POS 304404: Great Power Politics 02152006

1
POS 304/404 Great Power Politics02/15/2006

• Course Status
• Second weekly written assignment due.
• Presentation date selection, due today.
• Paper topic description 02/22/05.
• Presentation and paper can be on same/similar
  topic.
• Course Agenda
• Website.
• Discussion question.
• Empires, Great Powers and Revolutionary States.
• Readings.
• Mearsheimer Chapter 3 Haas Chapter 3 Howe
  Chapter 3.
• Videos Amer. Rev. Anti-Imperial, SOTU, French
  Rev., Napoleons defeat.

2

• Discussion Question
• Empires, Great Powers and Revolutionary States.
• How do sea empires (Howe) amass wealth and
  power (Mearsheimer)? Does Haas discussion of
  France allow one to understand either, the
  acquisition, or the persistence of an
  empire/great power status, under a revolutionary
  regime?

3

• War, Power, and Expansion of the Federal/Central
  State.
• Progressive growth of US federal state.
• Similar pattern to other central states.
• Growth of Authority, centralization of power.
• Forms of Crisis
• War,
• Major Political Movement Mobilization,
• Epidemics,
• Economic (Depression, Recession).
• Ratchet effect and great power status.
• OSU Professor Sahrs website.

4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6

• Mearsheimer.
• UC Berkley interview 2002.
• Op-ed piece Keeping Saddam in the Box.
• American Amnesia interview.
• the claim that security competition and war
  between great powers has been purged from
  international system is wrong.
• International Politics... a dangerous and
  ruthless business.
• Assumptions of Mearsheimer.
• States engaged in an unrelenting pursuit of
  power.
• Why?
• International System.
• Anarchic.
• States have offensive military capability.
• States face uncertainty.
• Uncertainty Fear.
• Examples - Intelligence Failures.

7

• Ikenberry, John. 2002. Introduction in America
  Unrivaled The Future of the Balance of Power,
  John Ikenberry ed.. Ithaca, NY Cornell
  University Press.
• American power unprecedented.
• Hyperpower?
• Multidimensionality of power.
• Military.
• Economic.
• Cultural.
• American Unipolarity Poses Questions for IR
  theory.
• Realist Theory of Balance of Power.
• Balancing to Concentration or Asymmetry of Power.
• No significant balancing of American power.
• Opposition to intervention in Iraq - evidence of
  balancing?
• Why no balancing to American unipolarity?
• Economic interdependence.

8

• Ikenberry.
• Balancing dog that has not yet barked.
• Possible reasons for lack of balancing.
• American power less threatening?
• American power and actions more benefits than
  costs to other states?
• American power, and global system, fundamentally
  different and stable?
• Policy Implications.
• Anticipation of near and long term future global
  distribution of power.
• Institutional Response.
• Military, diplomatic, economic, cultural -
  internal and external.

9

• Ikenberry.
• Debate about American unipolarity - debate about
  sources of international order.
• Debate w/deep historical roots.
• Control of conflict and maintenance of order.
• Realist/neorealist theories.
• Balance of Power.
• Hegemony.
• Balance of power.
• Capabilities for balancing internal and external.
• Alliances of expedience - not durable.
• Weak states seek protection from dominant state.
• Balancing strategy vs. bandwagoning.

10

• Ikenberry.
• Hegemony.
• International system characterized by a series of
  hegemonies.
• War establishes new hegemony.
• Different types of hegemony.
• Intensity of use of coercion.
• Hegemonic order preserved by
• Coercion w/no challenging state or alliance of
  states.
• Informal imperial order.
• Minimal convergence of interests.
• Solving regional security dilemmas.
• Liberal hegemony.
• Institutions and mutual benefit dampen balancing
  impulse.

11

• Hegemony and Empire.
• Great power defining international relations of
  era.
• Lieven Empire The Russian Empire and its Rivals
  (2000).
• Polity ruling over large territory w/ ethnically
  diverse population.
• Democracy and Empire.
• Empires necessarily always authoritarian.
• Does internal form of government matter for
  definition of empire?
• Is empire distinct from nation-state or
  multi-ethnic/national federations?
• Core governing apparatus.
• Nation-State.
• Networks of elites (aristocratic/warrior/ethnic/re
  ligious).

12

• Imperialism and Empire.
• Empire.
• Political control imposed by some political
  societies over effective sovereignty of other
  political societies.
• Imperialism.
• Process of establishing and maintaining an
  empire.
• Imperial Metropole.
• Peripheries.
• Vulnerable.
• What types of vulnerabilities?

13

• Howe.
• All history is imperial - or colonial .
• Opens with a series of examples.
• US pending war with/intervention in Iraq.
• Israeli/Palestinian Conflict.
• Turkish/Kurd Conflict.
• Trial of Milosevic/international law as product
  of succession of empires.
• Scottish Parliament.
• Echoes of Empire.
• Lord of the Rings, Empire Strikes Back, Evil
  Empire from Reagan to Rage Against the Machine.

14

• Howes Three Goals
• Interpretation of the idea of empire.
• Disentangle the various meanings of empire.
• Empire, imperialism, colonialism, colonization,
  neocolonialism.
• Afterlives of empire.
• Howe, like Doyle and others points out empire
  ideologically loaded term.
• Etymology of empire.
• Latin imperium - sovereignty or rule.
• Dual aspect wage war, make rules.

15

• Imperium.
• Extensive size.
• Universality.
• Christian, Islamic, Communist, Capitalist,
  Democratic.
• Do claims or aspirations to universality motivate
  state behavior more than power motivations
  outlined by Mearsheimer and Waltz?
• Boundary between barbarian and civilization.
• Hypocrisy and reality.
• Romes civilizing mission to weapons of mass
  destruction proliferation control.
• Dimensions of civilization, feelings of
  superiority.
• Colonizer/Colonized.
• Ideology and race/ethnicity.

16

• Empires.
• Large.
• Diverse.
• Direct and Indirect rule.
• Violence and the acquisition and maintenance of
  empire.
• Empire and Imperialism.
• Imperialism referred to Napoleon III attempt to
  re-establish Napoleons empire.
• British use.
• Attitude vs. Fact of empire.
• Critics of Empire.
• Hobson.
• Lenin.
• Schumpeter.
• Hardt and Negri.

17

• Critics of Empire Hobson and Lenin - Empire and
  Capitalism.
• Hobson - British Empire. Imperialism (1902)
• Dispositional Theory.
• Imperialism result of three forces.
• Economic, Political, Socio-psychological.
• Economic.
• Special Interests (financiers, munitions
  manufacturers).
• Underconsumption and oversaving in the metropole.
• Combine to force metropole to seek external
  markets and investment opportunities.
• Political - Reactionary Alliance manipulating
  democracy.
• Socio-psychological. Introduction of reforms
  (esp. redistribution of income and labor unions
  in metropole) would change consciousness and
  produce peaceful, commercial, internationalism.

18

• Critics of Empire Hobson and Lenin - Empire and
  Capitalism.
• Lenin. Imperialism Highest Stage of Capitalism.
  (1917)
• Imperialisms Essential Features.
• Concentration of production and capital produces
  monopolies.
• Bank and industrial capital merges, creates
  financial oligarchy.
• Export of capital of equal importance to export
  of commodities.
• International combines/corporations divide the
  world according to economic interests.
• Entire planet divided between capitalist powers.
• 3 Forces driving acquisition of external
  territories.
• Superabundance of capital. Underconsumption.
  Search for markets and raw materials.
• Imperialism would create global war.
• Solution Global proletarian revolution.

19

• Critics of Empire.
• Schumpeter - Imperialism and Social Classes
  (1919).
• atavistic war machine.
• Atavism - 1. resemblance to remote ancestor in
  some characteristic which nearer ancestors do not
  have. 2. reversion to a primitive type.
• Based ideas of war machine on ancient empires,
  especially militarized Egypt.
• Created by wars that required it, the machine
  now created the wars it required.
• War machine is separate and distinct from
  capitalism for Schumpeter.
• Global capitalism can develop without
  imperialism.

20

• Critics of Empire.
• Hobson and Lenin - Empire and Capitalism.
• Schumpeter - atavistic war machine.
• Hardt and Negri. Empire. 2000.
• Empire - global economic system and incipient
  development of a supranational center.
• Juridical supranational order ala United Nations,
  international law.
• Hobbesian vs. Lockean conceptions of development
  of empire/global order.
• Empire as juridical concept.
• Right of empire based notions construction of
  new order establishing the spatial boundaries of
  civilization has pretensions of transcending
  temporal barriers as well.

21

• Critics of Empire - Hardt and Negri continued.
• 21st century empire one of global policing.
• Policing is an contradictory concept global
  capitalism, global human rights, norms of
  international behavior in tension.
• Policing - an historically bounded possibility
  that will fade and be replaced with anarchic
  norms?
• Limits of Empire and Great Powers.
• International environment dynamic.
• Hegemony has always receded.
• Related to structural economic and technological
  dynamics.

22

• State power and empire.
• Definitions.
• Empire.
• Imperialism.
• Globalization.
• Colonialism/internal colonialism.
• Colonization/settler colonization.
• Post-colonial/neo-colonial.

23

• Types of Empire.
• Land.
• Sea.
• Land Empire.
• Older form of empire.
• Diffuse.
• Duration.
• Soviet, Chinese (PRC).
• Empires.
• Assyrian.
• Greek.

24

• Egyptian.
• Unclear if empire ala Assyrians and Greeks.
• Americas.
• Incan, Mayan, Aztec empires.
• China.
• Rome.
• Invented modern idea of empire.
• Foundation exploitation.
• Tribute, taxation, slavery.
• Civilizing mission.

25

• Islamic Caliphate.
• Al Qaeda inspired by past empire.
• Continental Europe and England.
• Intra-European empire/nation building.
• Modern land empires.
• Ottoman.
• Russian.
• Austro-Hungarian.
• Chinese.
• American.
• Aspiring/defeated empires.
• Nazi.
• Lebensraum.
• Japanese.
• Co-prosperity sphere.
• Land empires and land power.

26

• Sea Empires.
• Expansion depended on European tax and war
  machines.
• Set backs 18th 19th centuries.
• Expansion in Asia, Pacifica, Africa.
• Slave trade a critical component of seaborne
  imperial complex.
• Settler vs. Non-Settler colonies and probability
  of successful decolonization.
• Global seaborne economic circuits, not new but
  waves of intensification.
• Ideological justifications for colonization
  projects.
• Resistance to colonization pervasive.
• Uniqueness of Arab/Muslim experience
  w/colonization?
• Rejected by Howe, why?

27

• Critical Current Events
• State of the Union and 21st Century Great
  Power/Imperial Politics.
• White House website.
• CNN Coverage.
• Protest.
• CNN - Sheehan Arrested in House Gallery before
  SOTU.
• World Cant Wait series of protests throughout
  US.
• Chicago Chicago IndyMedia.
• SOTU Clip
• Internal Consequences Justification for NSA
  wiretapping?
• Global engagement/global empire?
• Economic achievements/global economic
  competition?

28

• Anti-Imperialism and origins of the American
  Republic.
• British Empire.
• Colonial resistance to empire.
• Decomposition of empire and the rise of new
  great powers or empires.
• Political strife and the radicalizing of the
  colonists
• Video Clip 1 Rebels and Redcoats. BBC/PBS -
  2000.
• Boston Massacre to Boston Tea Party.
• Questions
• What does clip say about revolutionary origins
  of American republic?
• What does clip demonstrate about generalizable
  dynamics leading to the fragmentation of empires,
  and the rise of new powers?
• Any concepts introduced by readings relevant for
  understanding dynamics case.

29

• From Empire to Anarchy.
• Transition back to state centric theories of
  power.
• Whats missing from Mearsheimer and other
  realists?
• Does anarchic structure of international system
  elicit the formation of empire?
• Empire and hegemony.
• Drive for Empire and Great Power conflict.
• Is empire an attempt at solving conflict embedded
  in anarchic structure of international system?

30

• Latent Power and Military Power.
• Power is fungible/convertible.
• Latent power is raw potential.
• Military power ultima ratio.
• Competitor Powers pay attention to both military
  and latent/potential power.
• Forecasting future competitors.
• PRC current example, Soviet Union past.
• Measures of power.
• Mearsheimer - wealth and population.
• Different indicators for both latent and military
  power.
• Examples of measurement projects, power and
  conflict.
• EUGene.
• Center for Systemic Peace and University of
  Maryland Projects.

31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39

• Power vs. Outcomes.
• Outcomes not always predicted by power
  differentials.
• Actual balance of power difficult to determine
  before conflict initiation.
• Information Asymmetries and Miscalculations.
• Non-material factors overwhelm power
  differentials.
• Power and outcomes must be analytically separated
  otherwise tautology - no difference between means
  and ends.

40

• Population and Wealth.
• Population necessary condition for achieving
  great power.
• Population size, health, education level,
  ethno-linguistic diversity.
• Mearsheimer collapses population into wealth
  measure.
• Wealth that is mobilizable.
• Great powers must have infrastructure, or ability
  to rapidly reconfigure infrastructure, for war
  fighting.
• GNP is problematic.
• Complexity of comparing GNP of different states.

41

• Mearsheimers measures
• 1816-1960 iron and steel production and energy
  consumption.
• 1960 - present GNP.
• Example of need to have metrics of comparison
  that are explicitly identified.

42

• Gap between latent and military power.
• Cold War as example of gap between latent and
  military power.
• Alliances based on ideology and not balancing.
• If balancing always drove structure of
  international system UK, Japan, etc. would have
  allied with Soviet Union.
• Shows limits of realist thinking.
• Not all wealthy states produce or maintain large
  militaries.
• Geostrategic/geopolitical position.
• United Kingdom and United States as examples.
• Absence of proximate great power rivals.
• United States.
• Military spending viewed as unproductive use of
  nation resources.
• Presence of absence of allies.

43

• Regime type and conversion of Wealth to Military
  Power.
• Different levels of efficiency in conversion.
• Soviet Union vs. Germany.
• Soviet economy better organized for mass
  production.
• Central planning legacy.
• German industrial infrastructure disrupted.
• Population morale.
• Differential in Military Forces.
• Not all militaries configured similarly.
• Strategic reasons for different configurations.

44

• Democracies and power (latent vs. military).
• Reiter and Stam Democracies at War (2002
  Princeton University Press).
• Chapter 5 Winning Wars on Factory Floors? The
  Myth of Democratic Arsenals of Victory.
• Test of Democratic Peace Arguments.
• Democracies have won 3/4 of wars since 1815.
• Democracies more efficient at conversion of
  wealth to military power?
• No systematic linkage between democracy and rates
  of wealth creation.
• Assumption Democracies more effective at
  resource extraction.
• Historical record does not demonstrate.
• Democracies do not field more weapons, devote
  more GNP to military weapons.

45

• Democracies and power (latent vs. military).
• Democratic states have a lower ceiling for
  resource extraction than autocracies and
  totalitarian states.
• World War II as example
• Japan vs. US.
• 1945 Japanese consumer spending on clothing 1/7
  of prewar levels.
• US consumer expenditures rise by 5.
• New evidence shows Nazi war machine more
  efficient at resource extraction than previously
  thought.
• Economic Planning Critical during WWII.
• No evidence that democracies better at economic
  planning.

46

• Democracies and power (latent vs. military).
• Conclusions
• Democracies do not have significantly larger
  economies.
• Democracies not better extractors.
• Democracies not better at mobilizing populations.
• Democracies do not provide military with greater
  amounts of war material.
• Democracies do not provide armies with better
  technologies.
• Democracies do win.
• Internal Political Structures impose costs on
  leaders.
• Democratic citizenry more motivated and capable
  of flexible independent initiative.

47

• Hass - 3 Wars of the French Revolution.
• Ideological differences between rev. France and
  old regime powers effected perception of
  threat.
• Video Historys Turning Points - 2002.
• Internal subversion and conspiracy feared by all
  powers.
• Threat sensitivity of status quo regime linked to
  course of revolution.
• Initial low threat perception - monarchs
  (Austria, Prussia, Russia) not initially
  threatened.
• British also initially favorable.
• Chapter 2 - Table 1, p. 61.
• End of Revolutionary period.
• Napoleons counterrevolution lessens British
  threat perception.
• Ideological similarities sometimes mask other
  dimensions of threat.
• British underestimate threat.

48

• Next week.
• Paper Description Assignment due.
• Discussion Question 02/22/06
• Land Powers and the Concert of Europe.
• Are any of the assertions made in Mearsheimers
  Chapter 4 (The Primacy of Land Power) relevant
  for understanding the conflicts and mutual threat
  perceptions discussed in Haas Chapter 3? Do any
  of Haas assertions contradict points made by
  Mearsheimer?