Will America Fall?

The questions are not if our great nation will fall the question is when it will fall. Not to be a pessimist but if you look at history, every great nation has fallen at least once in its inception. Greece, Germany, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc. Some would say they have fallen because of war, others would say the economy, others would say it is the education system. All very great theories, however ,I challenge anyone who is considering a career in the realm of international relations  to delve beyond the surface of the "iceberg" go deeper with the analyzing the common factors and the root cause of failure. With history repeating itself, it was not very hard to see the connections between the political institutions of each country that was created to protect and serve the people, ended up destroying them.  Greed, systemic poverty, inequality, the lack of opportunities and innovation that impacts all (not just the elite) all play a part in the great "fall".  I call this the human factor theory, which is different from unlike the chicken or the egg theory that many quickly gravitated to during our discussion.  The human factor is the world we create and how we function in the world we live in ultimately comes down to us. Who controls the economy?  We do! Who controls the educational systems? We do! Who can address the inequalities we see? We can! Our political institutions has the control to evade the fall... as a country, we need to decide who we are and how our political leaders and institutions should behave I the name of all citizens.

How America Could Fall

Our final debate focused much on internal issues. Maybe this is due to the way the presidential primaries are turning out now. With Trump advocating policies that are war crimes and military leader publicly stating such orders would be ignored, with Cruz advocating carpet bombing ISIS (news flash, carpet bombing is not a good tactic against insurgents. More importantly, it's a tactic not a strategy), and with Clinton claiming foreign policy mastery after she voted for the Iraq invasion and advocated for the Libyan intervention, which didn't turn out all that good for anyone, no wonder we are concerned with internal issues.

However, I don't feel that such issues raised, such as education, infrastructure investment, healthcare, etc. will have the impact people seemed to think it will. These are all connected with economic development, true, however the US has been surprisingly able to adapt to economic shocks before. Lets not forget that unemployment is around 5.5%, which is not great but also not such a concerning average. Our educational institutions still attract the highly capable students from overseas. Our internal issues can be overcome.

A quick glance at the classic hard power issues like military capabilities and economic strength shows there are no short term realistic challengers. Russia, while it has been flexing its strength recently, is much more of a regional bully than an international threat. And with oil prices as low as they are Russia is limited in it's economic ability to continue expeditionary deployments. China, while more of a rising concern, is so economically tied to the US that a military conflict in the short term is almost unthinkable. Their economy is slowing down, they have a lot of overcapacity, and it is still an open question as to if China can maintain enough economic growth to keep the population satisfied. 

Climate change was offered as a threat, but I don't believe it ranks that highly. Rising sea levels coupled with dramatic shifts in rain patterns will have huge effects for sure. However, given the technological sophistication of our agriculture as well as the wealth in the economy, I believe we would be able to adapt. Not to mention Russia and China will be experiencing the same issues.

More importantly, we never defined what the basis of American power in the world is. I would argue that it's not just our ability to expeditionarily employ an advanced conventional military, nor is it just our advanced economy, even with all of its internal flaws. I would argue that historically it has been the soft power we can wield that is the true source of strength. How to make friends and influence people should be a guiding philosophy for our international relations. There are no existential threats to our security, but not playing by the rules we demand of others in fear of overblown threats will further damage our reputation and therefore our power. That is our most likely path to downfall.

US Power and the Hydra of Issues

Considering the debate last night, it seems to me that team 2 had a stronger argument. While both teams addressed domestic issues, team 2’s argument covered them more comprehensively and many of the economic issues face by the United States can be seen as a result of some of the other issues like demagogues and policies resulting in poor international standing raised by team one. Team one also pointed out that political division within the country can lead to larger structural issues like the government shutdown. Additionally, education was another important point brought up by team 2. Education is important for a countries ability to provide a competitive workforce.

Environmental issues were also brought up as a threat to the United States during the class session. I think this was also a valid point. If some of the most daunting prediction made by experts are correct, there will be huge issues of scarcity in the near future. Greater scarcity tends to lead to more conflict. With the existence of nuclear arms, a large scale war is unlikely. However, it is conceivable that we would see an increase in proxy wars and the exploitation of more vulnerable nations. There was also a point made in class about the potential loss of cities and even entire countries. This would no doubt change the distribution of political-economic power within the international environment. The US would need to be able to adjust to such a drastically shifting environment to maintain its place and security in the international arena.

             I think there is no simple answer or threat one can point at. I believe the United States faces a hydra of issues that will have to be dealt with comprehensively. As other countries gain more military and economic power the United States will have to consider how it approaches the rest of the actors in the international environment. I suspect soft power and strategic alliances will become more crucial going forward.  The effects of technology and climate change will also no doubt play a role in future threats to US power and also present a lot of unknowns that the US will have to adapt to promptly when the time comes. The answers to some of these questions likely lie within the scientific community. Unfortunately, due to political division and widespread misinformation campaigns, it may be too late by the time the answers are understood by the people that are able and willing to act on them. 

This lesson brought an end to the course. Having the opportunity to learn about and engage in all the different facets of IR was fascinating. For example, the concept of social constructivism as opposed to  the more realist way of thinking definitely gave me a lot more avenue to explore and consider in both analyzing the issues facing the US and the international community as well as all the possible ways to address those issues. 

What does the future hold?

I really enjoyed this weeks debate and did find it interesting that both teams believe that the biggest threats to the US today are internal.  We're not looking at the possibility of some other country attacking us, we're more concerned with the recent political division in our country, an educational system that isn't pushing our citizens to innovate and create, as well as the economy.  The internal problems facing the US are unique in that the federal government has only so much power to make policies regarding education.  It seems to me that in this particular case, the federal government needs to give more educational-policy making decisions to the individual states.  Consequently, I think the government needs to do the same with universal healthcare.  Politicians in Washington DC are ill equipped to understand the healthcare issues facing people living in the middle of nowhere out in Wyoming.

At the end of class, we again brought up the prevalence of social media and its influence on the population of a country.  Specifically one person brought up the teenagers who are growing up online.  She mentioned that one of the problems of children being constantly "plugged in" is that they don't learn how to relate to people in the real world.  They become complacent with hiding behind a screen and don't have the face-to-face interpersonal skills that they will eventually need.  This generation is our future leaders and the people who will eventually take care of me in a nursing home.  I can't lie, this does make me rather nervous.  I don't have much direct contact with people who are younger than me, but what contact I do have makes me wonder about the direction they will steer the country in.  Like me at that age, many seem to be apathetic to the actual running of the country - when kids are used to their parents taking care of everything, it's hard to instill in them that they're going to have to take it all over eventually.  Perhaps some day we'll all realize that living in the real world is preferable to any online life we create... or at least be able to differentiate between what is "real" online and what is really real. 

Of course, there's always the possibility that the polar ice caps will melt, causing anarchy all over the place or aliens will make contact and it won't go well for us, or someone will push one of the big red "only push if you REALLY mean it" buttons and cause a nuclear war.  Forecasting the future is an exercise in futility... but it's a fun mental exercise as well! 

Anyway, it's been a great class, I feel at the same time more informed and more ignorant than when I started, so... yeah... there's that.  :)

Does History Really Repeat Itself? Or Reinvent Itself?

The rise and fall of the great powers...we have all seen this played out in our lifetime! Rome,Greece, Persia, and Germany at one point has all gone through the cycle of rising to a point then falling drastically.  In the Comments on Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers  article, I felt that some comments were frankly put critical and not offering anything new to the table.  History like it or not, will repeat itself no matter how you try to theorize it. So the question to ask is if a great power will fall, the questions is when will it fall.  For example, if you analyze the rise and fall of the great empires  you will ultimately see a pattern, growth in economy=power. Power results into the "we need to protect our newly found wealth" mode which leads to establishing armies. Armies increase power which leads to  more influences. More influences= more enemies . More enemies=more money=more power. This cycle continues until the leader and it's people loses site as to why they are a country,what they stand fo,r and why they are united in the first place. When a country and or leaders loses sight of itself, then and only then you will see it fall. The important issue to remember in all of this is if given the opportunity, will the country repeat it's own history or will it reinvent it?

Considering the Claim of Thucydides. Will his work last forever?

One thing that I found to be one of the most intriguing aspects of Thucydides work was his quote: “My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of an immediate public, but was done to last for ever.” The idea, that he is writing objectively and possibly touching on general truths about the nature of power that is still relevant today is a very tantalizing proposition for anyone interested in the study of IR. Following this, I was interesting in seeing to what degree we can find examples of the themes brought up by Thucydides in current events.

Thucydides asserts that the Peloponnesian Wars were inevitable due to the rising power of Athens at the expense of Sparta and that all other reasons for the war are really just branches of that root issue of a power struggle. This seems to mirror much of the interests vs. values debate still existent today in which actors may find “moral” or “ideological” reasons to go into conflict but there are also the ever present interests of those same actors. Furthermore, Thucydides described the various countries caught between the two powers. The Melian Dialogue served as an excellent example of a country being forced to take a side due to its geographic relation to the two superpowers. This very much mirrors the cold war in which many countries were pulled into the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Even today we see examples of this like those countries caught between the EU and Russia. Ukraine quickly comes to mind here. 

Of course there is a significant point to be made about the relative rising power of some states which are seen as non-threatening by the United States. Although if one considers the idea of hegemonic institutions. One might consider the possibility that in order for a nation to be viewed as non-threatening it must abide by certain values and share certain interests with the hegemony. This might to some be seen as a sort of soft coercion. Interestingly, one might be able to see these alliances as security assemblages on the one hand, or on the other hand, as weaker states having to conform to a stronger state.

Another point brought up by Thucydides was the important of naval dominance. He wrote that the issue of pirating had to be addressed before any of the cities could develop into the powers they would eventually become. He also described Athens as having many advantages due to it superiority in the sea. This still seems very relevant today as many nations continue to race to catch up with the United States’ maritime dominance. Travel by sea is still important for trade, commerce, tactical military advantages, and natural resources. The significance of these issues underlies much of the current tension in the South China Sea. This will probably continue to be the case until technology provided us with new ways to acquire resources. (According to a BBC article by Jonathon Amos Luxembourg is supporting the proposition of mining in space: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35482427)          

                All in all, it seems like Thucydides analysis of the power dynamics that came into play during the Peloponnesian Wars are still relevant today but may need to be somewhat refined to fit today's world and the possibilities of the future. 

The Hegemon

The readings for this module have raised some great points, and I dare say one could structure an entire course around this module. In particular I want to explore the Ikenberry piece about the nature of American power.

I truly appreciate the three ways in which America interacts with the world. Empire, hegemony and security community are good baselines to work from in looking at the current state of affairs. The idea of a security community is a good lens to view America's relationships with Europe. With the expansion of the EU and NATO to include many former Soviet states the community accounts for almost half of the global GDP and one seventh of global population. Of course there are disagreements within this bloc, and much has been made recently about if the EU can survive the recent issues it has had. Regardless, this is a robust political, economic, and military bloc that will almost certainly settle differences without force or outright coercion in the foreseeable future. This recent resurgence of Russia makes the community seem more robust.

Not much has been made in the articles about America acting as an imperial power in relations with South America, Africa and the Middle East. This is a topic that I am in general unfamiliar with, with the exception of America's efforts in the Middle East. An issue that wasn't addressed was China's rising influence in these parts of the globe. A contrast between American and Chinese interactions would be quite interesting.

Now for the pivot to the Pacific. Beeson's piece makes an interesting point about China's rise, at least as of 2009. The use of soft power and diplomacy to provide a counter point to American assertiveness in the region may have been the strategy in the past, but it appears this may not continue. The island building projects in the South China Sea are creating a lot of anxiety in the region, even leading to a statement by ASEAN saying member states are 'seriously concerned' about recent developments. Is this a sign that China is starting to act more as a Great Power that can do what it has the power to do, as Athens saw itself? Will this lead to more cooperation in the Pacific? The rise of security community aimed at protecting itself from China?

I love the Greeks

Really, I do.  Their history, mythology, philosophy, government - I find it all fascinating.  I have to admit, when I saw that one of our readings for this module was Thucydides, I got pretty excited.  Even more so when he mentions that Homer, being a poet, likely exaggerated events (something I've long suspected - wink).  After reading the intro, I laughed out loud when I came to "Most people, in fact, will not take trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear."  Not going to lie, I think this proves that human nature doesn't change much.  Aristotle wrote something about the youth being entitled, lazy and no good - geez, doesn't that sound like what the media says about 'millennials?'

The dialouge between the Athenians and the Melians struck a chord as well.  I kept going back to the interests vs ideas module during this reading.  The Athenians arguing that it is in the interests of both them and the Melians if the Melians just surrender and become slaves of their own accord while the Melians try to convince the Athenians that it's actually in both of their interests for Melia to remain neutral - neither an ally of the Athenians nor the Spartans.  In the end, Melia falls to the Athenians, all males of a certain age are slaughtered and their wives and daughters are sold into slavery.  So what the Athenians argued turns out to be true - "in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept."

So how does this relate to our current module about the rise and fall of the great powers?  Page 49 summed it up perfectly - "What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta."  As one city was becoming more powerful, the current most powerful state took notice and then took steps to ensure that they would remain the most powerful state.  Is this something that the world is doomed to continue?  Sparta and Athens were pretty close in proximity, does geographical location and a sharing of borders have to do with this?  Is it all based upon military might?  What role does economics play?  If human nature itself doesn't change much based on Thucydides and Aristotle's observations, what does that say about states and global politics? 

I am very much looking forward to the next live session when we can start getting into some discussions of this and the other readings, too - but I will admit, this one was my favorite.

So... is there a Global Public Sphere?

The answer we arrived at was a solid... ish.  Does the creation of organizations such as the EU, African Union and NGO's affect state sovereignty?  Yes, a bit.  Is the EU going to remain united?  Maybe.  These are questions that are really interesting and as a side note, I now totally understand why this class opened with Hobbes.  I keep imagining global politics as a kind of recess playground.  Alliances are formed, secrets are found out or kept, those we're friendly with this week are totally different than the ones we were friends with last week, we have to help out a friend in a bind and then it's expected all over... I could go on, but I think you get the gist.  The biggest difference is that global politics do not have a "recess lady" or anyone overseeing the field.  Now a class member would say something in favor of Global Government, and I'm sure there would be a reference to the Star Trek Federation.  The problem is, I'm not totally convinced that would be desirable or feasible.  It seems like the question that we generally run into is - who watches the watchmen?  Where would the checks and balances be?  How could a global system of government ensure that each state can still act on their own in some ways?  It's never a good idea for a bureaucracy to get too big because then nothing ever gets done.

I think that the EU has been a grand experiment in finding out just how much sovereignty a country is willing to give up, how much a country is willing to help other member countries and how tired of each other such an organization can get.  Looking at the possibility of Britain leaving the EU, there are things that they'll want to consider, but personally I think that the national identity of being "British" before being "European" will win out.  Just a theory, but I'll be watching what is happening with popcorn and a kind of fascination that is usually reserved for films.

I found the spiral model in the readings to be a very good example of how a country can come to change their policies toward something like human rights due to pressure from their own citizens, NGO's, and other countries.  Mapping changes in societies is obviously something that I find quite interesting and I thought that illustration was on point.

Considering the dynamics between the Public Sphere, Social Structures, and Power

            I found the ideas of social facts and brute facts brought up in the article on the EU particularly intriguing in that they seemed to illustrate how there might be a dynamic between a possible global public sphere and the current international environment.  Particularly with social facts, this concept brought the focus back to the more constructivist argument like that of Wendt. Viewing the public sphere from this perspective would lead to it taking on the appearance of having considerably more influence.

            The article describes a social fact as something that is socially constructed as opposed to a brute fact which exists independently from the understanding of any individual or group. More importantly, social facts like the existence of a nation or state are kept intact by “banal” activities. The article used hanging a national flag in the background as an example of this. Furthermore, the article goes into detail about how things such as the ease one can get through customs can change a person’s concept of time and space relative to that of nation states. This leads to some interesting possible dynamics when paired with the latter phase of “socializing human rights norms into domestic practices” covered in the article by Risse and Sikkink in which behaviors and action at first serving state interests are later internalized essentially becoming a new kind of social fact.

            If one is willing to accept the constructivist premise, then one can see that the public sphere can have a huge impact on shaping many of the social facts that exist today. This was particularly brought to light for me during my research for last week’s activity when I came across an article in The National Interest by Mark G. Brennan titled NGO: The New Missionaries. The article argues that in some ways NGO’s have taken on the role held more by missionaries in the past. It does seem that region and philosophy has been an integral part in the development and spread of values. Following this thinking, perhaps the public sphere has always existed in one form or another and has played a significant if subtle role in shaping the world as we understand it. On the other hand, considering how the cultures of dominant powers throughout history seem to have spread more one has to concede that there is a limit to what the public sphere can achieve on its own with the assistance of brute force. Either way there does seem to be some sort of dynamic present.       

Public Authority and Identity

One of the more interesting articles from my perspective was the McNamara piece  “Constructing Authority in the European Union". The idea of constructing an identity is crucial to understanding bigger issues of sovereignty and authority in the current world environment.

One of the related issues we have discussed is the idea of how technology is challenging the traditional sovereignty of the nation state. This is not a new phenomenon. Martin Luther's 95 Theses were a challenge to the Catholic Church's authority in the pre-Westphalian system. A more modern example can be found with the spreading of communist ideology in Imperial Russia prior to the 1917 Revolution. In these cases ideology that challenged state authority were spread through written materials made possible by printing. In our current era one only needs a cell phone to be able to create, spread, or read a wide range of ideologies with few if any limits put on veracity.

The spread of ISIS is a great example of how creating an identity can be used to take sovereignty and public authority. By having a flag and an ideology they are able to maintain the identity of a nation state. Granted, this was only possible in the power vacuum of revolutionary Syria, but it provides a non-state example of identity formation and sovereignty in action. This is similar in form to the theory that McNamara postulated about a European Identity, although for very different aims.

This is important because in the future there may be competing notions of identity that may have an impact on state sovereignty. Will established nation states be able to maintain a national identity in the face of competing ideologies in the future?