cua logo  

2018 Summer Online – Politics 212: International Relations
Week 2: July 5

Return to the course home page?

Welcome to Politics 212: International Relations – Week 2.  This week is compressed because of the holiday falling in the middle of the week. We’ll return to our regular schedule next week.

This week we ask a number of introductory questions about What is it that we are really looking at here?  What do we mean by “International Relations”?  (You might remember the video Charli Carpenter from last week.)  Most of all, I want us to look deeply at the four models of International Relations.  We’ll do this every week.  You’ll remember them eventually, I promise!

Intro remarks (13 minutes).  I made this video last summer – I tried to remake it better today, but I kept messing up, so we’ll use this one – it is almost identical to the one I tried to make today.  It introduces a couple of key ideas for this week and for the rest of the semester. Please watch.  Then proceed with the readings and assignments below.

What are some useful ways of looking at the world?  There are historically three, and now four, approaches.  Each of these is summarized in these two charts.

    • Holsti in Ikenberry AFP: Theo.Essays (2005): Three Models of IR
    • /
    • Nye, Understanding Global Conflict… (8th ed.): Four Models of IR, page 57
    • Kenneth Waltz, on anarchy as the key to understanding international relations – watch 15 minutes: from 11:41-27:28  Waltz is at the heart of understanding Realism – states in conflict – and the starting point for examining other models (“columns”) – skip to 11:41 and watch through 27:28

Is International Relations a misnomer?

Why do we still call it “international relations” instead of something else that would include the other columns?  Liberalism/globalism is a fundamental part of “IR”:

  • Vorjes, “Microsoft Bids to Acquire Catholic Church” (1994)  This is 1994 – you can imagine Amazon or Google instead today…
  • Thomas Friedman, foreign affair columnist for the New York Times and author of The Lexus and the Olive Tree.  First, watch this wonderful introduction to the shift, in his opinion, from the realist Cold War model to the liberal/global globalization model. (watch 13 minutes, from 4:48 to 17:48 – you should watch much more if you are interested, of course; his talk ends at 47:11)  It’s from 1999, more than two years before September 11, 2001.  Today, Friedman is widely criticized as a pollyannish cheerleader for globalization. Skip if you like to 4:48 and watch through 17:48

    Then read these selections (posted in Bb) from that book: chapter 3 “The Lexus and the Olive Tree” and chapter 12 “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention”. For the moment, they are also available on the web here and elsewhere; I urge you to buy this book, it’s very interesting time travel and quite unintentionally has some of the roots of Trump’s election and policies. Friedman’s not a scholar – we’ll see Kehonae & Nye’s “complex interdependence” later.

Who are these countries that we are talking about, and how do their problems affect each other?

What do Washington Policymakers Know and How Do They Use It?

Ok, we’ve looked so far seen perspectives of realism and liberalism/globalism. Let’s shift gears here for a moment and get a little meta – what do IR scholars say about IR scholarship? What is the relationship between the study of international relations and actual international relations?

Is this what Kissinger is really talking about?

Ok, one more, from the dean of American foreign policy – the loved and loathed scholar-practitioner (he is still busy and influential – he had a recent piece on AI in the Atlantic (an interesting but not a required read).

Henry Kissinger’s most recent book is World Order.  You should read about it here and here.  Then you should watch (4min) him talk about President-elect Trump (Dec 2016).

(You can listen to the whole book read by someone else, if you have a very long drive ahead of you.) Trump is asking important, unusual questions, Kissinger says. If Trump can assess and manipulate the international scene as well as he did the U.S. electorate, Kissinger says (and I am paraphrasing), then he could be “a very considerable president.”  Let’s not discuss Trump’s personality or competency at this moment; instead, I want you to hear Kissinger and think of the last 18 months and ask yourself whether DJT fits into one of the IR models – one of our four columns.

Sure, one more on Kissinger.  Kissinger says there are norms of international behavior that many countries share, but that implies not interfering in the domestic policies of other countries.  What example does this short video use for criticizing intervention?  What other (better?) examples can you think of?


Ok, your turn  —  Prompts for Week 2

Before you move on, please go back and look at our What Makes a Good Post page.

This week there’s really a lot going on here.  For starters, if you don’t know anything else in six weeks, you should know the four models of international relations.  My goal – successful with many students – is that if I ask you in five or ten years, What are the four models of IR?, you’ll remember.  All the rest of the semester is getting you to think about these models in history, today, and in the future.

Thomas Friedman is a journalist, not an academic. But his views of globalization were enormously influential in this and subsequent books, talk-show circuits, etc.  Do you see relevance to our models?  And why is it important at the end of our 13 minutes with him that mention a couple of particular super-empowered individuals?  Can you think of some others, good or bad?

The Freedom House and Fragile States Index are almost more Comparative Politics, in that they assess single states at a time.  But look at the criteria for assessing each state – they include many transnational influences.

Take a careful look at the Ivory Tower and policymaker surveys – it’s some “inside baseball” that’s helpful to know as you walk around D.C. at internships, cocktail parties, reading and writing reports, etc.

Finally, Kissinger’s World Order is a giant, sweeping in intellectual history and analysis, and he has been a foreign policy advisor to presidents for more than 40 years. Based on these small samples offered here, how do you fit him into our models?

Or maybe something else from these readings moved you – or you relate something from this week to something from last week, or something else. If yes, then pose your question(s) and pursue for us…

Consider any two or more of these ideas, in about 300 words (max 400), and then reply to at least two of your classmates’ posts in about 100 words each.

For all this, be sure to review the What Makes a Good Post notes.

Yes, you post your 300-400 word short essays in the box below.  Please use your email – no one will be able to see it but me.  The first time you post, it won’t appear until I “approve” it – it’s the only way to keep out a lot of NSFW spam. Thanks.


by Thursday night – if you have not already, please post an intro video or text about yourself, on our fb page
by Friday night – a news link – esp. a story or source we might not have seen – with your own comment – post on fb
by Sunday night – your “essay” post (probably 300-400 words) at the bottom of this page, based on the essay prompts (“questions”) below
by Monday night – comment (approx 20-40 words) on at least one classmate’s news post on fb, and  comment (approx 100 words each) on at least two classmates’ essay posts at the bottom of this page

Please see the notes from last week about what constitutes a news post, essay post, news post reply, and essay post reply.


From the syllabus:  It seems like it should go without saying, but just in case:  this is academic work, not the place for screeds, ad hominem attacks, or other unpleasantness.  That’s not really suitable for your personal twitter account either, but it is certainly not appropriate here.  This is “classroom facebook”, not “locker-room facebook”.  Open, sincere, fact-based, and analytical, and even partisan, but not mean or rude.  Thanks.

Thanks, everyone.  Semester moves fast – keep up, get smart, have fun.  Prompts for your posts this week are below:


34 Replies to “CUA-212-IR-2018-july5”

  1. Yes, you put your 300-400 word essay post here, and then later you pick up a discussion with at least two of your classmates. You can certainly reply to their replies to you as well, of course…

  2. First off all this week I want to contribute about the change of today international relational. I must say, through the teaching and learning materials from this week, international Relation is being changed with the Globalization which is an international system that replace the cold way system- the integration of capital, technology and information. There are four models of international relation; realism, liberalism and globalism, structuralism, constructivism.
    Good International relation also depend on good international policies that have norms behavior that many countries shares. If all of this failed it is very easy for the countries to fall into international crisis. I look at the video posted for the discussion this week; the former US foreign policy adviser Dr. Henry Kissinger, mentioned that “Trump is asking important unusual questions. If Trump can assess and manipulate the international scene as well as he did in the US electorate, then he could be a very considerable President.” The statement shows there must be changes in International relation.
    Taking example of foreign relationship between US and Syria, Canada and US. Both countries can’t share norms because their International is already broken.

    1. When you say that “the good international relationship also depends on good international policies that have a normative behavior that many countries share, if all this fails, it is very easy for countries to fall into an international crisis” I am very close with you because of that the rules that are made in accordance with international policies require that each country maintain its commitment to these agreements and if it fails to comply, it is causing a crisis that forces the application of sanctions that oblige it to comply with the agreement.

      1. Mary and Euclides —

        these are important ideas – that Trump takes not just policies but also approaches that are different than usual is attractive to some people but confusing, upsetting, or unsettling to others. Do you see this too?

        1. Yes, I do agree with you, there some important ideas that Trump takes, and I would like to take an example of the plans to stop North Korea with its nuclear program. If everything goes well this will be a major achievement for Trump administration.
          But Also I want to emphasize on the foreign policy, for many years America is well known on focusing with its foreign policy , but now is being accused ..
          with draw from Iran agreement , Immigration issues , trade wars with some of its allies.

          So I think all off this and many more might change American good international relation if something is not being done immediately.

        2. Of course Ests, that I see that behavior in Trump, He is taking actions that are popular for some of his constituents but abuses the powers he has as the first president of the United States, and proof of that is that almost all Modifications that he has wanted to make are blocked by judges because they violate treaties or go against human rights.

  3. Keeping in mind that Friedman is a journalist and not an academic or a policy maker, his influence in the IR community is important. His discussion on the shift from the Cold War to an IR community of globalization seems to accurately fit into the global society model of the international system. The world went from one of division, to one connected by technology where no one is in charge. When you apply this thinking to the global society model, it is apparent that the central problem of the model is that the social, economic and environmental issues are because people are bringing to light an abundance of issues without the proper resources to resolve these issues. Along those lines, globalization has led to so many key actors, both governmental and economic, which greatly impact the states and economies of the world.
    Friedman points out the impact of our globalized international system with the example of the super-empowered individual, General Perry Smith as the “good” and Osama Bin Laden as the “bad.” The significance of this is to drive home that even an individual, who in the past would not have had any power, is able to impact the world with the click of a few buttons. Another example of a super-empowered might be Bill Gates because he has the economic presence as well as the continuing and developing technology to reach and influence the global community.
    Kissinger‘s world order theory seems to recognize the point made by Waltz, that the organizing principle of IR is anarchy because all of the different realms have to figure out how to coexist. If the realms are those of self-help and the ones with greater capabilities set the stage, then Kissinger’s position that we are the “City on the Hill,” interfering in the domestic policies of other countries holds true. Our IR system needs to recognize, as Kissinger seems to indicate, that we cannot interfere with a state’s desire to govern itself. We cannot ignore that we are still an international system partially based off realism and the structural anarchy outlined by Waltz. Each state is in a constant state for security and survival. Therefore, while the US is a model of a global society, we also maintain elements of an international system of realism.

    1. I identify with you when you argue according to our reading that the United States is a model of a global society that also maintains elements of an international system of realism, this leads me to believe that despite being a country that guarantees the defense of rights human, and that in turn according to the point made by Waltz, that the organizing principle of IR is anarchy.

      This leads us to think that the different president of the United States when they exercise this position may choose to implement an external policy according to their interests, as a sign of what is happening with the current president who is deteriorating the relationships created by the previous President.

    2. Sophia ,
      I love your analysis on this. Globalization is the main issue right now. We see every were international meetings all of them talks about economic, security, and environmental issues. I agree with your representatives are taking lightly on the issues, no one is putting more effort and the resources to work to deal with the challenges facing the world.

      “Kissinger‘s world order theory seems to recognize the point made by Waltz, that the organizing principle of IR is anarchy because all of the different realms have to figure out how to coexist.”
      I second that.

    3. I like your analysis/examples having to do with the super-empowered individual. It’s amazing an individual, who is not in government, can have just as much influence now. Prior to social media, it was harder for the “every day man” to have a voice. Now with the invention of social media, people have the make an impact, whether good or bad. Technology has created a globalized state, that has no borders.

    4. I like your analysis on globalization. I agree that we as a global population are attempting to help and collaborate to fix these problems, but we lack resources. Whether that be natural resources or in some instances people’s lack of care or ignorance often gets in the way when trying to resolve an issue. I also loved what you had to say about Kissinger’s world order theory. I agree that each state needs to realize every states wish to be self-governing.

  4. When Kissinger says that there are rules of international behavior that many countries share, but that implies not interfering in the internal policies of other countries. The other example that I would use to criticize the interventions would be the following:

    Regarding religion in the world we know that there are several types of religion and each one calls their God in different ways, which has been working well, but by applying the intervention we could say that Catholicism would enter the other precincts or churches and force all other religions to call the God in the same way, and giving rules of how to do adoration and what images should be kept in the churches.

    With this example, it can be clearly seen that the interventions are a violation of international policies because it tries to force other countries to comply with laws or regulations that are not part of the internal policies of each country.

  5. Thomas Friedman shows how globalization was the result of the Cold War. People did not know what to make of the world, after a period of such division between two leading powers. Friedman points out the creation of the internet being an important part of the establishment of globalization. Dr. Quirk brought up the history of two super states between Russia and the United States. Even though the world has been trending in the direction of globalization after the Cold War, it seems history may be repeating itself. Instead of Russia and America at odds, China and America are beginning to see some conflicts. With Trump recently raising tariffs on Chinese goods, the chinese responded with doing the same. A trade war could be the beginning to potentially bigger problems to arise. If so, then there would be division around the world. Although this time, the world has access to the internet. Friedman talks about the internet and how it has impacted and sped up the processes of globalization. We already see the internet playing a role in getting information out about the current trade war. I am curious to see how the internet will play into a potential conflict between these two states; something America and Russia did not experience.
    Friedman also talked about the state vs a person. He talks about how individuals can now be considered “super empowered” due to globalization. Connecting this to last week’s topic, we see social media enabling individuals to be empowered. Recently we have seen student’s from Parkland High School using social media to advocate for gun control or more protection of second amendment, David Hogg & Kyle Kashuv. Two high school students playing a role through social media to promote change.
    I think we can consider Trump vs China as state vs a person. Trump has been unorthodox with how he has handled international relations, using Twitter to his advantage. China does not know how to handle Trump since he has not been like any US president they have experienced.

    1. I did not think about how globalization could also be a factor that is polarizing, but your statement about how the US and China are more polarized and therefore competing, is completely accurate. I think this represents an example of how globalization can cause the US and China to get into a trade war, which some might say is triggered by Trump being a super empowered individual. Therefore, China V Trump is state v person as discussed by Friedman, particularly because, as you pointed out, China has never experienced any one like Trump who does not have a defined international policy, but maybe is making it up as he goes along.

    2. Tyler, I think your point about David Hogg and Kyle Kashuv struck a nerve in me, as I’m relatively invested in that topic of debate. With these two individuals, the “super-empowered individual” shows both its good and bad side. On the one hand, using this platform to reach millions about a relevant topic is amazing, and something that has never been seen before. However, I think that from what I’ve seen on Twitter, these “debates” can get wildly out of control, and almost always result in name-calling, ESPECIALLY when talking about gun control. To be fair, I’m a bit biased, but on Twitter and in other media I’ve seen 2nd Amendment advocates told they have “blood on their hands” and that they’re essentially arguing for the right to have a gun at the expense of dead children. This type of rhetoric is far from civilized, and never gets a response out of anyone. Mudslinging only results in the other side becoming stronger and more hardened in their stances, not compromise and peaceful discussion.

  6. Friedman’s views on globalization I think are relevant to our four models of International Relations. In his talk he says that the Cold War society of old was “characterized by one overarching feature: division”. The society was dependent on who you were divided from, in the Cold War specifically it was the Iron Curtain/Berlin Wall, symbolizing the global divide of communism vs capitalism. One of the four models in our charts that is like this is Marxism or even Realism, where, in Marxism, people are divided into classes and one class seeks to dominate the other. Whereas in Realism, constant military struggle (like the Cold War) drives society and each state is divided against each other to gain as much power as they can. Globalization, as Friedman talks about, we strive for connectivity and integration, which is like Constructivism, in that everything we need depends on others and society is only meaningful through connection and it is ruled through “norms” and “taboos”. I think him mentioning “super-empowered individuals” like Jody Williams and Perry Smith to illustrate the fact that anybody can become one of these people, and modern tools like email help us connect to other like-minded people and start a movement. I think a good example of this is President Trump, a man whose internet presence and TV personality partly won him the most powerful position in the world. Trump used Twitter to its full advantage, speaking his mind and speaking to a previously quiet section of the country that became loyal followers even to this day.
    I think something interesting in the Ivory Tower Survey is the fact that policymakers seem to be most interested in direct threats to their power, and not necessarily more modern and less visible threats like the collapse of the Euro or Cybersecurity. Cybersecurity I think is one of the most important issues of today, especially for governments that hold massive amounts of classified information that could jeopardize the security of an entire country. This just goes to show that globalization has impacted younger generations more, as policymakers are often too old to realize the importance of technology in today’s world, or they believe it’s some sort of trend that’ll eventually blow over and won’t affect them or their position of power.

    1. I agree with you Brendan on your analysis of Trump being a super empowered individual. For instance, I do not think Trump ever intended to become President, but once he realized the impact he was having and could potentially have, he gained momentum and used technology to his vast advantage. Whether an individual does or does not support Trump, I agree with that his far-reaching ability through a globalized world impacts the policies and economies around the world.
      I also agree with your analysis of the Ivory Tower Survey. I would add that based on your analysis of the policy makers being less willing to embrace technology and respect its importance in the globalized world, it is even more important that scholars/academics be more involved in the process of policy making.

      1. All —

        Just to clarify a definition – super-empowered individuals exclude people whose power is ex officio – so Trump and Putin aren’t SEIs exactly, since their power is exclusively based on their office. Al Gore, when he shifted from Vice President to Grammy/Oscar/Nobel winning climate advocate, was an SEI. Bill Gates – for Microsoft and then for the innovation and impact of the Gates Foundation – is an SEI. Friedman’s book is from before Elon Musk and Zuck and the Google guys – big business, sure, but changes to science and society… what about Oprah? Laurene Powell Jobs?

        can you think of other current SEIs – who would you say really impacts foreign policy or global society (that is not a govt office)?

  7. Sophia, Tyler, and Brendan —

    You thoughts of globalization are important – most people (but not everyone) believed the world was different after the end of the Cold War – people disagreed on what was next – an order of magnitude increase in “liberalism” or “globalism” to what became known as globalization; others saw the rise of culture and kulturkampf; some said nothing really changed: it’s always realism, no matter what. Some people judged that 9/11 was a mix of “clash of civilizations” and [the dark side of globalization; others said it was a return to national security realism. People said that the financial crisis of 2008 showed the vulnerabilities of a globalized economy, others saw just classic greed and misjudgment. We might ask how the immigration “crises” on the US and EU southern borders instruct us in some way – what do you think?

    We’ll read an article toward the end of the semester that summarizes “these were the 1991 (end of USSR) projections of What’s Next in IR” and evaluates who was more right or wrong.

    But I’ve also been thinking about what will shape IR over the next 25 years. Things cyber and AI certainly seem to be on that list. What do any of you think?

    1. I think cybersecurity, and everything related to it, will impact international relations immensely. Over the past few years multiple gigantic corporations have experienced data breaches, with credit card and other personal information being leaked to the public. With how global the economy is now, such breaches impact more than just one small region, instead they impact an entire country like the US, or even the entire world. Governments are going to have to figure out how to protect against these attacks, and how to punish companies that experience these hacks. After all, people need to be held accountable for these things, and with how involved our government is in the economy, I think they either have to intervene in these cybersecurity issues, or get out entirely and let the market solve these issues (although that’s just my political philosophy).

      1. I agree with Brendan’s point on the importance of cybersecurity, in this day an age. The talks of cyber terrorism are much more prevalent now then they were 20 even 10 years ago. Just the other day, I heard about the concern people have with China being able to gather information through smart televisions they sell to Americans. While some might see this as paranoia, I believe this is something that should have our attention. We know sites like Facebook and Instagram use our microphones on our phones, to gather information for ads. What’s to stop another state to do something similar to gain information and use it against us?

      2. All —

        Yeah, the opportunities (including for bad guys) when cybersecurity really marries (or battles) AI is going to be something… – what can you imagine?

  8. I believe that Friedman making these remarks and observations as a journalist is extremely important for the International Relations community. He discussed globalization as an international system that replaced the Cold War system. The Cold War system made a world of extreme division. While our new world system, globalization, is one of integration. I really enjoyed how he used the Berlin Wall and the internet as key examples of both systems. The wall divided and separated the world, while the internet allows collaboration from any corner of the globe. Friedman uses general Perry Smith and Osama Bin Laden as two examples of a super-empowered individual. Individuals can act on the world stage uninterrupted by a stat. By this he mans that with this new world system, an individual is now able to impact anyone on a world stage by the click of a few buttons. These individuals in the past would have never been able to impact the world on the scale they accomplished. I believe a prime example of a super-empowered individual is any social media personality or influencer. 15 years ago those jobs were not possible due to the technological limitations we faced. These people make a living off of the internet, connecting and building a fan base to watch their videos or like their pictures. I believe that Friedman’s views on globalization is relevant to the four models of International Relations. Friedman talked about how the cold war system was one of division, while globalization is one of integration. I think that marxism fits very well, where people are divided into classes based on wealth and social status. Constructivism relates to globalization in that both need collaboration amongst one another and that society works best when we connect.

    1. Harry, I liked your point about how these social media “influencers” have created an entirely new job market. These jobs weren’t possible even 10 years ago, and now everyone and their uncle wants to become famous on social media, thinking it’s some sort of “get rich quick” scheme. In a way it is, as you must get in the market at the correct time and get incredibly lucky, but it also shows how globalization and the internet has impacted us. People are so hungry for social media and “celebrity” endorsements/opinions that they blindly follow these (mostly) fake people online, in the hopes that they’ll get some sort of shoutout or recognition. We have no idea about these influencers’ personal lives and what sort of demons they’re hiding, yet we trust them and their opinions. I guess that is some security in and of itself, in that we don’t want to know the bad side of people, we just want the feel-good stories and fun adventures posted on Twitter/Instagram/Snapchat. Being “fake” has become an art nowadays with the rise of social media, one that can pay a pretty nice salary if you’re willing and lucky enough.

  9. Henry Kissinger believed that ‘might’ or military and economic power and ‘right’ or the political process behind the laws enforced, were the two things that needed to be perfectly balanced in order for a nation to thrive. When they are in equilibrium, there will be legitimacy and balance in the nation. Kissinger argued that for the nations of the world to co-exist and for order to be maintained, one culture and one country could not become too powerful or involved. Too much involvement around the world from one nation would lead to instability and chaos. Kissinger’s argument from 2014 is sound and legitimate. He fits, arguably, into the model of a Constructivist. He desires order and meaning in life, social construction will be positive when there are interactions, and he believes that whenever something must be done, it depends entirely on the time period.
    Thomas Friedman’s ideas fits into the model of ‘global society’ on the three models of international system. His agenda ranges from everything to economic power to social justice, to the human capacity for growth and acceptance, and all the things in between that and interdependence. In addition to those ideas, Friedman’s description of global values and relationships is perfectly modeled after this category.

    1. I agree with you in that Friedman’s views on globalization fits very well into the model of constructivism. He wants cooperation and collaboration by all for our modern world and this system to work well. We must work cohesively to achieve this. I don’t agree with Kissinger’s views on how to make an equal and balanced society. I don’t think that purely showing military might or economic power is the answer. People want so much more from their state and the society they live in.

    2. I disagree, and I think that Kissinger is a realist. His view on military right and economic right, places him in this category nicely. His theories rely on which countries are in power, and how they are coexisting with each other. I think he is aware of social constructivist realities, but I think politically, he is fundamentally a realist.

  10. I feel a strong need to address the last question in this week’s prompt first because I think my answer could be reflective of a personal admiration for one of the “super-empowered individuals” who today have enough power and influence to work alongside the state as equals, not as subordinates.
    To me, Elon Musk is the quintessential super-empowered individuals made possible by globalization.

    Friedman’s The Lexus and the Olive Tree was first published in 2009. Just one year later, in 2010, journalists across the world would have to learn how to pronounce the name Chilean city of Copiapó, the site of the partial mine collapse that left 33 miners trapped 2,300 feet underground. The world came together, pooling their resources to figure out a rescue plan. But it wasn’t the new international order that Friedman described, it was still a state dominated effort. Arguably the biggest contribution to the rescue was the United States’ deployment of NASA resources and engineer teams to support the effort. According to NASA, that initial mission included recommendations on medical care, nutrition, and psychological support.

    Friedman couldn’t have had Chilean miners on his mind as he developed his theory that we as a people no longer live our lives with opportunities limited the necessity to choose sides between the 1st world – which offered to its friends the promise of liberalization of political structures, protections to individual liberties, the freedom to think independently even if those thinkers have, and will continue, to use these opportunities to either drag down the state or, as Friedman suggested, to empower individuals . Friedman argues that the stasis of the cold war system has given way to a dynamic new system of globalization that promises to revolutionize the world. I think he’s right: globalization does bring the world closer together – but it brings enemies closer along with friends. Friedman wrote that the “Web has replaced the Wall” – but only for those in countries lacking as robust a distribution of political power as we enjoy here. For them, we unleash globalization, demonstrating at this stage, globalization is a useful weapon in democracy’s arsenal.

    That the internet will usher in an era where states may be forced by their two partners – the “Supermarkets” and the “super-empowered individuals” to fully integrate their economies and achieve a complex interdependency that would, ultimately, mean that we have a global government because the world is so small now, we’re all neighbors? In Democracy in America, Tocqueville recognizes the power of democracy – not just as a political institution, but as a disruptive force – that “to attempt to check democracy would be in that case to resist the will of God; and the nations would then be constrained to make the best of the social lot awarded to them by Providence.”

    Providence seems to have chosen globalization as punishment.

  11. All —

    It’s interesting that some of you put Friedman in “constructivism” – he would have put himself in “liberalism/globalism” at the time… but maybe that needs to be reconsidered now….

  12. I found that there is relevance of Thomas Friedman’s views of the definition of globalization to our models. In his presentation, he started out explaining when he became a Foreign Affairs columnist at The Times and that his predecessor’s framework centered around the aftermath of World War II, then the Cold War. When he came on, they were still calling it the Post Cold War World because they didn’t know what else to call it. After writing his columns for five years, he developed his framework, which shaped his attitudes and his answer was his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree. His book was the argument that the era they were in was Globalization. The International System replaced the Cold War System which centered on division by one symbol: the wall. The new system is integration and who you are connected to. The Cold War was like Sumo wrestlers compared to Globalizations 100 meter dash. Globalization is shrinking the world from a size medium to a size small and from how big is your missle to how fast is your modem. It also is a symbol that everyone is connected and nobody’s in charge which is a stark comparison of the Post Cold War era.
    The Lexus and the Olive Tree represents how much the world was in the process of globalization in some parts of the world but in others, they were still making claims on who owned land. In the book, he visited a Lexus factory in Asia and that the cars were made by mostly robots and only a handful of humans. The most intriguing thing was how windshields were installed and that there was a drop of solvent on the applicator after each windshield. The ingenious developers that programmed the robots to accurately wipe off that drop precisely at the same time left him astounded.
    At the same time in the Middle East, there was fighting among two areas over the ownership of an Olive Tree. In their eyes, the tree is a part of their heritage and the most important thing that mattered to them the most was land and a sense of belonging. If their tree was taken from them, that meant that there was no connection to their forefathers and their past.
    I believe some other super power individuals could be the Mafia, the Somalian Pirates and the Parkland Teenagers that survived the school shooting.

  13. It is very interesting to view the world in reference to these four models of international relations. Even more so, I think it is interesting to see how international relations has shifted among these four models throughout history, especially with new terminology being developed as we go along, like the shift from globalism to liberalism and constructivism. It makes me think that it is likely for a new model to be developed as the world continues and new technologies and systems are introduced into the world.
    I really enjoyed listening to and reading Friedman’s work. In his introduction, when he describes the balance of super-empowered individuals and states, I immediately thought of President Trump. However, upon more careful analysis, I think that DJT would fall into this category pre-election to the US Presidency. I think that his influence has changed, as well as the balance of power (or imbalance) he possesses. He now politically has a government behind him, as well as the individual credibility to inflict change on his own. This is another point that prompts me to ask the question, “will there be a new balance of power in the coming years?”
    Kissinger’s perspective relies heavily on interdependence. When states rely so heavily on one another, it is worrisome to think that President Trump has been focused on taking a step back from the global stage. I would classify Kissinger as a realist, mainly because of his past involvement in US foreign policy. However, I don’t think that he is naïve to the super empowered individuals that Friedman talks about, nor to non-state actors that have much influence on government actors.
    Finally, looking at the Ivory Tower survey, it is interesting to think that in 2012, the biggest problem that faced IR scholars was the Rise of China, and the least of their concern was cybersecurity. To me, that reflects that many scholars identify with a realist view instead of a liberal view of international relations, which I think is a little concerning considering the direction of the world at the moment.

  14. I very much enjoyed listening to Dr. Kissinger’s thoughts on President Trump and his, at the time, future in foreign policy. Much like many Americans, he said that he did not seriously consider Donald Trump as a contender to win the presidency until he actually became a presidential candidate. Like Kissinger said, President Trump would find himself in a unique situation where the rest of the world leaders would not know entirely what to expect from the new president. Following former President Obama, who was not tremendously active in the global political scene, President Trump had a unique opportunity before him where he would be able to change the perception of the United States on the a political scale. We saw this pan out as President Trump hosted a historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

    The second video, describing Kissinger’s view on world order was equally interesting to listen to. The idea of might and right, albeit a very catchy phrase, was spot on. His analogy of a neighborhood versus a heap of countries was a great way to explain his world view. Keeping lawns clean is the equivalent of keeping the world orderly, yet the interior of the house is a different story. The “neighborhood order” became chaos as the analogy continues to say that the neighborhood wants to force a specific design on the interior of the house. What this means is that Kissinger believes in a world where there is a balance of powers. The lawn represents the global spectrum, where you want your country to seem presentable and orderly, yet you are able to operate as you chose within your boarders. That being said, if the governments of the world attempted to control what happens with in each countries boarders, the world would dive into chaos.

    1. I also think the neighborhood analogy is a great one. I think that people can see clearly from this video how interfering in other people’s countries can be problematic. However, I think that there are different boundaries that this analogy fails to address. There is responsibility in one’s home for his or her family members. Members of a nation are by no means a family. There are different rules that apply to a family and to a nation. Sometimes, interference is warranted into a governing body that is corrupt and does not have the best interest of its citizens. That is why international law is so necessary, to take away the “democratic responsibility” that countries feel to get involved, which just ends up creating more problems.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.