AP FINAL EXAM INFO
Friday, May 4
2PM in regular room
format of the exam is a bit different
4 questions, like the midterm
-also one longer essay question
-oh shit
review sheet distributed in DISCUSSION SECTIONS
-why the FUCK did i even come to class. dammit.
what's it on?
-predominantly on the last third of the course
-however, it's 'implicitly a cumulative exam'
-will probably contain some of the stuff from the rest of the course
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
OCC CIV QUIZ ANSWERS 4/23
two days early. i'm retarded, i know
Europe has become much more centralized
-today, europe is still a bit decentralized
-europeans still dont all consider themselves as such, but rather as their nationality
-it's moving towards centralization, however
-the EU is a strong driving force
-starting with teh coal and steel community, then its evolutions, europe has been uniting more and more
-NATO is its collective security arrangement
-europe now has been compared to the US in 1861
-still prone to breakup, but with the beginnings of real conglomeration forming
in 1789, it was totally different
-the states were still vying for domination of eachother
-now, the inter-state tensions have been quelled, for the most part
-no more striving for domination by all of the parties
two days early. i'm retarded, i know
1) How have Europeans' expectations of the state's role in their lives changed between 1789 and 1991?
European state has increased in presence and efficacy greatly since 1789
-1789 it was essentially a tool of the rulers
-lots of revolutions happened, not least of which was the french revolution
-woah there the people are actually getting what they want
-now, the people are pretty much in control of things
-SOCIALIZED STATE SYSTEM
-sort of pseudo-socialism has taken hold
-lots of state intervention all over the place
-state support systems that just didnt exist before have popped up as a safety net of sorts
-whereas before the poor were essentially left to fend for themselves, now they expect the state to fight for them
2 Given the importance of memory, what problems do you see in the integration of Eastern Europe into the EU?
Eastern Europe has historically been pretty separate from western europe
-different culturally, socially, ethnically (?)
-western europeans have always kind of looked down on them
-since WWII this problem has only been exacerbated
-Eastern europe has become further isolated from the west because of the soviet union's control over the region
-not only that, but the germans also treated them as an inferior group of people
-because of all of this, the eastern europeans have an extremely distinct cultural history- they were never the oppressors, always the oppressed
Economically also, eastern europe is extremely distinct
-german and then soviet oppression again
-legacy of nazism/communism is brutal exploitation of resources and people
-this is baaaad for them
-essentially they're left underdeveloped and divided arbitrarily
-leads to lots of strife
Europe has become much more centralized
-today, europe is still a bit decentralized
-europeans still dont all consider themselves as such, but rather as their nationality
-it's moving towards centralization, however
-the EU is a strong driving force
-starting with teh coal and steel community, then its evolutions, europe has been uniting more and more
-NATO is its collective security arrangement
-europe now has been compared to the US in 1861
-still prone to breakup, but with the beginnings of real conglomeration forming
in 1789, it was totally different
-the states were still vying for domination of eachother
-now, the inter-state tensions have been quelled, for the most part
-no more striving for domination by all of the parties
AFP LECTURE NOTES 4/23
Lecture 24
A) The Global System
There's no question, US is the world's unipolar power
Hegemony
Unipolarity
US Hegemony is REAL & ABSOLUTE
-also PRONE TO PEACE
-why?
-there's no more competition among second-tier states for security reasons
-now there's no reason to vie for status as client states
-security dilemma is just about gone
-client states are more likely to bandwagon WITH the US rather than join up AGAINST it
-evidence proves this-
-most of the wars since fall of USSR have been INTRA-state wars, not INTER-state wars
neorealists posit that bipolarity is prone to peace
-because of less borders, fewer enemies
-therefore, unipolarity is the MOST peaceful
Hegemony is based on FORCE PROJECTION around the world
-US is the sole state with the force projection capability to be considered for hegemony
-HOWEVER, while the US has unipolar authority, it does NOT intervene enough to be considered hegemonic
US Unipolarity and 'hegemony' is different from other hegemonies
-US expresses itself through technological and commercial control, rather than physical control
-US didn't come to power by trampling other states, it came to power by default when the USSR suddenly collapsed
THESE vv are other potential world systems
Bipolarity
another state rises up to challenge the US
Tripolarity
TWO other states rise up to challenge
Multipolarity
LOTS of other states rise up, but the US remains there enough for its structures and institutions to prevent war
Anarchy
US withdraws from the international scene entirely, organizations and institutions collapse, war?
one theory is that if the US was attacked by a massive international terrorist organization, other states would willingly subordinate themselves to US hegemony
-this was theorized BEFORE 9/11
-other states would be willing to subordinate themselves to combat the terrorist threat
-this was on track to happen with Afghanistan, kind of derailed with Iraq
-US has shown with Iraq (vietnam, somalia, etc) that indigenous resisters and non-state actors are able to successfully resist and bog down the US hegemonic process
Hegemony has different manifestations
-military
-force projection capabilities, etc
-economic
-economic domination of the world engenders dependence on the hegemon
-resources
-hegemon wants to dominate resources
-all of this tends to international HIERARCHY
Neorealists didn't believe that US unipolarity was durable
-it ended up being so
-nobody rose up to challenge the US because it was more cost-efficient NOT to
-other nations would rather bandwagon WITH the US, not against it
-it's just cheaper
-it's much harder to balance against an existing hegemon, rather than against a rising one
-US is working to maintain its hegemony
-permanent troop bases in Western Europe, Eastern Asia, Middle East
-works to maintain regional stability, also works to prevent rise of potential rivals
B) International Responses
Bandwagoning
most prominent response so far
-essentially, roll over and take it
Hard Balancing
balancing toe-to-toe with military power HAS NOT HAPPENED
-too expensive, too difficult, too easy to cut down in the early stages
Soft Balancing
easier to balance this way
-use diplomacy, international institutions, international law
-IRONY!!!
-US is the reason that intl institutions and law even exist in the first place
-US is committed to upholding these, even if they work to contain it
Economic Prebalancing
countries work on closing the economic and technological gap between them and the US
-so that if the necessity ever arises, they'd have the capability to move to hard balancing
Leash-Slipping
states call america's bluff
-essentially build up own military power, pursue own foreign policy
-ignore US as the hegemon, bank on the fact that the US is committed to international stability, will have to tolerate you
C) Potential Rivals
traditionally, the hegemon has to continue to expand in order to keep from stagnating and dying out
-this used to be done by territorial expansion, this isn't the case anymore
-now economic, social?
the next biggest issue in foreign policy is MANAGING the return to multipolarity
-US CAN'T keep fighting off rivals, where will they come from?
-EURASIA
possible rivals?
The EU
damn ungrateful europeans again
during the cold war, the US and EU were essentially a single pole
-it was beneficial for both sides
-kept USSR out of europe, good for europeans AND americans
-now that the cold war is over, the gap has started to emerge again
-this is unprecedented for europe
-since the fall of the roman empire, europe has been DEFINED by inter-state conflict
-spanish, french, british, then germans
-germany is still the dominant european power, despite WWII
-now that a collective european identity has started to emerge, they can now work as a world power
european policymakers established institutions to drive europe together
-the EURO
-european parliament
-closer integration of economic relations
now, europeans have passed several thresholds necessary for conglomeration
-europeans are starting to identify themselves as such
-over 70% of poles agree with the idea of a collective security agreement for europe
there are still some problems
-institutions are still weak and very bureaucratic
-expansion east is diluting the uniformity and integration of the EU
-demographics are a real issue
-people are getting OLDER, dying off, putting strain on the social structures
-relatively weak militarily
-europeans have been trying to fix this
-1948, 52, 54 they tried to create uniquely european security structures, they didn't work
-people were willing to chill under NATO and allow the US to shoulder the burden
-now they're starting this up again
-ESDP, rapid response force established 1999
-US reacts to this negatively, of course
-now, EU is really working towards integration
China
last 25 years, skyrocketing into world status
-greatest short-term regional transformation in world history
-o dang...
china's had some real problems to overcome
-foreign invasions, problems (1839-1945)
-internal problems (whenever-1976)
-now that mao is gone, more pragmatic rulers chill out there now
-china has always been a real imperial power, though
-this might be a problem to overcome
in the 1980s, japan was seen as the rising economic power to challenge the US
-this died out real quick
-china took over that role
-they're buying every single raw material they can get their hands on
is china on the course to confront the US?
some problems with that
-there has never been any sort of drive for international hegemony in china
-chinese just don't care about the rest of the world, never really has
-military weakness
-chinese military intervention has always been rejected by all, welcomed by none
-chinese neighbors are far more likely to balance AGAINST china than bandwagon WITH it
there are no civilians in a democracy...
-the choices made by a democracy are made at the ballot box, everyone is accountable
o dang. what an incredible class
Lecture 24
A) The Global System
There's no question, US is the world's unipolar power
Hegemony
Unipolarity
US Hegemony is REAL & ABSOLUTE
-also PRONE TO PEACE
-why?
-there's no more competition among second-tier states for security reasons
-now there's no reason to vie for status as client states
-security dilemma is just about gone
-client states are more likely to bandwagon WITH the US rather than join up AGAINST it
-evidence proves this-
-most of the wars since fall of USSR have been INTRA-state wars, not INTER-state wars
neorealists posit that bipolarity is prone to peace
-because of less borders, fewer enemies
-therefore, unipolarity is the MOST peaceful
Hegemony is based on FORCE PROJECTION around the world
-US is the sole state with the force projection capability to be considered for hegemony
-HOWEVER, while the US has unipolar authority, it does NOT intervene enough to be considered hegemonic
US Unipolarity and 'hegemony' is different from other hegemonies
-US expresses itself through technological and commercial control, rather than physical control
-US didn't come to power by trampling other states, it came to power by default when the USSR suddenly collapsed
THESE vv are other potential world systems
Bipolarity
another state rises up to challenge the US
Tripolarity
TWO other states rise up to challenge
Multipolarity
LOTS of other states rise up, but the US remains there enough for its structures and institutions to prevent war
Anarchy
US withdraws from the international scene entirely, organizations and institutions collapse, war?
one theory is that if the US was attacked by a massive international terrorist organization, other states would willingly subordinate themselves to US hegemony
-this was theorized BEFORE 9/11
-other states would be willing to subordinate themselves to combat the terrorist threat
-this was on track to happen with Afghanistan, kind of derailed with Iraq
-US has shown with Iraq (vietnam, somalia, etc) that indigenous resisters and non-state actors are able to successfully resist and bog down the US hegemonic process
Hegemony has different manifestations
-military
-force projection capabilities, etc
-economic
-economic domination of the world engenders dependence on the hegemon
-resources
-hegemon wants to dominate resources
-all of this tends to international HIERARCHY
Neorealists didn't believe that US unipolarity was durable
-it ended up being so
-nobody rose up to challenge the US because it was more cost-efficient NOT to
-other nations would rather bandwagon WITH the US, not against it
-it's just cheaper
-it's much harder to balance against an existing hegemon, rather than against a rising one
-US is working to maintain its hegemony
-permanent troop bases in Western Europe, Eastern Asia, Middle East
-works to maintain regional stability, also works to prevent rise of potential rivals
B) International Responses
Bandwagoning
most prominent response so far
-essentially, roll over and take it
Hard Balancing
balancing toe-to-toe with military power HAS NOT HAPPENED
-too expensive, too difficult, too easy to cut down in the early stages
Soft Balancing
easier to balance this way
-use diplomacy, international institutions, international law
-IRONY!!!
-US is the reason that intl institutions and law even exist in the first place
-US is committed to upholding these, even if they work to contain it
Economic Prebalancing
countries work on closing the economic and technological gap between them and the US
-so that if the necessity ever arises, they'd have the capability to move to hard balancing
Leash-Slipping
states call america's bluff
-essentially build up own military power, pursue own foreign policy
-ignore US as the hegemon, bank on the fact that the US is committed to international stability, will have to tolerate you
C) Potential Rivals
traditionally, the hegemon has to continue to expand in order to keep from stagnating and dying out
-this used to be done by territorial expansion, this isn't the case anymore
-now economic, social?
the next biggest issue in foreign policy is MANAGING the return to multipolarity
-US CAN'T keep fighting off rivals, where will they come from?
-EURASIA
possible rivals?
The EU
damn ungrateful europeans again
during the cold war, the US and EU were essentially a single pole
-it was beneficial for both sides
-kept USSR out of europe, good for europeans AND americans
-now that the cold war is over, the gap has started to emerge again
-this is unprecedented for europe
-since the fall of the roman empire, europe has been DEFINED by inter-state conflict
-spanish, french, british, then germans
-germany is still the dominant european power, despite WWII
-now that a collective european identity has started to emerge, they can now work as a world power
european policymakers established institutions to drive europe together
-the EURO
-european parliament
-closer integration of economic relations
now, europeans have passed several thresholds necessary for conglomeration
-europeans are starting to identify themselves as such
-over 70% of poles agree with the idea of a collective security agreement for europe
there are still some problems
-institutions are still weak and very bureaucratic
-expansion east is diluting the uniformity and integration of the EU
-demographics are a real issue
-people are getting OLDER, dying off, putting strain on the social structures
-relatively weak militarily
-europeans have been trying to fix this
-1948, 52, 54 they tried to create uniquely european security structures, they didn't work
-people were willing to chill under NATO and allow the US to shoulder the burden
-now they're starting this up again
-ESDP, rapid response force established 1999
-US reacts to this negatively, of course
-now, EU is really working towards integration
China
last 25 years, skyrocketing into world status
-greatest short-term regional transformation in world history
-o dang...
china's had some real problems to overcome
-foreign invasions, problems (1839-1945)
-internal problems (whenever-1976)
-now that mao is gone, more pragmatic rulers chill out there now
-china has always been a real imperial power, though
-this might be a problem to overcome
in the 1980s, japan was seen as the rising economic power to challenge the US
-this died out real quick
-china took over that role
-they're buying every single raw material they can get their hands on
is china on the course to confront the US?
some problems with that
-there has never been any sort of drive for international hegemony in china
-chinese just don't care about the rest of the world, never really has
-military weakness
-chinese military intervention has always been rejected by all, welcomed by none
-chinese neighbors are far more likely to balance AGAINST china than bandwagon WITH it
there are no civilians in a democracy...
-the choices made by a democracy are made at the ballot box, everyone is accountable
o dang. what an incredible class
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
