Global content summary Flashcards

Question

Is globalisation the same thing as ‘Americanisation’ / are we moving to a global monoculture? - yes it is

Answer 1

- Globalisation is homogenisation and creating a world in America’s image One aspect of globalisation is universalization: the dispersal of objects, images, ideas and experiences to people in all inhabited parts of the world. For example, economic globalisation and the rise of TNCs (see tables below) have led to the emergence of ‘global goods’ (these are more often than not American e.g. Starbucks coffee, Barbie dolls, i-phones etc). The spread of communications technologies, such as television, film, radio and of course the internet has also homogenised global culture and led to the creation of ‘global celebrities’ (again often American) such as Beyonce, Justin Bieber and George Clooney. And English is well on the way to becoming the dominant global language - about 35% of the world’s mail, telexes and cables are in English, approximately 40% of the world’s radio programmes are in English and about 50% of all Internet traffic uses English. - Globalisation amounts to American Cultural Imperialism Some argue that global sameness as detailed above reflects the imposition of a ‘culture industry’ which is based in New York, Hollywood, London and Milan. Western, and more specifically US norms and lifestyles therefore overwhelm more vulnerable cultures leading, for instance, to Palestinian youths wearing Chicago Bulls sweatshirts. The economic and cultural impact of the USA is also reflected in the ‘McDonaldisation of the world, reflecting the seemingly unstoppable rise of America-style consumer capitalism. - Globalisation means Global liberalisation and the dominance of the USA in global financial organisations A third version of the globalisation as Americanisation thesis highlights a growing worldwide ascendancy of liberal ideas and structures. In economic terms, this is reflected in the global trend in favour of free markets and free trade (the so-called Washington Consensus perpetuated by organisations such as the IMF and World Bank in which the USA is the dominant participant ). In political terms, it is evident in the spread of liberal democracy, based on a combination of electoral democracy and party competition (this would be Fukuyama’s ‘End of History’ thesis and one that has gained renewed traction as a result of the Arab Spring of 2011). In cultural and ideological terms, it is reflected in the rise of individualism, an emphasis on technocratic rationalism, and the development of the doctrine of human rights into a cosmopolitan political creed (an agenda which is furthered by the, heavily US backed, United Nations).

Answer 2

- It works both ways and globalisation is hybridisation. Cultural exchange is by no means a top-down or one-way process; instead, all societies, including economically and politically powerful ones, have become more varied and diverse as a result of the emergence of a globalised cultural market place. So-called reverse cultural flows reflect the growth of ‘hybridisation’ or creolisation (the cross-fertilisation that takes place when different cultures interact.) In return for Coca Cola, McDonalds and MTV, developed states have increasingly been influenced by non-western religions, food, medicines and therapeutic practices, sports and so on. - Globalisation has actually resulted in the rebirth of the local. The globalisation as homogenisation (or Americanisation) thesis is undermined by the extent to which globalisation either adapts to local circumstances or strengthens local influences. In developing states, for instance, western consumer goods and images have been absorbed into more traditional cultural practices through a process of indigenisation (through which alien goods and practices are adapted to local conditions and needs). Examples include the Bollywood film industry and the Al-Jazeera television network. The process of cultural borrowing by which local actors select and modify elements from an array of global possibilities has been described as ‘glocalisation’. - Globalisation has actually resulted in polarisation not homogenisation (and in some cases this equates to an anti-Americanism). Where economic and cultural globalisation have imposed alien and threatening values and practices, a backlash has sometimes been provoked, resulting not in homogenisation but in polarisation. Samuel Huntington dismissed the idea of a global monoculture in proclaiming, instead, the emergence of a ‘clash of civilisations.’ This suggested that with the end of the Cold War, global politics had moved out of its western phase, its centrepiece in increasingly becoming interaction between the Western and non-Western civilisations. Key civilizational conflict would thus occur between the USA and China and between the West and Islam.

Answer 3

- Leads to peace, as states are less likely to war on each other. The idea of the Democratic Peace theory – democracies war less as the electoral backlash is too great when warring on another democratic state - Government has checks and balances on them, restricting their power and ability to act, e.g. separation of powers - Democracies tend to compliment capitalism, which can be seen to develop states economies. Democracy gives powers to the populace, too and helps uphold human rights - If implemented too swiftly, it can lead to instability, such as after the Arab Spring. Similarly, trying to enforce it as a ‘one size fits all’ idea across the globe has been problematic and hasn’t worked.

Answer 4

- A belief in localism as an antidote to globalisation. The anti-globalisation movement rests on an ideological conviction that localisation is infinitely preferable to globalisation. It passionately supports local decision-making over global decision-making if trading is to be economically and ecologically sustainable. The movement argues that globalisation is destabilising the world’s environment and destroying local communities. It prefers a return to local and regional trading. - Attacking multilateral financial institutions. Most attention is not directed at the corporations themselves but to the multilateral financial institutions who have created an international economic order that has benefited and enhanced corporate power. The movement’s mission is to ‘expose’ the errors of global trade agreements. The more extreme elements within the movement want to bring down the international financial institutions that, in their view, protect corporations. For them, the removal of multilateral agreements would be to reverse the distortions in the market place and bring a return to local trading. This would mean an end to economic globalisation. - A diverse movement of protestors. Demonstrators have routinely vandalised commercial outlets fronting corporations such as McDonalds, Starbucks, Nike and Gap. Their protests are designed to highlight their cause that the world is being transformed into an ‘American monoculture’ but their members often include a wide coalition including trades unionists, socialists and environmentalists. Direct action has been the one main feature most associated with the anti-globalisation movement. Historically it has been somewhat violent in nature but more recently, in light of the ‘Occupy’ protests.

Answer 5

- On the face of it democratic. But in reality, government isn’t constrained by the rule of law and other checks on its power - Normally accompanied by state dominance of the media and intimidation of opposition parties - Does demonstrate the appeal of democracy as a form of government – supporting the idea of political globalisation. Also demonstrates state power.

Answer 6

- Power with one individual or party. No opposition to the ruling party is tolerated and the state will control the electoral process, as well as the media. Leads to a repressive rule, where human rights are non-existent and humanitarian abuses are often taking place - As a result of this, they tend to be associated with increased chance of conflict. They have less backlash to deal with around the consequences of war, because of the control they wield. - There is the potential to argue that they are better at acting in their states own interest, however, through a realist lens. There is no need for consultation before taking actions. - This could be seen in the manner China has acted over the environment, completing a remarkable turn around over the last five years. This has been far swifter than any democracy could have achieved.

Answer 7

- These are states where the government no longer is the sole source of power within the nation. Normally because of civil war or similar, order has broken down. For example, in Somalia, control by the government doesn’t extend far beyond the capital - Failed states tend to be associated with terrible human rights abuses, such as rape as form of war, use of child soldiers and mass slaughter - They also impact on their neighbours, the conflict taking place within the failed state often destabilising the entire region

Answer 8

- Rogue states operate outside the international system. They don’t obey international laws and norms - North Korea is the most prominent of these, and is notable for its development of nuclear weapons, in contradiction to a number of international agreements - Because of their anarchic nature of government, intervention can often be tough to use against them

Answer 9

- Liberals would argue that Democratic Peace Theory makes a compelling argument that the world could achieve global peace if all states became democracies. No two full democracs have ever gone to war with each other, and the European Union represents a “zone of peace” facilitated by democracy. - Rogue states also destabilise the international system by breaking the norms of the international system. Iran’s proliferation of nuclear weapons against the wishes of the International Community, as well as it’s sponsoring of Hezbollah has led to condemnation from the West, and threats of war from Israel. North Korea’s nuclear brinksmanship and hostile rhetoric is also highly damaging to int. stability. - Failed States also become vacuums for conflict, create refugee crises and widespread poverty. The DRC is arguably the world’s failed state, and has been the victim of invasion, disease and poverty. Somalia and Libya have both become wracked by conflict and terrorism since their civil wars in 1991 and 2011 respectively.

Answer 10

- It could be argued that the presence of Intergovernmental Organisations which foster diplomatic relations and provide forums for negotiations have mitigated conflict & poverty, regardless of the type of states involved. The UN helped to broker the Paris Climate Change agreement in 2015, as well as the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. - Realists such as Kenneth Waltz would argue that the anarchic structure of the international system is to blame. The absence of a world government leads states to seek what is best for themselves with little restraint. This may explain the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. - Realists such as Hans Morgenthau would argue that the desire of states to act in the self-interest (state egoism) is the primary driver of world affairs, and may create instability and challenges to the Global Order. Putin perceived it to be in Russia’s self-interest to invade Ukraine, whilst Trump, the leader of a democracy, withdrew from the Paris agreement in 2017.

Answer 11

- Soft power is defined as the ability to achieve your objectives through the attractions of your culture and political system. The term was first coined by Joseph Nye in 1990 and focuses on those non military and non economic ways in which you can persuade states to emulate your world view, thereby furthering your own security. - Given the massive expansion of the internet and the spread of globalisation, the opportunity for advancing your cultural and political values has never been greater and so, it has been argued, that soft power provides a cheaper, less chancy and more highly effective way for a state to achieve its objectives. “how has this alleged shift from hard to soft power come about? The key explanation is that the growth of interdependence and interconnectedness means that people see more, hear more and know more about what happens around the globe. Increasing cross-border flows of images, information and ideas make it easier for people to form judgements about the culture and values of other states as well as about the foreign and domestic policies of their governments. This trend is also aided by generally improving literacy levels and educational standards worldwide, and by the spread of democracy, particularly as democratic systems operate largely through soft-power mechanisms [the personalities of leaders, the image and values of political parties]. In such circumstances, a state’s use of hard-power strategies may risk the loss of “hearts and minds”. - US foreign policy under George Bush, including the potentially illegal invasion of Iraq, massive civilian casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the horrors of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and his perceived arrogance and lack of empathy repelled too many states, deterring them from co-operating with the us [especially in the Islamic world since their populations would have been dangerously radicalised by this] consequently undermining us global influence. “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people”. [George w Bush] President Obama thus argued for the vital importance of seizing the moral high ground in order to ensure that the us wins the friends it needs to be globally significant.

Answer 12

- “a conquering army on the border will not be stopped by eloquence”. Otto von bismarck, 1815-1898 - Hard power involves achieving your objectives through economic coercion and military power. The latter may have been somewhat discredited by America’s recent military entanglements, but this does not discredit the wise use of either. Indeed, as the arch realists, Henry Kissinger puts it, “what is possible for a state depends on its resources, geographic position and determination and on the resources, determination and domestic structure of other states”. - Realists therefore continue to value hard power as the most certain way of achieving your objectives. After all, the United States could not have achieved victory in the cold war simply using pop music; it also required the biggest military arms build up in history [including the strategic defence initiative] under President Reagan. - Similarly it is the economic influence of the European Union, which has pressured Belarus into releasing its last remaining political prisoners in response to sanctions; providing a good example of the effectiveness of economic hard power. - Military power should never be discounted either. After all, it is this that successfully liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s invasion in 1991 and subsequently protected the no fly zones established by UN resolution 688. In 1995 it was NATO’s military action forced the Bosnian Serbs into agreeing to the Dayton, Ohio peace accords when UN negotiation had failed to end the fighting in Bosnia, while NATO again in 1999 showed how military power was needed to stop the ethnic cleansing being carried out by Serb forces in Kosovo, when negotiation had failed. This was similar again with the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. NATO aid to Ukraine has been extremely effective at countering Russia’s invasion (although this may be evidence against Russia’s use of Hard Power). - Realists, point out, therefore, that the best way of safe-guarding your sovereignty in a dangerously anarchic world in which the effectiveness of institutions of global governance are severely limited is to rely upon your armed forces and military alliances to protect you which is why the conservative government in the UK is fully committed to both trident and the vital importance of NATO membership. John Mearsheimer, an offensive realist, thus argues that in an unstable and anarchic world, states have to rely on hard power to protect themselves. - Over Ukraine, therefore, the fact that Obama was so unwilling to use military force does matter - as it dramatically undermined the United States' reputation for guaranteeing global order, making a shift in global power more likely.

Answer 13

- Especially since the ending of the cold war and the rise of globalisation it has been suggested, particularly by liberals, that military power has become significantly less important in determining the relationship between states. Thomas Friedman, for example in his “dell theory” of global relations has argued that the greater the numbers of countries that freely trade together the broader the zones of peace through which they co-operate, thus minimizing the importance of military power. There is certainly much to be said for this argument. Regionalism has also increased trade and understanding between countries and it is increasingly difficult to imagine members of the EU or ASEAN going to war with one another. The limits of military power have also been clearly seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the former us secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, argued strongly that smart power [a combination of hard and soft power] was a better way of maximising American power globally than ill thought through military engagements. The rise of institutions of global governance such as the WTO and the world court has also provided a forum for states to resolve their differences without going to war, while the united nations security council hopes that severe sanctions on North Korea will persuade them to abandon their nuclear programmes without recourse to war. Sanctions [economic hard power] have already helped lead to a nuclear deal with Iran, while EU sanctions have been influential in leading to partial democratization in Burma. - However, one must beware of too readily rejecting military power. Although liberals like Friedman suggest that in our more globalized world be fewer wars between states, this is by no means certain. Indeed, according to offensive realists, since the world lacks effective organs of global governance and states seek to maximize power, the world will always be dangerously anarchic as predatory states try to take advantage of others. - Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine and Russia have remained close to war, while Israel constantly has to be on a war footing because she is surrounded by potentially hostile countries. Given Russian pledges to protect Russian nationals living in other countries, vulnerable states such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia rely upon NATO protection them from any potential from Russia and so NATO’s preparedness to stand by the principles of collective security [article five] remains one of the key guarantees of western security. Friedman may be right that war in a globalized world may be irrational, but equally, as Mearsheimer points out, nation states are power maximizers and in a security dilemma caused by effective organs of global governance states still need to look to their own security in a potentially anarchic world.

Answer 14

- It could be argued that Western military competition – eg Reagan’s escalation of spending during the ‘second cold war’ - bankrupted the USSR, forcing its leadership to seek an end to confrontation (realist). - Alternatively, it could be argued that emphasis on competition misses the internal weaknesses which were more important in the collapse of the Soviet bloc, especially the inefficient centrally-planned economic system, & the cultural influence of the West which led large numbers within the Soviet bloc to demand democratic freedoms (& in Poland especially, religion & the election of a Polish Pope played a major role). - It could be argued that elements of both approaches are helpful, & it depends on the aspects emphasised. Western military& strategic competition contributed to the end of the Cold War by adding to the pressures placed on the already decaying Soviet economic/political system (eg military competition diverted resources from consumer goods). On the other hand, the system was failing to satisfy the demands of its population for a variety of reasons, which included the demand for western style political & religious freedoms in some parts of the Soviet Bloc. The West also benefited from and sought an end to tensions, hence its positive response to Gorbachev?

Answer 15

- In a bipolar world, international politics revolves around 2 poles, with lesser powers clustering around each. In the Cold War, each superpower was the dominant member of their particular form of political system, eg capitalism/democracy (USA) & communism (USSR). - Bipolar systems, like that of the Cold War, have elements of stability & realists see this as a benefit in an essentially anarchic international system: Realists stress the argument that that the nuclear balance of terror resulting from MAD ensured that neither superpower was prepared to risk a direct conflict, leading to a lasting peace between the superpowers – with the implication that far from being undesirable, nuclear weapons actually promote peace because they are so devastating that rivals are inhibited from starting wars. As there were only 2 centres of power this made the system more predictable and over time, ways of managing the conflict were developed liker the ‘hot line’ & the SALT process. The superpowers developed strong military & economic links within their blocs & these remained relatively stable, unlike the shifting alliances of a multipolar world. - But there are risks in a bipolar system - liberals would argue for collaboration between states rather than a balance of terror as the best route to stability & would argue that the Cold War was a highly dangerous period : If much of the world is under the influence of only 2 powers, a conflict between them as a result of aggression by one side, or even a miscalculation, would plunge the whole international system into war. The Cold War was in fact a very unstable period with both sides deeply suspicious of the other & tensions raised by strategic competition & the arms race. In the case of the Cold War, the superpowers’ nuclear stockpiles left the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over mankind – the Cuban Missile crisis could easily have led to a full scale nuclear war – in Robert McNamara’s words ‘we lucked out’. Liberals therefore argue that a balance of terror’ doesn’t promote stability & that disarmament & the resolution of tensions through international organisations is a far better alternative. Although the 2 superpowers and their alliances never fought directly, there were many peripheral wars in the era of bipolarity and a number of these conflicts were worsened because the superpowers took sides and armed their clients – so bipolarity itself became an element of instability as a result of these proxy wars. These included both inter-state wars like the Arab-Israeli conflicts, and civil wars like Vietnam & Angola.

Answer 16

- Some of the changes resulting from the end of the Cold War have ushered in a genuinely more interconnected & collaborative international system: The ideological struggle & military competition of the Cold War era has ended. The USSR has collapsed and relations between the USA & Russia, although stormy at times, are usually more cooperative than in the days of the Cold War; Russia is anyway not in a position to compete with the US militarily & its global influence is far less than the USSR’s. Democracy has taken root in much of Eastern Europe & countries like Poland are now firmly integrated into the EU & NATO. There are far more links between countries – much of the former Soviet Bloc has been incorporated into the globalised system of trade & communications. - However, it is true that much of the optimism & hopes of a ‘liberal moment’ proved unfounded: Many parts of the former USSR remain under semi-authoritarian governments with state controlled economic systems, as in Belarus & arguably Russia. The end of ideological conflict has not meant a more peaceful world – nationalist & ethnic conflicts have abounded, some of them caused by the ending of communism & the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, for instance the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Georgia or Chechnya. Relations between Russia & the West have often been tense as a new struggle for influence within the former USSR has replaced the larger Cold War competition – eg Russia resents NATO expansion & signs of western influence in Georgia & Ukraine. Following 9/11, new conflicts resulted from the ‘War on Terror’. Talk of a ‘New World Order’, with the powerful states led by the US providing genuine collective security via the UN & intervening to preserve peace soon proved an illusion – the US & other leading countries have often not been prepared to take action unless their own interests are affected, even in the case of genocide in Rwanda and the mass slaughter of civilians in Syria. The Bush era in America was one when the US adopted highly ‘realist’ policies in a number of respects, using its power unilaterally & retreating from some international agreements, such as Kyoto.

Answer 17

- The international system is complex and difficult to label at present. As there is only one military superpower it is arguably unipolar. The US has by far the strongest military forces in the world & remains an ‘indispensable’ player in many areas where military power is needed, as in Libya in 2011. - However, there are limits to the dominance of the US even in military terms, & its relative power is declining– it now accepts that it can no longer fight 2 major wars simultaneously. The Obama administration’s preference for multilateral action is in part a recognition of the limits of US power. When finally roused to action after the 2013 Ghouta massacre in Syria, Obama was unable to rally sufficient political support in the US, itself reflecting the war weariness of the public after Iraq & Afghanistan – critics argue that the credibility of US ‘red lines’ has been undermined & US diplomacy will be less effective in future. Russia & China can stand up to the US in their own regions & Russia can still rival its nuclear arsenal. The US also faces several defiant smaller powers – especially Iran & N Korea – these will become stronger if their nuclear programmes are continued. The ability of insurgents engaging in asymmetric warfare is also increasing due to their access to more devastating weapons & techniques. US policy in the Middle East as a whole has become a lot less clear cut – lack of intervention has proved as futile as intervention. Russia’s intervention in Crimea also demonstrated this – leaving the US looking weak in comparison to the strong, sharp action taken by Russia. - The political influence of the US is great & there are many areas where its political & financial support could prove decisive, such as the effort to resolve the Israel/Palestine dispute. However, several leading powers were prepared to oppose the US over the Iraq War, showing that the US was unable to dominate the UN. The US has also been forced to accept a watered down resolution over the Syrian chemical weapons crisis. - Economically, the world is already multipolar, as shown by the emergence of the G20 & China’s role in climate negotiations. US economic strength was badly undermined by the 2007-9 global financial crisis, though it is now recovering & has the potential to remain a leading economic power for the foreseeable future, not least because of its massive energy reserves. Nevertheless, even if estimates that China will overtake the US in the near future prove too optimistic, the US will never regain its past overwhelming economic dominance. Indeed by some estimates China has already overtaken the USA. - It seems that the world is neither fully unipolar nor multipolar – it is in a transitional phase where the US is the single most powerful state, but unable to enforce its will on powerful regional players. Over time, it seems likely that the world will move into a more classically multipolar phase (where both military & economic power is shared among several dominant powers) as the power of China develops, possibly followed by India; Japan may become more militarily assertive in response to China’s rise, and Russia may be able to rebuild its conventional forces if its economic revival continues. The EU could also develop its own, much more limited, military potential. Regional powers like Turkey & Brazil will also grow stronger. If a genuinely multipolar world develops, a new system of alliances could also emerge.

Answer 18

- China has certainly become an economic superpower – its economic growth has been staggering in recent years: It has the world’s largest population (1.34bn) and a huge territory (comparable to that of the USA). This gives it a huge labour force and domestic market, and it has welcomed multinational investment and increasingly become the hub of world manufacturing and one of the biggest consumers of global commodities (in 2010 it became the world’s biggest energy user according to the IAEA; its use of steel is twice that of the US). It also has one of the world’s major financial centres in Hong Kong. China’s economy is increasingly advanced technologically – it is already the world’s largest producer of cars & personal computers. These factors combine to give it a very high economic growth rate – in 2007 its GDP passed Germany’s, & in 2010 it overtook Japan to become the 2nd largest economy. In 2009 PetroChina became the world’s largest firm. It is frequently estimated that if current growth rates continue, by some accounts it has already overtaken the US in PPP (purchasing power parity) terms. The 2007-9 global financial crisis has emphasised China’s importance to the global economy. It played a key role in 2008 as one of the main countries giving a stimulus to its economy in order to sustain demand & prevent a depression – its $586 billion infrastructure package announced in November 2008 was the biggest in the world. At the G20 Summit in London in April 2009 China was one of the main players – some commentators said the really important meeting was the ‘G2’ between Obama & Hu Jintao. - China’s rapid growth is enabling it to modernise its armed forces: It has the world’s largest army and nuclear weapons (ICBMs, SLBMs, bombers), some of which are capable of reaching the USA, together with a space programme – it has sent satellites and an astronaut into space & sent a probe to the Moon in 2009. China is expanding modernising its forces (its military leaders were shaken by US success against the Iraqi army in 1991 & have closely studied the debate on the RMA in America ) & its defence spending is growing by around 10% pa (now second to the US – however, the proportion spent remains at about 2% of GDP) & modernising its nuclear arsenal. It is prioritising capabilities which will enable it to deter the US from becoming involved in a future crisis over Taiwan, including thousands of land based missiles, aircraft with anti-ship missiles & submarines. It is also playing a growing part in UN peacekeeping missions, sending 500 personnel to Mali in 2013: these will include combat troops for the first time. It is consciously investing in ways of blunting the USA’s advantages – for instance, by blinding the US forces by destroying their military intelligence - in 2007 it tested an anti-satellite missile & it has invested heavily in jamming technology . The US has also accused it of engaging in cyber-espionage on a massive scale to gain military as well as economic secrets from the West. In this sense it is becoming ‘an asymmetric superpower’ according to Mark Leonard. The days of 1995, when the US fleet was easily able to deter the Chinese from menacing Taiwan, are over & China is developing the ability to deploy forces further afield in its region. - China is gaining more economic & political influence internationally. It has structural power – it is a member of most international organisations & has a seat at the top table at the UN as a permanent member of the UNSC, where it joins with Russia to oppose western projects to, as it sees it, interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states. It is a member of the WTO & is now a key player in any major international negotiation, eg the G20 or the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks. China overtook the US in 2007 to become the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses & their opposition to binding emissions targets was one of the key reasons for the disappointing outcome of the UN climate conference in 2009, though they joined with the US to sign the Copenhagen Accord. Its search for resources has made it a major player internationally, with close links to resource – rich regimes that the West has a poor relationship with like Sudan, Myanmar, Iran & Venezuela. China has become Latin America’s second largest trading partner , partly as a result of a desire of some countries like Venezuela & Brazil to show their independence of the US & diversify their export markets. China has become a major player in Africa in order to secure resources from countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe & Zambia – trade between China & Africa increased by more than ten times since 2001; China is now Africa’s most important trading partner. China’s human rights record may offend the west but it has ‘soft power’ based on its tradition of anti-colonialism and its portrayal of itself as the champion of the South & of an alternative development model that has succeeded in lifting 400m people out of poverty without externally enforced structural adjustment programmes. It has growing international prestige - eg it staged the Olympics in 2008.

Answer 19

- After the collapse of the USSR, Russia was left in a relatively weak position in relation to the USA, now the dominant superpower. Its former allies in Eastern Europe were scrambling to join NATO and the EU, its territory and population had enormously contracted compared to the USSR’s, its economy & state finances were dependent on Western investment & loans and its conventional military forces were badly run down. Despite angry rhetoric, Russia was forced to accept humiliations unthinkable in the days of the USSR, especially the expansion of NATO up to its borders (including onto former Soviet territory, when the Baltic States joined) & the abandonment of the ABM Treaty by the US. - Despite his initial support for the US after 9/11, it has become clear that Putin’s aim has indeed been to reassert Russia’s position as an independent great power. As surging oil & gas revenues have freed it from economic dependence on the West & enabled it to start to rebuild its military forces, Russia has become increasingly assertive. - It has shown itself to be far more willing to intervene militarily. Its actions in Ukraine and Syria show a power that is aware of the USA’s crisis regarding continued military intervention and feel comfortable exploiting that. In both situations the clear and decisive action taken by Russia has impressed certain members of the international community and, could be at least, seen to be in direct contrast to the USA in recent years in the Middle East. - It still has structural power, inheriting the USSR’s UNSC seat & joining the G8 (although it has subsequently been kicked from the G8) & now the G20 & the club of ‘BRICs’. It has shown it won’t be subservient to the US, refusing to agree to UN resolutions endorsing the Iraq War in 2003 or condemning Syrian repression in 2011/12. In 2013 Putin rallied several G20 members against Obama’s planned strike on Syria in response to the Ghouta chemical attack & then achieved a diplomatic coup by heading it off completely by gaining US acceptance of the Russian proposal for Syria to give up its chemical weapons. - It has vehemently opposed the spread of Western influence into the former USSR, which it clearly seeks to preserve as its sphere. Russia used gas price rises and interruptions in supply to punish Ukraine’s pro-western government in 2006 (a more pro-Russian one gained a price cut in 2010). In 2008 the conflict between Russia and Georgia, in which Georgia was humiliated – driven out of the rebel enclave of S Ossetia & itself invaded – sent an unmistakable message that Russia will use its military power if necessary to enforce its interests in the region & punish neighbours who defy it. Putin now seeks to expand Russia’s influence via a ‘Eurasian Union’ of former Soviet states. This came to a head in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Russia very successfully destabilised Eastern Ukraine and took control of Crimea. - Russia has the only nuclear arsenal comparable to America’s, negotiating the 2010 New START treaty as an equal. It has renewed patrols by its nuclear bombers and responded to US plans to set up NMD bases in E Europe by pulling out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. The US under Obama has retreated from Bush’s confrontational approach & seeks to ‘reset’ relations. Further afield, Russia has renewed its links with China & held joint military manoeuvres with it via the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation – both powers have talked of the need to resist US hegemony – and has been prepared to sell weapons & nuclear technology to regimes the US regards with disfavour like Syria & Iran. - There is therefore no doubt that Russia has begun to reassert its power. However, its strength shouldn’t be exaggerated. Russia needs western markets for its gas (though it is shifting oil exports to Asia) & its economy & government finances are also heavily dependent on high energy prices. Its GDP is the lowest of the ‘BRICs’ - only a quarter of China’s & below Brazil’s. It lacks the ‘soft power’ of an ideology or government system with a global appeal, unlike in the days of the USSR. Though Russia can be an irritant to the US it can’t challenge America’s global power - US military spending and its ability to deploy forces remains far superior to Russia’s. In Russia’s eyes, many of the moves which alarm the West are reactions to the threat of Western/US encirclement, which has left it with NATO on its borders. Its attachment to Assad is partly because Syria is Russia’s only friend in the Arab world.

Answer 20

- Its surging growth has lifted 400m out of poverty but left millions behind, especially in the rural areas where around 60% of the population still live. Although its GDP is rising fast, its huge population means that its GDP per capita is far behind that of the US & other developed states. Moreover, its economic growth could falter, just as Japan’s did in the 1990s, because of demographic problems. The one child policy has meant that there will be a demographic crisis - the labour force is going to shrink & the number of pensioners will soar. The Chinese model of state capitalism also has its drawbacks – for instance, privileged insiders linked to the Party take the spoils of growth rather than innovative outsiders & a great deal of money is creamed off in bribery, especially to party officials. - China remains a one party state where political opposition is banned and information tightly controlled, though it is increasingly difficult to police local forms of Twitter, which can quickly convey issues to huge audiences. Party officials are frequently corrupt & rake off the profits of business deals & the arrogance of the offspring of party officials is also resented, though grumbling seldom turns into protest against the system itself . However, China’s workers are less docile than in the past & the urban middle class – the key group in the fall of many authoritarian regimes - is growing & increasingly discontented. The Communist leaders are aware of the problems & talk of reforms, but there is little chance that they will be prepared to dismantle their own power. They show their insecurity by reacting harshly to any dissent – as happened in 2011 after the ‘Arab Spring’, when several hundred dissidents were rounded up, including the artist Ai WeiWei. They also react furiously to international criticism, as with the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize in 2010 to Liu Xiaobo. If the CP is unable to contain the growing social tensions, the resulting turmoil could also undermine the current assumptions about China’s rise to become the dominant global economy. - Although it is increasing its defence spending, it is still far below the US military budget. At present its vast armed forces are still nowhere near the USA’s power-projection capabilities. Its naval build-up hasn’t yet enabled it to project power far from its coast, apart from limited operations like anti-piracy patrols (its first aircraft carrier is a reconditioned ex-Soviet vessel that lacks aircraft and it is unclear if others are being built – it may be primary designed for prestige ). Its forces have almost no combat experience & its forces ability to operate in a hostile environment is untested. The Chinese can’t compete head-on militarily with the US & would have to exploit US weak points like its dependence on satellites in a war (hence its recent trial destruction of one of its own satellites with a rocket). - It has taken a relatively passive international role until recently & has preferred to build up its economy & establish conditions favourable for continued economic success than to project its own power. It tends to act with other states (eg S Africa, Brazil & India at Copenhagen) rather than taking a lead on its own. China hast been able to benefit from a situation in which the US bears the costs of international security, for instance in ensuring stability in the Gulf region & closing the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan (it has no desire to see Islamism spread from there into western China). Nevertheless, it is becoming more assertive & has become a the largest P5 contributor of troops & police to UN operations (for instance, 500 to Mali in 2013). This is likely to continue as its interests become more global (see above) and its military capabilities increase.

Answer 21

- China is keen to stress that it wants global stability. It has a strong interest in working with the US and other Western powers to stabilise areas like the Middle East, where it gets a large proportion of its oil from [Econ 13/1/07]. It has also taken a leading role in the fight against climate change recently – signing up to the Paris Climate change accord. It also has a common interest in combating terrorism & is tightening its controls over exports of nuclear & missile technology. China has a strong interest in good relations with the West, as the US, Japan & the EU are key export markets; its fiscal stimulus during the 2007-9 global financial crisis was the biggest in the world & Chinese demand will benefit its trading partners. - It has started to play a more responsible role in the UN, sending peacekeepers to areas like Lebanon & Mali. It is playing an important role in negotiations over N Korea’s nuclear programme & has started to play a more constructive role over Sudan & the Iranian nuclear programme. - China stresses that other powers are not threatened by its rise. China has no history of imposing its rule in other parts of the world & contrary to the recent attempts of the US to spread its ideology & maintain its military dominance (eg ‘Bush Doctrine’), it calls for a multipolar world. Militarily, it is still far behind the US in its ability to project power. Many states in Latin America, Africa & the Middle East (eg Sudan, Venezuela, Myanmar, Iran) welcome its rise because it lessens their dependence on the West – they also appreciate its respect for national sovereignty - China has frequently won UN General Assembly resolutions on human rights issues - & are attracted by the ‘Chinese model’ of one party rule & state capitalism. - It has started to accept the problems regarding climate change and is cooperating with the USA over this. The China-USA agreement, coupled with the Paris conference of 2015 show that China can be progressive on ‘global’ issues, if it takes the mind to do so.

Answer 22

- The growth of China’s economy & defence spending will lead to China emerging as a new superpower by the mid 21st century, whether or not China actually overtakes the US economically (the USSR never did). If the US & China are unable to find ways of working together – for instance, if the US responds to China’s rise by trying to contain its power, a new period of superpower rivalry & instability could develop [World Today Aug/Sept 06], with a new arms race and attempts to form a new alliance system –this could involve a new ‘cold war’ & at worst, a nuclear conflict. As their power grows, China’s leaders could try to deflect internal pressures into aggressive nationalism & try to recover Taiwan, risking war with the US. China’s defence strategy seeks to dominate its region & deter the US from aiding Taiwan by becoming an ‘asymmetric superpower’ & will also make it harder for US allies in the region to resist Chinese pressure. - China’s neighbours like Japan & Taiwan are concerned at the growth of Chinese power and there is a danger of a regional arms race if they respond by increasing their forces, possibly developing nuclear weapons; India also sees China as a threat & is already building up its navy. - Despite its flaws, the US has values of democracy & respect for human rights and its mistakes can be corrected at the polls. This is not the case with China, and the rise of an authoritarian superpower is a grave concern. - China’s repressive political system & own human rights abuses (Tibet) means it is no friend to the attempt to spread respect for human rights. Its belief in national sovereignty & need for resources mean that its aid & trade comes with no strings, and it has shown itself willing to protect clients like Sudan & Myanmar in the UNSC. Its pressure on Sudan to admit peacekeepers in 2007 was influenced by fear of a boycott of the 2008 Olympics. This is undermining Western efforts to help the victims of gross human rights abuses, as in Sudan, Zimbabwe & Syria

Answer 23

- India is currently more of a regional power than a superpower – its economy is behind that of Britain & well behind that of China. Its bureaucracy is corrupt & its defence & foreign policy planning ineffective & it lacks some of the trappings of great power status, including a UNSC seat. Its armed forces have traditionally been configured to fight its regional rival Pakistan rather than operate globally & there remains a danger that renewed tension with Pakistan could lead to a devastating war which would be a massive set-back for India’s development & global ambitions. - However, India is fast emerging as a leading power – its economy is growing fast & it is developing the ability to project military power; it also has nuclear weapons & a space programme. It is a ‘BRIC’ & member of the G20 and its global economic & political influence is likely to grow in the coming decades, with a UNSC seat likely whenever the UN members finally agree on a long-overdue reform of the Security Council. As a democracy, its rise may be less alarming to existing powers than China’s.

Answer 24

- Both unipolarity & bipolarity have their own inbuilt elements of stability & instability – in each case, the balance between them is open to question. Unipolarity is seen as stable by proponents of the hegemonic stability theory because one power shapes the global trading, financial & security systems as the US did after 1945 – yet the unfettered power of a sole superpower can lead to adventurism (eg the 2003 Iraq War) that makes other powers fear & seek to resist it (for instance, the opposition of France & Russia at the UN). Critics of US domination could also point to many examples of the US abusing its power, for instance interfering in the affairs of lesser powers to ensure favourable policies, as in its support for autocracies in the Arab world. Bipolarity is prized by realists for the predictability it brings to the international system – the world is divided between two powerful blocs which are restrained from fear of MAD from going to war – yet the Cold War, the best example, was arguably a time when the world teetered on the brink of a catastrophic nuclear conflict and the superpower rivalry fuelled ferocious peripheral wars. - A multipolar world where three or more powers dominate the international systemsimilarly, has the potential for both stability & instability. Some liberals see a multipolar world as likely to be more stable, cooperative & peaceful. No one power will dominate it, so no power would be able to impose its will on others without facing major challenges. This would remove the temptation powerful states face to act aggressively to secure their interests at the expense of other states, as critics of Bush would argue happened when the US saw itself as the global hegemon, eg with the 2003 Iraq War. It will also avoid the tensions & dangers that arise in a world divided between heavily armed, competing superpowers, as in the bipolar world of the Cold War (for instance during the Cuban Missile Crisis). The leading powers are interdependent as a result of globalisation (eg the US is China’s main export market & China is the USA’s most important creditor) & therefore have strong incentives to maintain good relations & resolve their differences peacefully through multilateral organisations like the UN or the WTO. This has already happened with the leading European states –economic integration has led to one of the ‘zones of peace’ predicted by liberals, which has ended centuries of warfare & resolved conflicts through the institutions of the EU. If the West is prepared to make concessions, it could be possible to accommodate the tensions that will inevitably arise in a period of readjustment through reformed multilateral institutions. - Realists are more pessimistic about the consequences of multipolarity; a multipolar world could be dangerously unstable & more likely to result in conflict. The liberal world order created by the US since 1945 could wither as US power to uphold it declines leading to a new period of instability. As China grows economically it could seek an equivalent political & military power. The US might try to hold onto its military supremacy leading to a new arms race. China’s cultural & ideological difference from the US & its liberal-democratic traditions could add to the risks of enmity & misunderstanding. With a no clear hegemon (or pair of hegemons in a bipolar system), a chaotic period of realignment will ensue & a struggle for influence & resources could develop between a range of regional & global powers, many of them armed with nuclear, chemical & even biological weapons. There would be more possibilities of conflict and the security dilemma would be intensified as states arm themselves against a range of rivals. There would be global & also regional arms races (for instance, as Japan & India expand their forces in the face of the growth of Chinese power – a development that has already started & which has further destabilising effects – eg India’s military expansion alarms Pakistan). The leading powers could form new alliance systems to try to balance out the power of their rivals, especially if the rise of China seems like ending up with China as the new hegemon– maybe authoritarian China & Russia against the democratic US, EU & possibly India? One group of allies might feel tempted to go to war while they feel they have the advantage, as in Europe before 1914. - The answer therefore depends on one’s interpretation of the past - eg whether the bipolar world is regarded as stable & the unipolar world as benign - & of the prospects for the future – eg whether the West can accommodate the rising powers & whether they are prepared to act within a reformed system of multilateral organisations. On the face of it a multipolar system seems bound to be less stable, at least in the medium term, because of the wide range of centres of decision making & the difficulty of adjusting peacefully to the rising powers, a situation which has historically proved very dangerous, as in the rise of Germany from the 19th century. In an optimistic view, however, the common interests created by globalisation will contain powerful incentives to resolve these difficulties – with sufficient wisdom on the part of national leaders, multipolarity could still prove a more enduring form of stability in the long run than the dominance of one power or an uneasy balance of power in a bipolar world.

Answer 25

- The most obvious agency of ‘global governance’ is the UN – its Security Council resolutions are binding (eg a form of ‘hard’ law – though not General Assembly resolutions) & it seeks to tackle threats to peace through sanctions (for instance, over the N Korean & Iranian nuclear programmes) or sending peacekeepers (as in the case of Mali after the 2013 French intervention). The UN also has a host of agencies operating at a global level like the WHO as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights & a series of covenants and conventions which lay down norms in areas such as the rights of refugees. - The EU is way ahead of other regional organisations in providing a supranational government structure for most of Europe, backed up by a court (the ECJ). - Other supranational organisations have promoted common standards on a global basis – the WTO, which arbitrates in trade disputes, like that over US steel tariffs in 2002/3, for instance. The IMF rescues countries facing economic crises & it and the World Bank seek to spread a market-based economic model in the South. A range of bodies deal with specific issues like the IAEA (nuclear energy) or the IMO (maritime transport). There are global courts for disputes between states (World Court) and to punish those guilty of gross offences against human rights (ICC). - The leading powers are trying to tackle global problems through organisations like the G8 (global poverty – Gleneagles 2005) & G20 (2007-9 global financial crisis’ – London 2009) or through negotiations leading to treaties – eg to tackle global warming it was agreed at the 2011 Durban Conference that negotiations would start which should lead to a binding climate agreement in 2015.There are also efforts to tackle nuclear proliferation via the NPT & CTBT. There is also cooperation between financial regulators, police forces etc.

Answer 26

- Global governance is designed to solve problems affecting more than one state in the absence of a global authority able to impose order. There are a range of actors – states are the most significant of these, but intergovernmental institutions (IGOs) are also involved along with other supranational bodies. It involves collaboration between bodies at various levels (eg municipal, provincial, national, regional & global). - It’s controversial for a number of reasons. One is that it is likely to involve surrenders of sovereignty and states are reluctant to do this. The most effective collaboration is via supranational bodies like the EU, which have power to impose rulings on states. However, critics of these bodies resent the loss of sovereignty involved, as seen in current British demands for the renegotiation of powers transferred to Brussels. However, where collaboration takes place on an intergovernmental basis decisions are hard to take or result in ineffective, lowest common denominator outcomes – for instance, the Doha WTO Round has been stalled for years. Global financial institutions dominated by rich countries failed to correct the risky policies being pursued by these same countries, which led to the 2007-9 global financial crisis; international action was then able to mitigate the severity of the crisis but not solve it completely or rule out a repeat in future. - This links to an academic controversy Realist analysts who believe states will only settle for relative gains in negotiations find such ineffective outcomes unsurprising, though liberals have a greater optimism about states collaborating on the basis of absolute gains and point to some successes – such as the Paris Climate Change conference of 2015. The very mixed record of UN peacekeeping provides ammunition for both sides – the successful intervention in E Timor could be contrasted with the failure in Rwanda. - Another controversy is over the control exercised by the rich developed countries over global governance – critics argue that bodies like the IMF & World Bank are really pushing an agenda designed to benefit the North at the expense of the South, for instance by promoting trade liberalisation.