Political Science 160 Introduction to World Politics

Section 5, Paper 2

From jsegall@umich.edu Tue Jan 20 20:08:05 1998 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:27:40 -0500 (EST) From: Jeremy Forbes Segall <jsegall@umich.edu> To: Pierre-Francois Landry <libite@umich.edu> Cc: Kenneth A Stroger <kstroger@umich.edu> Subject: PoliSci 160, Section 005; Paper #2       Jeremy Segall Ken Stroger January 19, 1998 Political Science 160, Section 005 Paper # 2   Critique of Russett and Starr, Chapters 3 and 4   Foreign relations and nationalism have always gone hand-in-hand. These two complex subjects can be the basis for many heated debates and controversies. Break-downs in foreign relations policies many times are the main cause of international conflicts. World Politics: The Menu for Choice, by Bruce Russett and Harvey Starr, discusses many complicated issues concerning foreign relations and nationalism.   Chapter 3 of World Politics focuses on nationalism and the development of nation-states. The authors provide a sound argument that nationalism is the result of peoples' desire to belong to a group. They claim that this want comes from a sense of belonging that comes from being is a large group. An affiliation for large groups of people is to feel pride in their country and society. The authors define this as nationalism.   The authors definitely have a "realist" point of view: they claim that the nation-states are the primary source of power in the world. More specifically, Russett and Starr argue that each state is sovereign, and that no outside power can control a nation-state. They then contradict this statement later in the chapter and in the following chapter (chapter 4). Russett and Starr later discuss that there are nation-states that are "More Equal Than Others." An example of the error in their argument, other than their own admission that this is more of an ideal rather than a reality, is the situation that occurred during the Cold War. During the Cold War, although Poland and East Germany were technically autonomous nation-states, in reality the Soviet Union had a large share of the decision-making power of these countries.   Further examples that the theory that nation-states do not have the lion's share of influence in their own government are the existence of nonstate actors in the political realm. There are three main categories of groups that have large amounts of influence in a country's political arena. A category of groups are the Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO). IGOUs include the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. These government agencies singularly do not have a great deal of power, but when one looks at the combined influence that an organization such as these two have, it is ridiculous to believe that they have very little power. The second category is Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO). NGOUs are groups that have no official ties to a government, except that they focus their influence on one particular group. Examples of NGO's include the IRA, which looks to unify the Republic of Ireland with Northern Ireland, the Quebecois, who strive to have the province of Quebec secede from Canada. A primarily terrorist group is the PLO. The difference they have from the terrorist group the IRA is that the PLO's main purpose is to harm in order to achieve their goals, while the IRA is willing to sit down to discussions in order to reach their objectives.     Whereas Chapter 3 was a micro view of a nation-state, specifically focusing on nationalism, Chapter 4 is more of a macro view point, discussing international relations. At the beginning for Chapter 3 the authors correctly assert that there are nations that should be, in a perfect world, equal, but in reality are not. The authors offer reasons why nations may have a hierarchy. Some of these reasons include the physical layout of the nation, including their natural borders and means of transportation with other nations, the power of their neighboring nations, their natural resources, their technology, the nation's population, and its income.   A major portion of this chapter explains the significance of alliances and coalitions. The authors state how alliances can prevent wars, but can also be the cause of war. An example of how an alliance can be the cause of wars is World War I. The reason that a poor alliance could be the cause of a war is that an alliance's weakest member leads its actions. This was the case in World War I, when a Duke and Duchess of Austria were killed in Serbia, which was the weakest member of the Russian alliance. The Serbians did not comply with restrictions and penalties after they did not take care of the assassin well, and then brought themselves into a military conflict with Austria. Since Serbia was in an alliance with Russia, and Austria was in an alliance with Germany, the Russians and Germans ended up at war with each other. In this instance the weakest member of an alliance, Serbia, which was not strong enough to take care of itself and their own problems, had to call on the larger members of their alliance for support. This snowballed into a larger problem, namely, a world war. On the other hand, alliances have prevented wars. This was most evident with the Cold War: the leaders of the US and USSR did not ever make the Cold War "hot" because they knew the ramifications of an actual war between their two countries. More importantly, the costs of a war between their allied countries would cause so many people to die from nuclear war, that a war would be fruitless.   In conclusion, Russet and Starr present good points and observations about nationalism and foreign relations. Although we do not agree with everything the authors said, we feel that, overall, they are correct with what they discuss. Russett and Starr are able to strongly connect nationalism on a micro level, specific with each state, and on a macro level, a broader level regarding all countries.