuclear weapons.
During the Cold War, each side sincerely believed that the other wished to attack, so for 40 years both sides were on a hair trigger.
The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a close call, with both sides fingering the red button. At one point, a U.S. Navy destroyer was
disobeying orders and going after a Russian submarine near Cuba. The Russian sub captain wanted to respond with a nuclear
missile, which would have set off a full-scale nuclear war. Luckily, there was an admiral aboard who overruled him.
There were other close calls. On the U.S. side, on the first night a new computer system was introduced at NORAD Headquarters,
it indicated a massive attack. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and it was eventually determined that the new system was so
sensitive that it had mistaken the rising moon as an attack. On another occasion, a flock of migrating birds set off alarms. On the
Russian side, at one point they sincerely believed the U.S. was going to follow a Russian tactic of attacking under the cover of war
games, so the U.S. had to scale them down. On another occasion, a rogue Russian operator told Russian ships that war was
underway with the U.S. Fortunately, they had the good sense to check, and a crisis was averted.
In 1995, the U.S. notified Russia of an upcoming test missile firing. Unfortunately, the information was not passed up the ladder.
When the missile was fired, the Russians thought it carried an electromagnetic pulse weapon designed to fry all their defenses as a
prelude to a full nuclear attack. They actually unpacked the nuclear ‘football’ with their nuclear launch codes. Fortunately, Russian
President Boris Yeltsin insisted on checking with the Americans first, and Armageddon was avoided.
Both sides developed a strategic triad of land-based missiles, long-range bombers and nuclear submarines, so that even if some
were destroyed in a Pearl Harbor-type sneak attack, the others could counter-attack. It is hard to believe today, but the U.S.
Strategic Air Command kept hundreds of planes in the air 24/7 for over 40 years, so that even if their bases were attacked, the
already-airborne bombers could carry out their missions.
Both sides built up the number of nuclear warheads until each side had about 15,000, enough to destroy the world several times
over. Both sides also had extensive but largely useless civil defense programs with air raid drills and fallout shelters. During junior
high school, we had a drill which required us to sit in the school hallways. Your author got in trouble by saying, “They want the
bodies lined up neatly.”

This page titled 10.8: Nukes and Cold War Strategy is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

10.8.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51795
10.9: Chemical and Biological Weapons
Chemical agents are relatively cheap and easy to produce in the same factories that make pesticides and fertilizer. So a chemical
program is easy to conceal.
Mustard gas and chlorine gas were used in WWI, but the effects were so horrible that chemical weapons were banned in the 1925
Geneva Treaty. However, both sides used them in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. They were banned again in the 1992 Chemical
Weapons Convention, but a small fringe terrorist group in Japan carried out a nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway in 1995, killing
dozens of people. Fortunately, they were not able to master the relatively difficult task of effectively dispersing the gas beyond a
small area. In the current war in Syria, the government has repeatedly used nerve gas, and more recently chlorine, to kill hundreds
of people.
Biological agents are also now relatively cheap and easy to make, and can spread diseases far beyond the initial attack. Of course,
the diseases could spread to the attacking country or even the whole world, as in the app Plague Inc. and the movies Rise of Planet
of the Apes, Contagion and 12 Monkeys. Biological weapons were used by the Japanese in China in WWII. (Unit 731 killed about 2
million Chinese.) Also, in spite of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, the USSR built a huge secret program that produced
massive amounts of anthrax, smallpox and other diseases, including some that were bioengineered to be worse than normal. (One
accident resulted in anthrax deaths downwind.) None were ever used and the stocks were supposedly destroyed. There was a small
powdered anthrax attack by mail in the U.S. soon after 9/11, but nothing since.
A bioterror attack is still a big worry, especially as advanced biotechnology techniques such as CRISPR get cheaper and more
widespread. Recent threat assessments say that a biological attack is the most likely WMD threat and that a naturally-occurring
epidemic of antibiotic-resistant superbugs is a serious civil defense threat. When a biologist recently engineered a more infectious
version of a dangerous strain of flu, he was asked not to publish all the data, so that terrorists could not use it. Let’s hope that no
rogue IS biologist makes a new flu or smallpox-plus.

This page titled 10.9: Chemical and Biological Weapons is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Lawrence Meacham.

10.9.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51796
10.10: Nuclear Proliferation
At first, only the U.S. had nukes, dropping them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Britain developed theirs with U.S. help in
1952. Then came the French in 1960, wanting a deterrent independent of the U.S. To deter Arab attacks, Israel also covertly
developed nuclear weapons, with secret help from France and sympathetic American scientists. (The Israelis have never admitted
that they have nukes.) After losing their 1962 war with China, India tested a ‘peaceful’ device in 1974 and a warhead in 1998.
On the other side, the USSR/Russia got nukes in 1949 through multiple spy rings in the U.S. and Britain. Then came the Chinese in
1962, with help from the Russians. After the 1962 war between India and China, the Chinese helped Pakistan, India’s enemy,
develop nukes. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend.). Pakistani officials thereupon sold nuclear technology to anyone who had
the money.
South Africa, Brazil and Libya had programs but closed them down.
In summary, First the U.S., Britain, France, Israel and India.
Also, Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea.
With improved education and hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world, nuclear technical knowledge and expertise
became globalized like everything else. For instance, A.Q. Kahn, the godfather of the Pakistani program, first gained expertise and
stole technology while working in a Dutch nuclear plant. Later, he used front companies to buy nuclear technology from many
countries. Pakistan exploded its first bomb in 1998. Khan later sold nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya, making
himself a rich man.
When Bush 2 suddenly cut off talks in 2001, North Korea gave the legally required six months’ notice, pulled out of the
Nonproliferation Treaty, refused inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), refined more bomb material and
exploded several devices. Since Bush’s no-talks policy obviously hadn’t worked very well, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
convinced him to go back to negotiating with North Korea. Too late - they had the bomb and weren’t going to give up their ace.
U.S. demands that they give up the program in order to get sanctions removed are delusional. The only reason anyone pays any
attention to North Korea is their nukes. Nukes also increase Kim’s legitimacy at home. Trump has had meetings with Kim Jong Un,
but don’t hold your breath. North Korea also continues trying to weaponize their nukes by developing and testing missiles.
Fortunately, Iran had not advanced far enough to build a bomb. Israel assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, caused a huge
explosion at Iran’s biggest rocket base, and (with the U.S.) sent the Stuxnet computer worm to ruin Iranian nuclear centrifuges.
Obama pushed negotiations with Iran as the U.S.,
UN and European Union passed multiple economic sanctions against them for their nuclear program. (This despite misgivings by
the Russians and Chinese because they do extensive business with Iran.). The financial sanctions hurt Iran’s economy enough so
that they finally concluded a multilateral deal in 2015 that froze the program for 15 years. However, Donald Trump withdrew from
the agreement. Iran has responded by purifying more uranium and having its proxies attack oil tankers and Saudi oil facilities.

This page titled 10.10: Nuclear Proliferation is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

10.10.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51797
10.11: Disarmament and Loose Nukes
After the USSR collapsed in 1991, U.S. and Russian scientists and governments worked together to dismantle nuclear warheads
and weapons on both sides. Paid for with U.S. funds, the bipartisan Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program removed
Russian nuclear missiles from Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus, destroyed thousands of warheads and weapons on both sides,
secured nuclear materials in Russia and paid for research projects for Russian scientists who might be otherwise tempted to get
high pay to help develop nuclear programs in other countries. (Some did work for other programs, however.)
The Bush administration, convinced that all Clinton-era policies were wrong by definition, at first cut funding for Cooperative
Threat Reduction, then later restored some of the money. The Obama administration stepped up the program and neutralized or
removed all the bomb-grade highly enriched uranium and plutonium from Kazakhstan, Chile and over a dozen other
countries, and secured it within the U.S. or Russia by the end of Obama’s term.
The greatest fear was that some terrorist group would steal or buy poorly-secured highly enriched uranium or plutonium on the
black market and send a crude bomb in a shipping container to New York City. However, now that all the bomb-grade material
has been secured, it is very difficult to make any more. Even with the financial and industrial resources of an entire country, it
takes billions of dollars and years of work. So the idea of terrorists making their own nuclear bomb is far-fetched. However, it
would be relatively easy for someone to make a so-called dirty bomb, which uses regular explosives to spread non-bomb-grade
radioactive material to contaminate a large area.

This page titled 10.11: Disarmament and Loose Nukes is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

10.11.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51798
10.12: Missiles
The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is an attempt to control the proliferation of missile technology. However,
knockoffs of Russian Scuds are everywhere, China keeps getting caught selling missiles and parts to various countries in spite of
repeated promises, and North Korea, Syria and Iran freely exchange missile equipment and expertise. Iran has been using front
companies to secretly shop for missile parts that enable it to reach Europe. Similarly, North Korea keeps testing missiles that can
reach the U.S., albeit with poor accuracy. Meanwhile, the Trump administration alleged Russian violations of the Intermediate-
Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) on medium-range missiles and withdrew from the treaty.

This page titled 10.12: Missiles is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

10.12.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51799
10.13: Coercive Diplomacy
Generally, diplomacy with threats works much better than threats or diplomacy alone. As we said earlier, this works best if the
threat of military intervention is credible and communicated clearly. In the 1800s, the threat was backed up by the appearance of
large warships off the coast of the capitol city (gunboat diplomacy). Today the weapons may differ, but the threat is the same.
There are several factors that can help achieve compliance:
-The coercing state’s seriousness and demands should be clear, and preferably made before action is taken by the target state.
-The military threat should be credible.
-There should be domestic and international support.
-There should be clear understanding on settlement terms.
The coercing power should recognize that coercive diplomacy frequently leads to military conflict. If it does, intervention should
be made with sufficient force to be quick and decisive. (The Powell Doctrine.)

This page titled 10.13: Coercive Diplomacy is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

10.13.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51800
10.14: Economic Sanctions
Short of military intervention are economic sanctions. One conspicuous example was the U.S cutting off oil from Japan in 1941.
Another was the Arab nations’ oil embargo against the U.S. during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. More recently, the U.S. has
repeatedly imposed sanctions, with limited effect against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, with eventual success against South Africa
regarding democratic reform of its racist policies, and with success against Libya regarding terrorism and nuclear nonproliferation.
Unfortunately, sanctions are often evaded (North Korea and Iran are experts at this) and they often hurt the ordinary population
rather than the leaders. One example is the 60 years of U.S. sanctions against Cuba, which ruined the economy but did not force the
Castros from power. Analysts say that sanctions work about one-third of the time.
The new wave of ‘smart’ sanctions pioneered by the Bush 2 administration work better by cutting off access to banking (this has
emerged as the killer app) and targeting leaders - not allowing them and their families to travel abroad, freezing their and their
companies’ overseas bank accounts, etc. The UN’s five permanent Security Council members plus Germany (P5 +1) cut off Iranian
oil sales and froze Iranian banks, Revolutionary Guard corporations and oil companies out of overseas business. The currency fell,
prices rose and Iran finally agreed to negotiate the 2015 agreement that froze their nuclear program. Similarly, because of Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. and the EU imposed financial sanctions on the Russian leadership, plus broad trade sanctions.
Removing these sanctions was what Putin wanted from Trump. Trump tried to do it, but was stymied by Congress. However, one
Russian oligarch close to Putin named Oleg Deripaska did successfully lobby the Trump administration to have sanctions removed
against him.
Questions
1. List the most important dimensions of military power.
2. List two ways that military power can be ineffective and give an example of each.
3. Define soft power and compare the importance of military power and soft power.
4. Evaluate the military power of the U.S., Europe, Russia, Japan, China and India.
5. Which countries account for most arms sales?
6. Give one example each of effective deterrence, ineffective deterrence, and miscommunication/misunderstanding/misperception.
7. Give one argument for and one against preventive war.
8. Briefly explain MAD and list the elements in the nuclear triad.

This page titled 10.14: Economic Sanctions is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

10.14.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51801
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

11: Realist Paths to Peace – Alliances, Dominance and Treaties

Realists focus on national interest, and wars are usually not in the national interest because of uncertainty, casualties, and expense.
So, Realists pursue various methods to prevent war. Participating in international organizations like the UN is one way of pursuing
their national interests and avoiding war. Alliances and treaties are also useful for maintaining security.
11.1: Balance of Power Alliances
11.2: Hegemonic Stability
11.3: The Concert of Europe and NATO
11.4: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties
11.5: Other Arms Control Treaties

This page titled 11: Realist Paths to Peace – Alliances, Dominance and Treaties is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored,
remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

1
11.1: Balance of Power Alliances
As we said in Chapter 9, Balance of Power advocates believe that the best strategy for peace is to form alliances that prevent any
power from achieving domination (or hegemony).
The basic idea is that powerful alliances will deter others from attacking you. If you have nine brothers, people leave you alone.
Nation-states can combine to prevent any other state from becoming so strong that it can successfully attack.
Critics point out that there are problems with balance of power systems:
-Most notably, allies can drag you into war.
-Historically, shifting alliances to maneuver for military power caused arms races and continual wars from the 1500s through the
1900s.
-Misunderstandings and mistakes can occur regarding opponents’ intentions and actions. Typically, any move by an opponent is
seen as hostile, which can lead to tit-for-tat reactions that lead to war, as in the beginning of WWI.
-Sometimes allies do not keep their word, as when Egypt did not continue the advance it had promised to its Arab allies during the
1973 war with Israel.
-Ambitious leaders sometimes ignore the balance of power against them and attack anyway. Sometimes they are successful, which
encourages other ambitious leaders. Prussia’s Bismarck surprised everyone by unifying Germany through winning three short,
sharp wars.
Also, Balance of Power is more than a strategy. It requires:
-Constant attention to the designs and actions of others, i.e. lots of spying.
-Opposing other powers by carrying out military buildups and forming and shifting alliances. For instance, in the 1700s and 1800s,
Britain followed a strategy of maintaining a dominant navy and switching sides repeatedly in various alliances and conflicts,
always opposing the strongest country or coalition in continental Europe in order to prevent anyone from gaining control.
-Maintaining the power of defeated states in the interest of future balancing. This is what the Concert of Europe did after
Napoleon’s defeat, allowing France to continue as a major power. Britain and France violated this principle after WWI, when they
did their best to destroy Germany. The backlash from that harsh peace was a major cause of WWII.

This page titled 11.1: Balance of Power Alliances is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

11.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51802
11.2: Hegemonic Stability
Hegemonic Stability Theorists believe that a dominant power preserves peace by dampening down potential conflicts. However,
critics say that the dominant power often uses the system to advance its own interests, sometimes starts wars for its own purposes,
supports proxy wars or is challenged by a rising power. For instance, Britain was dominant in the 1800s, but it had one big war
with Russia in Crimea and constant wars in its colonies. The U.S. was dominant after the USSR collapsed in 1991, but it got
bogged down in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
There are similar arguments about bipolar systems. For instance, in 1945 the U.S. was the only major power not destroyed by
WWII and the only power possessing the atomic bomb. With everyone else in ruins, the U.S. economy accounted for 50% of world
industrial and agricultural production. However, the USSR had occupied Eastern Europe during the war, had three times as many
troops in Europe as the U.S., and obtained the atomic bomb through its spies within a few years.
Each side tried to steal allies away from the other and hang on to their own. However, Hegemonic Stability Theorists point out that
each side also worked to prevent an outbreak of outright war between them because of the huge casualties that would result from
the probable use of nuclear weapons. HST advocates say that this is the usual behavior of dominant powers, who generally work to
prevent major conflicts. However, critics point out that during the Cold War, each side also supported proxies in various conflicts,
notably the Korean War (1950-2) and the Vietnam War (1964-73), not to mention Angola, Mozambique and other conflicts.
After the USSR collapsed in 1991, the ‘stability’ of the Cold War era was followed by a short period in which the U.S. enjoyed
military, economic and political dominance. Some U.S. commentators predicted a long period of unipolar American-enforced
peace. However, countervailing forces quickly arose. As China’s economy boomed, it began to improve its military, build overseas
bases and claim territory more aggressively. Without the threat of the USSR, NATO and other allies increasingly developed
independent policies reflecting their own national interests.
Arguments about the configuration of current world system reflect that the U.S. military, albeit weakened by the Iraq war, is still far
more powerful than anyone else. However, the political opposition of rivals (China, Russia, Iran) and sometimes even nominal
allies like France, and the economic problems facing the U.S., such as big trade and budget deficits and economic competition from
China, suggest an emerging multipolar system.

This page titled 11.2: Hegemonic Stability is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

11.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51803
11.3: The Concert of Europe and NATO
Despite the problems with alliances, Realists have often used them to try to reduce wars. For instance, after the enormously
disruptive and destructive Napoleonic wars, the great powers of Europe formed the Concert of Europe in 1815. They contained but
did not attempt to destroy France, restored and helped each other maintain the monarchical system, and tried to maintain peace by
collective security and negotiating their various interests and disputes in regular meetings. The only armed conflict among the
major powers during 99 years was the Crimean War between Britain and Russia. However, the rise of Germany in the late 1800s
and early 1900s unraveled the balance of power that was the basis of the system and led to WWI and WWII.

Another Important Alliance - NATO

Today, NATO is by far the most powerful and important military alliance in the world. It was originally set up in 1948 to defend
Western Europe against the USSR when the Cold War began after WWII. After the Cold War ended, the Eastern European
countries who had previously been under Russian rule got the Clinton and Bush 2 administrations to expand NATO to protect them.
NATO now includes most of the countries in Eastern Europe, and the Bush 2 administration even wanted to invite the Ukraine and
Belarus, which border on Russia.
The Russians have been very unhappy with this, seeing Eastern Europe as their traditional buffer zone and area of influence (“The
Near Abroad”) and saying that this violated a 1990 agreement between Bush 1 and Mikhail Gorbachev that the U.S. would not
expand NATO. NATO invited Russia to participate in security decisions, but Russia refused and their dissatisfaction with the
situation remains. When the leader of the neighboring country of Georgia defied them, they attacked and split off parts of Georgia’s
territory. To the Russians, the ultimate provocation was talking about bringing Ukraine, where the Russian empire began and which
they consider part of Russia, into the EU and NATO. They took over Crimea and are using their special forces and local militias to
occupy Russian-speaking areas of Eastern Ukraine.
Russia has also used economic leverage. They twice increased the price of the natural gas flowing through its East European
pipelines, sometimes even cutting off the flow entirely, and used oil and gas money to buy up media companies, electricity
producers and other major corporations in neighboring countries. They also imposed trade sanctions on Belarus, Ukraine and
Georgia at various times and built pipelines that bypassed Ukraine.
Meanwhile, during the reduction of the Soviet military threat to Western Europe, NATO members redefined its mission to include
new challenges such as humanitarian missions and defense against terrorism So, NATO used military force against Serbian
aggression in Yugoslavia and against the Taliban in Afghanistan. NATO also took a leading role in the overthrow of Libya’s
Ghaddafi. Now that the Russia threat is back, NATO is focusing on protecting bordering countries like Poland, the Baltic countries
and the Balkans with rotating missions and training.

This page titled 11.3: The Concert of Europe and NATO is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Lawrence Meacham.

11.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51804
11.4: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties
Nuclear Arms Control Treaties
Arms control agreements are another Realist method of reducing conflict. They do not end war or weapons development. New
technologies of death continue to arise (there was an attempt to stop the use of crossbows in medieval times), and nation-states are
reluctant to give them up. Nevertheless, dozens of arms control agreements have been brokered in modern times to put limits on
nuclear weapon production and use. Both Idealists and Realists understand that mutual distrust can lead to arms races that leave
both sides worse off economically and can lead to war. Therefore, arms treaties make sense even if you see the world through a
Realist, dog-eat-dog lens.
The most recent example is during the 1947-91 Cold War between the U.S. and the USSR, in which the potential human and
economic costs of war were vastly multiplied by the presence of nuclear weapons. Therefore, even though the two sides competed
intensely, they also signed a series of nuclear arms control agreements. These include:
-1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty: After the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly blew up the world, the two sides negotiated a series of
agreements to reduce the threat of war. They set up a hot line between Washington and Moscow to facilitate communication. Also,
since radioactive fallout from above-ground nuclear testing was getting into food and drink all over the world (including mothers’
milk), the two sides agreed to do their tests underground, not in the atmosphere, underwater, or space.
-1968 Non Proliferation Treaty. The existing nuclear powers agreed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries; other
countries agreed to refrain from making nukes. The treaty was only partially successful; the original four nuclear powers are now
nine. However, without the treaty, it would probably be 50 or more. The original nuclear powers also pledged to eliminate their
own nuclear weapons, but there is no sign of this happening.
-1972 SALT I and 1979 SALT II. The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties for the first time limited the number of nuclear weapons
on each side. This was a huge step, since the two sides had been speedily increasing their arsenals beyond all reason for years.
Whatever their faults, give President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger their due for negotiating these agreements.
-The START Treaties (1991, 1993, 1997, 2002, 2010, etc.). After the Cold War ended, the U.S. and Russia for the first time agreed
to reduce the number of their nuclear weapons. Every U.S. President of both parties supported and extended these treaties. Each
side went over and watched the other side cut up missiles and bombs. Each side is now down to about 5,000 nukes, still enough to
blow up the world several times, but way less than before. Progress! However, neither Putin nor Trump has made any moves to
renew the latest treaty.
-1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The CTBT bans all nuclear testing, in an attempt to stop research into new weapons and
retesting of existing ones. Most of the nuclear powers have now agreed to it and have stopped testing. Senate Republicans refused
to ratify it, but the U.S. has stopped testing. Only the rogue state of North Korea continues nuclear testing.
In 1972, the U.S. and USSR signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. However, Bush 2 withdrew from the treaty in 2002, when
John Bolton was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. In 1987, the U.S. and USSR signed the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty against medium range missiles. Citing alleged Russian violations, Donald Trump
withdrew from the treaty in 2019, when John Bolton was National Security Advisor.

This page titled 11.4: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

11.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51805
11.5: Other Arms Control Treaties
There have been many other arms control agreements. The 1899 Hague Convention banned chemical weapons, hollow point
bullets and bombing from balloons. The 1907 Hague Convention clarified rules of land and naval war. These included rules against
attacks on merchant ships without warning, rules which were widely violated by German subs in WWI. The 1921 and 1930 Naval
Treaties reduced the number of warships, the high tech weapons of that time. After the use of mustard and chlorine gas in WWI,
the 1925 Geneva Protocol banned all forms of chemical warfare. More recently there are the:
-1972 Biological Weapons Convention. This treaty bans all forms of biological weapons except for small amounts to be used for
research, countermeasures, etc. However, there are no inspections or other enforcement. After the Cold War, it was revealed that,
contrary to the treaty, the USSR had made and stockpiled large amounts of biological weapons. These have now supposedly been
destroyed.
-1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. This was a new ban on all chemical weapons, signed after Iraq and Iran used them
extensively during their eight-year war in the 1980s and Saddam used them on the Kurds in his own country in 1988. The Bush
administration refused to allow treaty inspections in the U.S., claiming that it would compromise proprietary information about
chemical companies’ technology. Fortunately, there is little use of chemical weapons. (Syria is the only exception.)
-1994 Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines. This is an example of the power of NGOs. A coalition of activists connected by the
Internet agitated for a ban on anti-personnel mines, which have been deployed by the millions, even from airplanes, and which
linger on to kill and main civilians for years afterward in countries such as Cambodia, Afghanistan and Somalia. The treaty has
greatly reduced the production and dissemination of anti-personnel mines, but the task of neutralizing the millions already in the
ground will take decades. Jody Williams, the woman who led the coalition with nothing but her laptop, got the Nobel Peace Prize
for her work. However, the Bush administration refused to sign the treaty because it said it needed anti-personnel mines on the
border with North Korea.
Questions
1. Briefly explain Balance of Power Theory. List two criticisms.
2. Briefly explain Hegemonic Stability Theory. List two criticisms.
3. What is the world system structure today? (e.g. bipolar, multipolar, mixed) Explain.
4. Why has NATO expanded? Who opposes it and why? What new missions have occurred?
5. List 5 nuclear arms treaties and briefly explain what each one does.
6. List 3 other recent arms treaties and briefly explain what they do.

This page titled 11.5: Other Arms Control Treaties is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

11.5.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51806
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

12: Idealist Paths to Peace- International Law

12.1: Reciprocity and Collective Action
12.2: Sources of International Law
12.3: Sovereignty- Rights and Duties
12.4: Laws of War

This page titled 12: Idealist Paths to Peace- International Law is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Lawrence Meacham.

1
12.1: Reciprocity and Collective Action
A lot of international law is active but invisible, e.g. in communication, trade and travel. You dial a code to call a particular country.
You pay a duty to the customs office when you bring in foreign goods, part of regulations so complicated that there are specialists
who do nothing but help companies navigate the rules. You need a passport and visa when you travel (unless you are traveling
between countries that have made an agreement not to require visas). However, if you are a sailor on a ship visiting a foreign
country, you do not need a passport or visa, because there is an entirely different set of rules. All of these are based on international
law.
The paradox of international law is that it is weak but effective. When the Dutch and the British began enforcing freedom of the
seas, if a country broke the rule by seizing ships in international waters, their own ships would also be seized. Very inconvenient.
So, it was in each country’s self-interest to cooperate and follow the rules. Reciprocity, or the expectation that following the rules
will encourage others to follow the rules, is the heart of international law. Likewise, everyone stays in their lane on the freeway -
it’s safer.
If the United States is having a trade dispute with the Republic of Dakine, it could throw the Dakinian ambassador into jail.
However, Dakine would probably take umbrage and also throw the U.S. ambassador into jail. Things could quickly get out of hand,
to the point where the two sides would have no diplomats to communicate with each other. Therefore, things work much better for
all sides if everyone follows the law, in this case the centuries-old rule of diplomatic immunity. Under these rules, embassies are
considered to be part of the home country, diplomatic pouches are passed through customs unopened, ambassadors ignore their
parking tickets, and diplomats caught spying are merely expelled. (In 1979, Iran violated these rules by allowing ‘students’ to take
U.S. Embassy officials in Teheran hostage for over a year.)
Another example of following international law: after ten years of extremely complicated negotiations, the United Nations
approved the 1983 Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS), which dealt with a variety of subjects such as passage through international
straits and 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) off the coast of each country. However, because of disputes over possible
undersea mining, the U.S. never ratified the treaty. (Technology has now been developed for deep sea mining, but American
companies cannot participate because the U.S. has not ratified the treaty.)
Nevertheless, the U.S. has claimed the 200-mil EEZ off its coasts, and has respected other countries’ EEZs. It follows the rules
because the predictability and stability resulting from everyone following the rules is in their overall self-interest. Reciprocity
again.
So, countries obey international law because it is in their own interests that other countries also follow the law. International
law thus depends on reciprocity and states’ preference for the order, stability and predictability that occurs as a result of following
international norms. The result is that most countries follow international law most of the time.
Collective action helps enforce those norms. Sometimes there is no collective action, as in the League of Nations’ paralysis in the
face of Italian and German aggression in the 1930s. However, sometimes it can be effective. For instance, Libya had broken many
international laws over the years, including sponsoring assassination attempts, supporting rebel groups and bombing a civilian
airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. The rest of the world responded by putting economic and travel sanctions on Libya.
Libya finally got tired of the problems this caused and started following international laws, giving up their nuclear program and
turning over those allegedly responsible for the airplane bombing.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, nobody wanted to tolerate the precedent of his violating international borders – it
could lead to serious chaos on disputed borders in many parts of the world. The UN passed resolutions against the invasion and
authorizing the use of force, and a 28-member coalition led by the United States pushed him out.
In contrast, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was not authorized by a UN authorization for the use of force. Without a UN resolution,
the invasion violated international law. In another example, China has taken over and built up islands in the international waters of
the South China Sea. Russia took over Crimea and has occupied part of Ukraine. Israel has built settlements in the occupied West
Bank. Other powerful countries have also broken international laws, especially when it involves national security.

This page titled 12.1: Reciprocity and Collective Action is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Lawrence Meacham.

12.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51726
12.2: Sources of International Law
There are several sources of international law. First is custom, as in diplomatic immunity. Certain practices gradually become
customary, are codified into rules and eventually become international law. What to do when two ships are on a collision course?
Which way should they turn? The custom (and now law) is that both ships should turn right (starboard).
The second major source of international law is treaties, as in the UN Charter and the UN Law of the Sea Treaty. There are also
security treaties like the Naval Disarmament Treaties of 1921 and 1930, the anti-war 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, the 1919 Treaty of
Versailles which ended WWI, the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, and environmental agreements such as the 2015 Paris Accords on
global warming.
The third major source is UN Resolutions, such as the 1991 Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq
after it invaded Kuwait, the many resolutions against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the UN Declaration of Human
Rights.
A fourth source is court decisions by the International Court of Justice (ICJ – aka the World Court) and to some extent, rulings by
national courts.
Finally, there are legal writings, ranging from early writers like Hugo Grotius to contemporary thinkers, and general principles of
law, as reflected by laws that have been enacted by many different countries.
There are several ways of resolving disputes in international law. If the two sides agree to it, sometimes a third party offers a venue
for discussion, helps the two sides to negotiate or arbitrates a conflict. For example, Norway provided a venue and helped the
Israelis and Palestinians negotiate the Oslo agreement in 1993.
The apex of international law is the UN’s International Court of Justice (World Court), but agreeing to submit cases to the Court
and to obey its verdicts is voluntary. One interesting case occurred during the Reagan administration, when Nicaragua brought a
case against the U.S. for mining its harbors. The U.S. was found guilty of acts of war, but refused to accept the decision. Similarly,
Iran refused to accept the ICJ decision to release its U.S. diplomatic hostages in 1979-80.
However, there are examples of ICJ effectiveness and obeying international law. In 2004, Mexico won an ICJ case because
Mexican citizens arrested in the U.S. were not allowed to see their diplomatic officials as required by international law. As a result
of the decision, Bush 2 agreed to follow the law in the future, probably because he wanted to ensure that U.S. citizens who were
arrested in Mexico would be allowed to see their embassy people. Reciprocity again.
The scope and power of international law are growing. Despite domestic banking privacy laws, Swiss banks are now opening their
records to find money stolen by criminals and government officials of other countries. Switzerland has also opened its books to
catch tax evaders from Germany and the U.S. More people are being arrested for smuggling endangered species and for human
trafficking (although both laws need to be strengthened). In Ivory Coast in 2010, the UN, the African Union, and ECOWAS
insisted that the president step down after a fraudulent election. Similarly, in Gambia in 2016, ECOWAS insisted that the sitting
president allow his elected successor to take office. In the long run, international law is becoming stronger and more effective.
One long standing debate involves human rights intervention. If a government is killing its people, can the international community
violate national sovereignty and intervene? As Samantha Powers’ A Problem From Hell shows, no one did anything to help the one
million Armenians massacred by the Turks in 1915 or the six million Jews killed in the Nazi Holocaust in WWII. No one did
anything about the 800,000 killed in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. After Rwanda, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed
humanitarian intervention as a policy, but it didn’t happen. One reason was that China was worried about setting a precedent for
possible intervention against its own human rights violations in Tibet and Sinkiang. The UN ineffectively interceded in Yugoslavia,
but it took NATO intervention in 1995 to stop the fighting.
China buys oil from Sudan, so again nothing was done about the massacres that began in 2003 in in Darfur. In 2005, after much
discussion, the United Nations officially adopted the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, which says that the
international community should intervene in cases of genocide or other mass killings. This was used for the first time to intervene
in Libya in 2011, when the universally despised Muammar Gaddafi threatened to kill everyone in rebellious cities. But it has not
been used in Syria, where 500,000 have died and millions have been displaced. Russia has a veto on the Security Council and is
helping its client state Syria with bomber aircraft and troops.

This page titled 12.2: Sources of International Law is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

12.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51727
12.3: Sovereignty- Rights and Duties
The principle of sovereignty sometimes conflicts with international law. One reason the Law of the Sea Treaty has not been
approved by the U.S. Senate is that some senators think it violates U.S. sovereignty. Similarly, countries such as China claim that
enforcing international human rights laws in their countries would be a violation of their sovereignty. Some Muslim countries claim
that international law on women’s rights violates their cultural sovereignty.
There is lots of international law on the subject of sovereignty. To be a state, one must possess territory, a population and a
government that is in control. If a state meets these criteria, normally other states will accord it diplomatic recognition. However,
sometimes they signal their disapproval by refusing to do so. For instance, the U.S. waited for decades before recognizing the
communist regimes in the USSR and China. Similarly, Iran does not recognize Israel.
As a state, you have the rights of self-defense, independence (i.e. the freedom to make your own policies) and legal equality with
other states. Of course, some powerful states are more ‘equal’ than others, just as a rich man usually does better in court than a poor
one. Nevertheless, any state has the right to bring a case under international law against any other state, as tiny Nicaragua did
against the U.S.
States also have duties: the flip side of sovereignty is non-intervention in the affairs of others (a principle which is sometimes
violated), and obeying treaties that have been agreed to.
Because of the tension with sovereignty, international law is relatively weak. The laws are not binding, the legal decisions are not
binding, and often the penalties are not enforceable. Some critics say there is a double standard - powerful countries flout
international law, while they insist other countries obey it. Nevertheless, overall there is a remarkable degree of compliance.
International law may be weak, but it is effective; because of reciprocity, most states follow most international law most of
the time.

This page titled 12.3: Sovereignty- Rights and Duties is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Lawrence Meacham.

12.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51728
12.4: Laws of War
It is in the area of national security that international law is most frequently violated. However, even here there are laws which are
normally obeyed, codified most recently in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. As we noted previously, there are laws against using
chemical and biological weapons. There are laws on the treatment of prisoners of war (which were ignored by the Bush 2
administration at Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black” sites). There are laws against needlessly killing civilians. And there have been
war crimes trials, in both national courts (e.g. Lt. William Calley for the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, several people
for the Abu Ghraib prison abuses in Iraq) and international courts (the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials of WWII German and Japanese
leaders).
One recent change in international law is that nation-state leaders have lost their previous legal immunity and have been tried for
war crimes. Slobodan Milosovic and several other Serbian leaders were tried for war crimes in Yugoslavia. During former Liberian
President Charles Taylor’s trial for war crimes, supermodel Naomi Campbell testified about Taylor giving her a bag of uncut war
diamonds. (She disdained them as ‘pebbles,’ saying that she was used to getting her diamonds nicely cut and polished in Tiffany
boxes.) Several former Rwandan officials were tried for the 1994 genocide.
France, Spain and others have claimed universal jurisdiction and prosecuted leaders for crimes in other countries. The French
government recently confiscated the luxury home and cars of the son of the corrupt dictator of Guineau-Bisseau. (The 2019 auction
of the cars brought $27 million.) Augusto Pinochet, the dictator of Chile from 1973-90, was later pursued by the Spanish
government in British courts for human rights violations against Spanish citizens living in Chile, and was also facing trial in
Chilean courts when he died of natural causes in 2006. Some of the hundreds of thousands of victims and their families who
suffered torture and murder under the Franco regime in Spain have gone around Spain’s amnesty law by going to court in
Argentina to pursue their cases. Even former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has been accused of human rights violations
in the courts of other countries. So far he has avoided arrest.
After setting up special war crimes tribunals for genocide and human rights violations in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, in 1996 the UN
set up the International Criminal Court as a permanent venue for such cases. Donald Trump has withdrawn from the ICC, citing
concerns that U.S. soldiers and officials might be unfairly targeted, but other countries have signed on. After long delays, the ICC
convicted leaders of the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. It also indicted the then-president of Sudan for the genocide in
Darfur.
Just War
There are also laws regarding starting wars and overall conduct in wars. The most widely accepted criteria are that war should be
only for self-defense and only as a last resort after all other methods have failed. Furthermore, once a war has begun efforts
should be made to avoid civilian casualties and unneeded destruction by using proportional force.
In 1625, Hugo Grotius codified the long tradition of thought on just war for the modern era. According to his formulation, a just
war must also have a moral reason and a good intention, must be declared by a legitimate leader, should outweigh the harm it is to
correct and have good chance of success. In real life, few wars meet all these criteria.
In 2003, former President Jimmy Carter wrote a piece in the New York Times showing that the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq
violated the rules of just war. The Bush 2 administration ignored it.
Questions
1. Why do countries obey international law?
2. How is international law enforced?
3. What are the sources of international law?
4. What are the limitations of the World Court?
5. How strong and effective is international law? Is it generally obeyed? Example?
6. What is R2P?
7. What is it called when other countries acknowledge the sovereignty of a new government?
8. List the rights and duties of sovereign nations.
9. Give two examples of laws of war arising from the Geneva Conventions.

12.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51729
10. List three generally accepted criteria for a just war.

This page titled 12.4: Laws of War is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

12.4.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51729
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

13: Human Rights, Population, the Environment

13.1: Human Rights
13.2: Population
13.3: The Environment

This page titled 13: Human Rights, Population, the Environment is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Lawrence Meacham.

1
13.1: Human Rights
Human rights as an international concern began in the modern era with the formation of anti-slavery organizations in the early
1800s. These groups pressured the British government to outlaw slavery in Britain in 1833 and to suppress the slave trade overseas.
However, at the Treaty of Versailles and in the League of Nations after WWI, the rights of nations within states and colonies under
the European empires were ignored. The European powers kept their colonies, the Kurds did not get a country and the British and
French divided the Middle East between them, regardless of the wishes of the people living there. In the 1920s, Native Canadian
Haudenosaunee Chief Deskaheh’s demands for rights at the League of Nations were blocked by the Canadian government.
After WWII, reflecting the worldwide shock at the discovery of the Nazi genocide against the Jews, the United Nations passed the
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, numerous UN treaties and declarations have expanded and further
specified a host of human rights. We should also acknowledge our debt to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other
NGOs, who have sometimes persuaded governments and the UN to make human rights a priority. For instance, during the Carter
administration (1976-80), they persuaded the U.S. government to start issuing regular reports on human rights in other countries.
However, the UN did not stop the government’s mass killings and rapes in East Pakistan in 1971 (the Indian Army intervened and
quickly defeated the Pakistan Army, allowing Bangla Desh to become independent) or the killing of two million people in
Cambodia in the late 1970s (Vietnam intervened and ousted the Khmer Rouge government). The UN only sent observers to the
recent killings in Sudan and South Sudan, has done nothing about the 500,000 dead in the Syrian civil war, and has been ineffective
in stopping the killing in Congo and Somalia. Meanwhile, the repression of political protest in Russia, Iran, China, Tibet, Venezuela
and many other countries and the mistreatment of women, children and minorities in many countries continues unpunished.
In 1995, NATO did intervene to stop ethnic cleansing, genocide and mass rapes in Yugoslavia, but only after five years of
delay. However, nothing was done during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda because none of the big powers had any economic or
security interests there. In 2005, the UN passed the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) policy, but it has not been used in the Syria war
because of Russian and Chinese vetoes on the Security Council.
Trials, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. Human Trafficking.
After WWII, German and Japanese leaders were tried in war crimes trials. Since the 1990s, tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda
and the new International Criminal Court have given long sentences to national leaders convicted of war crimes. No more retiring
to the French Riviera to enjoy stolen millions. The ICC even issued a warrant for the arrest of the then-sitting President of Sudan,
Omar Bashir. Since then, Bashir has been ousted and the current regime says they will extradite him.
Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are an innovation that started in South Africa after the white regime was removed and
which was also used in Rwanda after the 1994 genocide in which Hutus killed 800,000 Tutsis. The Commissions do not pass
sentences or punish people if they tell the truth about what they did and apologize. This may reflect less emphasis on revenge in
African culture.
Even without war, human trafficking violates the human rights of a million people a year by delivering desperate migrants into
jobs with low or no wages and forcing women into prostitution.
Expanded Rights
The UN Declaration includes Civic and Political Rights- The right to vote in free and fair elections, run for office, openly express
political views, freedom of speech, press and religion, etc. It also has expanded rights in other areas:
Women’s Rights- Reproductive rights, marriage rights, job rights, educational and economic equality, freedom from violence.
Minority Rights- Equal rights in politics, education and economics.
Children’s Rights- Right to education, a healthy upbringing, freedom from exploitation.
Indigenous Rights- The right to control one’s own land, livelihood, culture and government.
Economic Rights- The right to food, a job and a decent living, the right to unionize.
Education Rights- Equal access to education.
There have been several rounds of controversies over human rights. For instance, repressive countries such as China and Saudi
Arabia have gained membership on the UN’s Human Rights Commission, claimed that human rights only represent a Western
perspective, and said that stability, economic development and group welfare take precedence over individual rights. This

13.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51731
conveniently gives them justification to suppress any opposition. In addition, some Muslim countries have objected to women’s
rights as violating traditional culture, conveniently allowing them to continue oppressing women.
Meanwhile, numerous human right violations occur without action from the international community.
-In North Korea, Kim Jong Un holds over 100,000 political prisoners in starvation work camps, including beatings with iron bars
and sexual attacks. Many of the prisoners’ only crime is to be related to someone out of favor. Kim has executed over 300 senior
government officials, including his own uncle, and had his half-bother assassinated.
-Starting in 2015, thousands of Rohinga, long-settled Muslim refugees from Bangla Desh, were killed and raped in Buddhist-
majority Myanmar by the Army and 750,000 had their villages burned and were forced out of the country.
-In the Philippines, since his becoming president in 2016, Rodrigo Duterte’s thugs have killed over 20,000 ‘drug dealers’ without
arrests or trials. He has imprisoned opposition leaders and there have been mysterious killings of government officials.
-Starting in 2016 in Xinjiang, China has imprisoned one million Muslim Uighurs in ‘reeducation camps,’ where they are
interrogated and forced to recite and sing communist texts and songs. Lately, Uighurs have been sent to work in factories in other
parts of China. In the cities, there are cameras and checkpoints everywhere and households are forced to host ‘guests’ from the
government who report on their every move. In other parts of the country, China has increased censorship and jailed critics and
their lawyers.
-The U.S. also violated human rights in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Suspected terrorists were kidnapped, sent to Guantanamo Bay
and secret prisons overseas, and subjected to harsh interrogation methods. Similar methods were employed in Iraq. Experienced
interrogators could have told them that torture does not produce accurate information - the prisoners just tell you want you want to
hear. In addition to these violations, many civilians have been killed in U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This page titled 13.1: Human Rights is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

13.1.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51731
13.2: Population
Population affects many aspects of world politics. For instance, the fact that China and India have more than a billion people
strengthens their standing in the world. However, having too many people also degrades the environment, requires more food,
shelter, schools and jobs, and causes other problems. There are complex connections between population, birth control, economic
development and the empowerment of women.
In his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Malthus wrote that population growth is exponential (i.e., children grow
up and have children of their own), while food production only grows arithmetically. Therefore, he predicted that famines would
occur. However, food production rose faster than expected, and world population continued to grow.
In his 1969 The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich also made predictions of dire results from overpopulation. However, by this time
new factors had emerged. One was improved birth control. Also, as societies developed and became more prosperous, women
became more educated, entered the workplace more and had fewer children. This is what is called the demographic transition.
What has happened since? The picture varies.
First, the earlier worrisome prediction of 12 billion total world population by 2050 is not going to happen - it will peak at around
9.7 billion from the current 6 billion. This is still a serious increase that will be a challenge. Meanwhile, there are different
situations in various countries.
1) In Europe, Japan and Russia, there will be a population decrease. About 1.4 children are being born per family, far below the
needed 2.1 replacement rate. Partly, women are refusing to accept their traditional role, not marrying, marrying later and avoiding
the education and other costs of having many children. Even in countries where many women work outside the home, they are still
expected to do most of the housework and childrearing, and there are problems of the expense and lack of child care.
Decreasing population is already leading to problems of labor shortages and paying for pensions and senior health care in Japan,
where the population is dropping by 500,000 per year. Japan is taking small steps toward bringing more women into the workplace
and increasing child care, hiring more seniors and allowing the entry of foreign workers. In Northern Europe, there is more a of
child support system, e.g. day care, parental leave, child support bonuses and respite services. As a result, overall birth rates are
close to replacement. However, it is mostly the immigrant population that is growing, leaving some to predict a future ‘Eurabia.’ In
Southern Europe, the population is dropping.
In Russia, a combination of poverty, male alcoholism, lack of contraceptives leading to multiple abortions and 20% of couples
being infertile, and the spread of AIDS and Multiple-Drug Resistant TB has led to a decrease in average lifespan, an annual
population drop of 750,000 and an imminent population crash in the next decades. What is going to happen when China looks
across the border and sees all that empty space? China has already bought or leased large tracts of agricultural land in Russia, and
in the Russian Far East, there are now 8 million Russians and 8 million Chinese.
2) To prevent a population explosion, in 1979 China enacted a mandatory policy of one child per family. Two generations of
sometimes-harsh enforcement (some women were forced to have abortions in their eighth month!) cut population growth
considerably. However, the current cohort of only children of only children will have problems supporting two parents and four
grandparents in retirement. Since the policy changed in 2015, despite government efforts to encourage women to stay home and
have two babies (without support services), there is still a low birth rate (1.6 per woman) and there will be a population decrease
starting in 2027. There is already a shortage of workers, leading to higher wages.
Another problem is that the preference for boys has led to abortions of female fetuses, resulting in an excess of 30 million men and
a shortage of women. Urban women won’t even date men who do not have an apartment and car. We now see large matchmaking
fees, the kidnapping and sale of girls from poor countries like Myanmar and Pakistan, and expensive brokered marriages with
women from Vietnam who run away a few months after the ceremony.
In India, education and strong birth control programs have diminished population growth in the South, but numbers are still
growing quickly in the North. All this relates very much to the education of women. As we said, women with education are more
prosperous, more often have jobs and have fewer kids (because of birth control, the need for child care and high education costs).
On the other hand, poor, uneducated women are forced by their families to have sons to guarantee later economic support for
seniors. Selective abortion of daughters in favor of having sons has led to such a shortage of women that today caste and other
traditional requirements for marriage are sometimes ignored.

13.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51732
Historically, having large numbers of unmarried men has led to increased social conflict – crime, political unrest, war, etc. We will
see. Perhaps the girl shortage will lead to an improvement of the status of women. More families now educate their girls and expect
more from prospective marriage partners. To repeat, one of the best ways for a country to develop its economy is to educate and
empower its women, and educated middle class women tend to have fewer kids.
3) In counties like Nigeria and Pakistan, population growth essentially continues unchecked, doubling every 35 years. Such rapid
growth strains resources. For instance, one of the reasons for more conflicts and migration in Africa is that increased population
means there is not enough land for people to survive. Nigeria and other countries have seen violence between farmers and herders.
In addition, having half the population under 30 creates huge demand for education and jobs. In Pakistan, there are not enough
schools, so many boys attend free Islamic madrassas where they memorize the Koran instead of studying math and science.
4) Despite millions of deaths from the AIDS epidemic (10 million AIDS orphans are being raised by their grandmothers), Sub-
Saharan Africa will have large population increases. Because of lack of access to education and birth control, the population will
grow from 1 billion today to 2 billion by 2050 and 4 billion by 2100. Prosperous Europe with its declining population is a short but
dangerous ride across the Mediterranean Sea. Europe thinks it has immigration problems now - just wait!
5) The United States has been in a good middle position regarding population growth. Although most American women are
educated and middle class and have fewer children, between increased immigration and natural increase in the Latino and
immigrant population, it was poised to grow moderately from the current 327 million to 400 million by 2050. However, recently it
has dropped below the replacement rate to 1.75 per woman and seen a population decline in the 25-55 age group due to alcohol,
drugs, obesity and suicide.
So, the picture is very mixed, depending on local circumstances.

This page titled 13.2: Population is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence Meacham.

13.2.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51732
13.3: The Environment
In 1968, Garret Hardin wrote The Tragedy of the Commons, which refers to how each sheep owner in the Middle Ages in Europe
had the incentive to maximize use of common grazing areas to raise the greatest possible number of sheep. However, this resulted
in overgrazing and destruction of the land so that it was unusable for anyone. Similarly, factory owners today want to maximize
production and car owners want to use their cars freely, so they put more emissions in the atmosphere; timber companies want to
sell more wood, so they cut down all the trees; fishing boat owners want make more money, so they catch all the fish; chemical
plant owners want to save money, so they dump toxic wastes in the river.
As a response to these issues, since the 1970s many countries have enacted regulations regarding air and water pollution, waste
disposal and other environmental problems. Since environmental problems cross borders, there have also been attempts to deal
with these problems on the international level.
There have been over 30 global international environmental agreements and many more regional ones, as nation-states increasingly
recognize that environmental problems connect strongly to national security, economics and human rights. For instance, when the
Sahara Desert grows, people attack their neighbors to take their land. A long drought in Syria fueled migration to the cities and the
rebellion against the Asad government. As deforestation in China increased, did costly flooding. Dams, deforestation, mining and
industrial development displace farmers and indigenous peoples. More extreme weather has caused a doubling of deaths and
destruction in the U.S., and increased poverty, refugees, and conflict all over the world. The Pentagon says that climate change is
the most dangerous threat to world peace.
-The 1972 Stockholm Conference was a landmark. For the first time, it put a list of principles on the global agenda, such as the
necessity of protecting the environment in both your own country and your neighbors. Out of this conference came later
agreements to reduce pollutants such as acid rain (smoke that combines with water in clouds to form sulfuric/battery acid), which
was harming forests, lakes and lungs.
-The 1987 Montreal Protocol successfully limited Freon and similar ozone-destroying CFC chemicals, in order to preserve the
ozone layer in the atmosphere, which protects us from harmful rays from the sun. As a result, the ozone layer has stabilized and is
predicted to recover within 40 years.
-The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio focused on sustainability. Issues included global warming, endangered species and crashes in
fisheries. Some agreements were reached on biodiversity and climate change.
-The 1997 Kyoto Protocol set goals for reducing global warming emissions. However, when Bush 2 became president, he
withdrew the U.S. from the treaty. Bush said he did not want to hurt the economy. Despite that, enough countries signed on to
Kyoto for it to come into effect and Europe and Japan made serious efforts to reduce emissions, greatly increasing conservation,
energy efficiency and the use of alternative energy. (Not-very-sunny Germany is the world’s largest producer of solar power.)
-Conferences in Copenhagen in 2009, Cancun in 2010 and Durban in 2012 were disappointing, only producing agreement for
countries to individually set lower emissions goals. India and other countries want to develop their economies, and ask why they
should limit their prosperity when the West causes most of the global warming problem. (The top 10% produces 50% of
greenhouse gases, whereas the bottom 50% produces only 10%.)
Although global warming emissions keep increasing, there has been some progress. U.S. power companies have started using
cleaner natural gas because increased production has reduced prices. Also, the Obama administration set reduced emissions by coal
power plants and higher gasoline mileage standards for cars (although Republican states sued to stop them). Together, all of these
reduced emissions. In addition, Obama also secured an agreement between the U.S. and China, the two biggest polluters, in which
China agreed to reduce burning coal. This set the stage for the 2015 Paris Accords, where the entire world agreed to reduce
emissions.
Donald Trump withdrew from the Accords, but the other 192 countries in the world are following its provisions. Trump is also
reversing coal plant and mileage standards, and the U.S. is increasing emissions once again.
Meanwhile, CO2 levels and temperatures have been steadily rising, bringing more extreme weather, fires, bleaching of coral reefs,
droughts and species extinctions. Melting ice and rising oceans threaten the 80% of cities that are on the shoreline and will make
low-lying Pacific Island nations like Kiribati disappear. The 2019 follow-on climate conference in Madrid climate conference
produced little progress.

13.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51733
As we mentioned earlier, lack of water is becoming an issue, particularly in the American West, Northern China, Southwest Asia
and the Middle East. In Russia, the once-huge Aral Sea has almost disappeared. Aquifers all over the world are falling. The number
of dams and disputes over the sharing of water are increasing. However, there have also been regional agreements on subjects such
as reducing pollution and sharing of rivers.
Another issue is deforestation, which continues in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Amazon and Russia, with illegal logging increasing
global warming, displacing native people from their land, and wiping out endangered species. Deforestation is so severe in Haiti
that it causes flooding, and the border with the neighboring Dominican Republic can be seen from the air. Since Bolsanaro became
president of Brazil, there have been continuous, massive forest fires in the Amazon rain forest to clear land for farms and ranches.
Also, fisheries are crashing all over the world because of new fishing technologies and government financial support for more and
larger bottom trawlers, which catch EVERYTHING in the ocean. Most fishing limits are imposed too little, too late, after most of
the fish are already gone. Ninety percent of larger fish have already been taken. The EU and U.S. have set some sustainable fishing
limits in some waters, but most fishing is still unregulated. In addition, warming oceans mean that the fish are moving North to new
waters. The situation is approaching a crisis. Aquaculture can reduce pressure on wild stocks, but has problems of pollution,
disease and GMO fish escaping into the wild.
NGOs are very important in environmental matters, often informally setting the agenda and sometimes taking significant
independent action. The Nature Conservancy bought up and/or cancelled third world debt in return for setting up nature reserves.
Rainforest Action criticized Burger King for cutting down Brazil rainforests to graze cattle. Greenpeace targeted Brazil’s mahogany
trade. The Worldwide Fund for Nature publicized the use of body parts from endangered species for medicine. Sea Shepherd so
effectively harassed Japanese whaling ships that they cut their hunting season short. Basketball star Yao Ming publicly campaigned
in China against shark fin soup and the slaughter of elephants for the ivory trade. The Chinese government later took shark fin soup
off the menus of official banquets and recently announced that it will make the ivory trade illegal.
Conclusion
Issues such as population, human rights and the environment, which used to be considered pure domestic matters, are now clearly
on the international agenda, as indicated by the number of international conferences, agreements and programs.
Questions
1. Give one modern example of intervening and one of ignoring human rights violations.
2. Give three examples of human rights outside of the usual political context.
3. Go to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (www.un.org/Overview/rights.html). Are there any some countries might
disagree with? Which ones? Why Are there any that you disagree with? Which ones? Why?
4. How do countries like China criticize the human rights agenda?
5. Which areas will see a population decrease in the coming decades? Why?
6. What will happen to 1) China and India 2) the U.S. 3) Sub-Saharan Africa’s population in the coming decades?
7. Give three examples of international environmental problems.
8. Give three examples of international environmental agreements.

This page titled 13.3: The Environment is shared under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lawrence
Meacham.

13.3.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51733
Index
B G protectionism
Balfour Declaration Glasnost 6.1: Rise of World Trade
6.6: Protectionism
2.6: The Middle East 2.10: Detente and Cooperation
Battle of Britain
2.8: World War II I Q
Blitzkrieg quotas
idealists
6.6: Protectionism
2.8: World War II 3.4: Theories of World Politics - Idealists
Bretton Woods system isolationists
6.7: World Finance - Bretton Woods and Today 3.6: Theories of World Politics - Isolationists
R
Byzantium realists
2.1: 500-1500 AD L 3.3: Theories of World Politics- Realists
Reciprocity
Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS)
C 3.3: Theories of World Politics- Realists
12.1: Reciprocity and Collective Action
Cold War regulated free markets
6.2: Post WWII Economy
2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The M Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Cold War
Made in China 2025
collective action 12.2: Sources of International Law
6.5: Mercantilist Trade Policy
12.1: Reciprocity and Collective Action
Marshall Plan S
constructivists
2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The
3.7: Theories of World Politics - Constructivists Cold War Security Dilemma
Cuban Missile Crisis Marxism 3.3: Theories of World Politics- Realists
2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The 3.8: Theories of World Politics - Marxists and shock therapy
Cold War Feminists 6.2: Post WWII Economy
Mikhail Gorbachev sovereignty
D 2.10: Detente and Cooperation 3.1: The Modern World System
diplomatic immunity state
12.1: Reciprocity and Collective Action N 3.2: Nations and States
drug patents Nation Suez crisis
6.6: Protectionism 3.2: Nations and States 2.10: Detente and Cooperation
NATO
E 2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The T
empires Cold War tariffs
3.1: The Modern World System 11.3: The Concert of Europe and NATO
6.6: Protectionism
neoconservatives technology transfer
F 3.5: Theories of World Politics - Neoconservatives
6.5: Mercantilist Trade Policy
farm subsidies Truman Doctrine
6.6: Protectionism
P 2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The
feminism pandemic Cold War
3.8: Theories of World Politics - Marxists and 8.4: Disease and Pollution
Feminists Perestroika V
freight container 2.10: Detente and Cooperation Vietnam War
6.2: Post WWII Economy Prisoners’ Dilemma 2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The
3.4: Theories of World Politics - Idealists Cold War

1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/51838
Detailed Licensing
Overview
Title: A Short Introduction to World Politics (Meacham)
Webpages: 103
Applicable Restrictions: Noncommercial, No Derivatives
All licenses found:
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0: 93.2% (96 pages)
Undeclared: 6.8% (7 pages)

By Page
A Short Introduction to World Politics (Meacham) - CC BY- 3.7: Theories of World Politics - Constructivists - CC
NC-ND 4.0 BY-NC-ND 4.0
Front Matter - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 3.8: Theories of World Politics - Marxists and
TitlePage - Undeclared Feminists - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
InfoPage - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 4: Foreign Policy Decision Making - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Table of Contents - Undeclared 4.1: System Factors - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Licensing - Undeclared 4.2: National and Domestic Factors - CC BY-NC-ND
1: Introduction - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 4.0
4.3: Individual Factors - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
1.1: Why Study World Politics? - Undeclared
4.4: Rational Decision Making - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
1.2: Characteristics of World Politics - CC BY-NC-ND
4.0 5: Non-State Actors- IGOs, NGOs, MNCs - CC BY-NC-
2: System History- The Rise of the Modern World ND 4.0
System - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 5.1: United Nations - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
2.1: 500-1500 AD - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 5.2: World Bank, IMF, WTO - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
2.2: European Imperialism - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 5.3: G7, G20, G77 - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
2.3: Concert of Europe - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 5.4: EU, NATO, OPEC - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
2.4: Unification of Germany - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 5.5: Other Regional Organizations - CC BY-NC-ND
2.5: World War I - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 4.0
2.6: The Middle East - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 5.6: NGOs and Other Non-State Actors - CC BY-NC-
2.7: Peace Efforts - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 ND 4.0
2.8: World War II - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 5.7: International Governmental Organizations
2.9: Aftermath of WWII – Decolonization and The (IGOs) - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Cold War - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 6: The World Economy - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
2.10: Detente and Cooperation - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 6.1: Rise of World Trade - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
2.11: The Post-Cold War Era - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 6.2: Post WWII Economy - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
3: Images and Theories of World Politics - CC BY-NC- 6.3: Balance of Payments - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
ND 4.0 6.4: Liberal Free Trade Policy - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
3.1: The Modern World System - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 6.5: Mercantilist Trade Policy - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
3.2: Nations and States - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 6.6: Protectionism - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
3.3: Theories of World Politics- Realists - CC BY-NC- 6.7: World Finance - Bretton Woods and Today - CC
ND 4.0 BY-NC-ND 4.0
3.4: Theories of World Politics - Idealists - CC BY- 6.8: Economic Power - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
NC-ND 4.0 7: The Global North and South - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
3.5: Theories of World Politics - Neoconservatives - 7.1: European Imperialism - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 7.2: Colonial Independence - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
3.6: Theories of World Politics - Isolationists - CC 7.3: Global North and South - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
BY-NC-ND 4.0

1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/173289
 7.4: Four Theories of Development - CC BY-NC-ND 10.10: Nuclear Proliferation - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
4.0 10.11: Disarmament and Loose Nukes - CC BY-NC-
7.5: Alternative Economic Development Policies for ND 4.0
the Poor - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 10.12: Missiles - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
7.6: Foreign Policies of the Global South - CC BY- 10.13: Coercive Diplomacy - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
NC-ND 4.0 10.14: Economic Sanctions - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
8: Globalization - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 11: Realist Paths to Peace – Alliances, Dominance and
8.1: Information and Media - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Treaties - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
8.2: Sales, Labor and Production - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 11.1: Balance of Power Alliances - CC BY-NC-ND
8.3: Investment and Finance - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 4.0
8.4: Disease and Pollution - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 11.2: Hegemonic Stability - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
8.5: Theories of Globalization - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 11.3: The Concert of Europe and NATO - CC BY-NC-
9: War and International Security - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 ND 4.0
11.4: Nuclear Arms Control Treaties - CC BY-NC-ND
9.1: Individual, National and System Causes - CC BY-
4.0
NC-ND 4.0
11.5: Other Arms Control Treaties - CC BY-NC-ND
9.2: Less War, Irregular and Asymmetric War - CC
4.0
BY-NC-ND 4.0
9.3: History of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State - CC 12: Idealist Paths to Peace- International Law - CC BY-
BY-NC-ND 4.0 NC-ND 4.0
10: Military Power - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 12.1: Reciprocity and Collective Action - CC BY-NC-
10.1: Elements and Limits of Military Power - CC ND 4.0
BY-NC-ND 4.0 12.2: Sources of International Law - CC BY-NC-ND
10.2: Comparative Military Power - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
4.0 12.3: Sovereignty- Rights and Duties - CC BY-NC-
10.3: Soft Power - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 ND 4.0
10.4: Military Spending and Arms Sales - CC BY-NC- 12.4: Laws of War - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
ND 4.0 13: Human Rights, Population, the Environment - CC
10.5: Deterrence - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 BY-NC-ND 4.0
10.6: Misunderstanding, Misperception, 13.1: Human Rights - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Miscommunication - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 13.2: Population - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
10.7: Bush’s Preventive War Doctrine - CC BY-NC- 13.3: The Environment - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
ND 4.0 Back Matter - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
10.8: Nukes and Cold War Strategy - CC BY-NC-ND
Index - Undeclared
4.0
Glossary - Undeclared
10.9: Chemical and Biological Weapons - CC BY-NC-
Detailed Licensing - Undeclared
ND 4.0

2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/173289