(no subject)
i finally set up my computer today and i was going threw some of my files to see what i should get rid of...i found this PoliSci Q & A from 11-03...judging by this, i haven't changed a lick, unless you take into account my willingness to use academic sugar coating techniques.
What does a realist believe causes war and what should a country do to prevent its outbreak?
A realist believes that war stems from flaws inherent in human nature; namely, selfishness and a general moral deficiency. A likely origin of this mode of thought is Salvationist Religion(s) which insist(s) that humans, as a whole, are a defective being that is in need of guidance - in other words - subordinate to unqualified authority. By which I mean an entity in possession, or feigning possession, of a more accurate moral compass willingly hands out punishment to help the defective masses find salvation.
The most prevalent flaw in human nature, according to a realist, is an unquenchable thirst for power, which translates to dominance. Since men (people) run nations, it must follow that the nations themselves will also be imperfect in that the goal of nations is to increase its power by using the most effective means of power acquisition: military superiority.
And since a realist views it as a fact of nature that all humans have the goal of unquestioned might (which means that this is also the ultimate goal of all nations), the best way to prevent war is through a policy that became widely discussed during the Cold War...Mutual Assured Destruction. American and Soviet officials argued that the arms race was a necessary part of keeping the peace. It was widely accepted that either nation would have to be completely insane to attack the other because of the large amount of damage that would surely be inflicted upon both sides.
Which type of terrorism do you think would be most effective and why?
While the handout Typologies of Terrorism: Useful Tools discusses "types of terrorism as they pertain to revolutionary and guerilla movements," I feel that it would be a mistake to limit myself to focusing on only the terrorism used by "revolutionary and guerilla movements"... i.e. the masses. History shows that the most effective means of terrorism is state-sponsored terror. It does not matter which method is used (usually states will use a combination of random terror, focused random terror, tactical terror, and economic terror) as long as the terrorist act has the backing of, or is carried out by, a powerful state.
It is an act of focused-random terror when the Israeli military fires missiles at apartment buildings in order to kill PLO leaders or suspected terrorists because the blast from those missiles kills civilian residents as well as the targeted person (this example assumes that the targeted person is actually a criminal/terrorist). The reason this method is effective is because the government of Israel does not have to call it terrorism…it can call it a police action or a security measure or anti-terrorism. Support, by way of money and weapons, from the US validates this claim; therefore elevating the action out of the realm of terrorism. This increases the action’s effectiveness because the superfluous population can no longer make a legitimate claim of defense when it retaliates.
When the US attacked Nicaragua using a combination of the four typologies of terror, its effectiveness was based solely on the power of the US. America was convicted by the highest international authorities (International Court of Justice, UN Security Council, etc.) of conducting a terrorist war against Nicaragua, but suffered no consequences and effectively won the war. The US avoided punishment because of its power.
The method of terror is inconsequential. Effectiveness is determined by how the world views the terrorist. In the event that world opinion (meaning: the opinion of the political elite) is unfavorable toward the terrorist nation or NGO, the terrorist must be supported by a powerful state that can render existing institutions of international law useless.
What is Behavioralism? How does it relate to the study of world politics?
Behavioralism began as an area of psychological study. Behavioralism, as it relates to political science, is essentially using the scientific method to study individual political behavior. It applies the techniques of experimentation and statistical testing to construct theoretical models of human behavior and attitudes within political systems.
It allows one to study political trends in a more objective manner, by not leaving room for the researcher to impose his/her own set of values (except when interpreting data). Studying international politics using the techniques of Behavioralism allows the political scientist to take the emphasis of his/her study away from the examination of political theory and the method of comparative politics…neither of which compensate well for the distinction between the political attitudes of the ruling sector or the attitudes of the different factions within the general population.
Define globalization. How would you measure this process?
Globalization is "to make worldwide in scope or application." When the term is used in a social, political, and/or economic context, it refers to the creation of a global economy, international ruling bodies (like the United Nations), and the proliferation of cultural aspects (like music, clothing styles, etc.
The most important facet of globalization has to do with the economic implications, though, because they have the most pressing effect on the largest number of people. After World War II, international institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank) and trade agreements (NAFTA, GATT, MAI - which was voted down in the official sense, but was implemented anyway through the process of amending the GATT) were set up to monitor and implement neo-liberal reforms; thus, creating the new version of the global economy. So a good way to measure the process of globalization is to determine its major effects and gauge how they have changed the world for the majority of the population. Since the economic, not the social or political, policies associated with globalization affect the most people it should take precedence.
One aspect, probably one of the most telling, of the global economy’s affect on the world population are the rulings passed down from the international institutions that are in charge of monitoring it. The WTO is officially responsible for making sure that the efficiency and/or existence of world trade is not being threatened. It is run by a panel of folks from the elite sector (mostly associated with agribusiness) which makes rulings on cases, brought to it by governments or corporations, sans outside influence - essentially, it is a totalitarian institution with the job of protecting corporations’ "right to profit." As any community college student knows, what is good for corporate profit margins is bad for the majority of the world’s population...the 80% of us who are not part of the elite sector. So global poverty rates are one way to measure the process of globalization.
Another, and probably more telling yardstick, is the standard of working conditions both in the "industrialized" (the sometimes-called "Northern") nations and in the "developing" (a.k.a. "Southern") nations. Working conditions, wages, and benefits have steadily declined in industrialized nations due to "free trade" agreements like NAFTA. These agreements allow corporations to move production to countries where environmental standards are enforced with less zeal and workers have less rights; therefore, production costs are cheaper and profit is greater. This leads to a decline in the welfare of workers in industrialized nations because fear of unemployment becomes a deterrent that keeps workers from getting out of hand and asking for things like decent wages and benefits, both of which would slim the corporation’s profit margins.
It is important to note that the global economy is not a modern entity. It has existed for centuries...thriving on exploitation. The crucial difference between the global economy of the past and its recent mutation is the existence of regulating institutions. Before WWII, colonization and the subsequent exploitation of Southern countries was an accepted fact of life...the populations of which were viewed as redundant by the Northern ruling classes. Today, with our modern notions of justice and whatnot, it is necessary to disguise colonization with a cloak of altruism; thus, the creation of the WTO, which has institutionalized colonization.
Define power and discuss any two attributes of a country that contributes to its ability to influence the behavior of another country.
Power, in relation to international politics, is the ability of one country (or transnational actor) to influence the actions of another country. There are tangible indicators of how much or how little power a country has (size and sophistication of military, and wealth are two examples), as well as immaterial indicators (like regional politics).
Unless force is used, power is a perception, which is to say that it only exists to the extent that the subordinate entity is willing to submit. Cuba repeatedly refuses to capitulate to U.S. demands, just as the U.S. repeatedly dismisses the rulings of international courts; therefore, the U.S. has little power over Cuba and the international justice system has little power over America.
Conversely, Great Britain and Colombia consistently obey orders from the United States. It can also be said that power is relative to dependence...whether it be economic or militarily strategic, if dependence is high then the provider has more influence over the recipient. Great Britain’s relationship with the U.S. cannot be categorized as one based on power since it involves relatively little dependence; therefore, it is a voluntary alliance (which, in my opinion, exists because the ruling classes of both countries share a similar vision of global hegemony). While this voluntary alliance does exist, to some extent, between the elites of the U.S. and Colombia, their relationship is that of master and slave because Colombian dependence on American military aide is high.
In a potentially rich country (Colombia) where close to half the population lives below the poverty line, the people that do have money, the people in power, need some way to control the increasingly angry, poor masses. Colombian poverty is caused by what is known in the U.S. as globalization - to the population of the non-aligned countries it is known as old-world imperialism.
Trade barriers are stripped to open markets and access to fertile land for American agribusiness companies...this causes commodity prices to fluctuate (agribusiness has little to fear from fluctuating price due to state financial protections and the wide array of crops they produce). Local farmers are also forced off the fertile public land and onto land that will sustain little. This leaves the farmers with two options: work for an insulting wage from the American agribusiness company, or switch to crops that have stable markets and can be grown on their less than fertile land... i.e. drugs. America then gives Colombian elites money and weapons to "fight the drug war," which is a thinly veiled cover for social control. The Colombian population has a long history of disaffection, and rebellion (in the form of terror and traditional political means) due to the very uneven distribution of wealth.
American money and weapons are used to control the element of the population that want a fairer system...the Colombian elites have the option of murder as a form of control, whereas American elites just allow the drugs, that the Colombian military and paramilitary have admitted to trafficking, into the country so they can be sold to us, then throw us in jails (if the U.S. were interested in curbing drug use it would pursue treatment options for addicts, and commodity price stabilization and land redistribution programs for Colombian farmers). The unwanted, potentially dangerous, sector of both nations is disposed of -- everybody wins...
Aside from a new market and cheap labor, Colombia has drugs and land to offer America, whereas the Colombian elite depends heavily on the U.S. to keep them rich and in power. Dependence is high and willingness to submit is also high, so the U.S. has a lot of power over Colombia.
Credibility is also a factor in defining America’s power over Colombia. If the Colombian government decides it no longer wants to tow the line, as it were, it will no longer exist as a government. The U.S. has the equipment and the audacity to destroy them, as was seen in so many Latin American countries.
The reason that the U.S. has little power over Cuba is because America does not have much to hang over Castro’s head. It tried embargos, and while they did cause problems for the Cuban population they were ineffective in that Castro did not step down (so that America could replace him with a "democratically" elected leader). The sanctions failed to produce results because other countries were willing to continue trading with Cuba, the Cuban people were willing to change their lifestyles in order to shift needs away from American goods, and the Cuban health care system compensated for most of the health problems caused by the embargo. An outright military attack would not be tolerated. Despite massive propaganda efforts, Cuba cannot seriously be considered a threat to American security (excluding, of course, the Cuban Missile Crisis). Dependency was low, willingness to submit was low, and the military option (outside of covert terror operations designed to provoke a revolution or Cuban attack on America) was out of the question...so power is present in minute quantities.
What’s an unstable society and why do you think it’s more likely to use force to resolve international conflict?
An unstable society is one that is made up of a discontent population. Discontent can be expressed individually (crime, drug use, etc.) or in a group fashion (strikes, demonstrations, civil war, etc.). And although some societies show less signs of discontent than others (or are at least portrayed that way by the media), all societies are discontent. But for the purposes of this essay, we’ll pretend that stable societies do exist and that there is a mythical land where people enjoy being subordinate.
Statistically, unstable societies resort to force more often than "stable" societies. I think this is because discontent people are easier to manipulate and therefore easier to mobilize (physically and/or intellectually). For purposes of illustration, lets examine the US...individual discontent is high. Drug addiction, alcoholism, crime, and depression are all present to a large degree in our society. Also, the US is constantly resorting to force to resolve international conflicts (Kosovo, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, ad infinitum), so it fits the model.
The sources of most US citizens’ discontent is due largely to the economic layout of the country and the way corporate propaganda systems (T.V.) distorts the reality of a citizen’s predicament. This creates a situation in which millions of angry, oppressed people have no focus; thus, allowing for the masters of our society to focus the population’s anger on whichever target will strengthen their position at the top or fatten their wallets.
Of the multiple theories posited to answer this question, I’d say that the Diversionary Theory has the most merit because I’m exposed to it daily. But the Power Theory and the Reverse Theory seem applicable too.
What is the most likely New International System? Unipolar, Mulitpolar, or Regional?
To me the most likely New International System is going to be a cross between version one ("A unipolar world based on military and economic power") and version two ("A regionalized world based on economic trading blocs.").
If you look at the world now, there is undeniably one super power. But there is strong resistance to it…economically, militarily, and ideologically. The EU has imposed $200 million in tariffs on U.S. imports. This is a response to Bush’s policy of giving tax breaks to exporters. The EU is threatening more tariffs on commodities that come from areas that are considered important to Bush’s reelection in retaliation to Bush’s 30% tariff on foreign steel (so much for free trade). To me, this is just one example of the growing dissatisfaction with American economic policies that are designed to maintain its superiority (which isn’t to say that other countries don’t have this aim).
Since the end of the Cold War, nonalignment has become an option…it has also become apparent how little the U.S. cares about what is called the Third World. This does two things: 1) gives the nonaligned countries a chance to form their own unions (regional trading blocs), and 2) creates socioeconomic situations which lead to disaffection and overall disdain for the real American ideology…as opposed to the rhetorical one.
Although, at the same time, there are many countries (including key European and Asian countries) that depend heavily on American markets…China comes to mind. This has been and will be a major factor in destroying regional trading blocs.
And nonalignment is quickly losing its viability as an option due to the neo-cons "war on terror." There is the "you’re either with us or against us" sentiment coming from Washington in addition to the promise of aid to countries that agree to help "fight terror." It’s not hard for dictatorial elites to see how to take advantage of this situation. Uzbekistan’s masters have been condemned by many human rights outlets, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, but is now receiving aid in the form of "defense" (a bit Orwellian, don’t you think?) equipment, training, proposed arms sales, and general financial support.
So, as of now, the one super power scenario is taking shape, especially in the military realm. But there is resistance to the idea of letting the U.S. continue to be economically superior; meaning, the world will most likely become dependent on regional trading blocs.
----------------------------------------------
class in 5 hours. can't sleep...oh well.
What does a realist believe causes war and what should a country do to prevent its outbreak?
A realist believes that war stems from flaws inherent in human nature; namely, selfishness and a general moral deficiency. A likely origin of this mode of thought is Salvationist Religion(s) which insist(s) that humans, as a whole, are a defective being that is in need of guidance - in other words - subordinate to unqualified authority. By which I mean an entity in possession, or feigning possession, of a more accurate moral compass willingly hands out punishment to help the defective masses find salvation.
The most prevalent flaw in human nature, according to a realist, is an unquenchable thirst for power, which translates to dominance. Since men (people) run nations, it must follow that the nations themselves will also be imperfect in that the goal of nations is to increase its power by using the most effective means of power acquisition: military superiority.
And since a realist views it as a fact of nature that all humans have the goal of unquestioned might (which means that this is also the ultimate goal of all nations), the best way to prevent war is through a policy that became widely discussed during the Cold War...Mutual Assured Destruction. American and Soviet officials argued that the arms race was a necessary part of keeping the peace. It was widely accepted that either nation would have to be completely insane to attack the other because of the large amount of damage that would surely be inflicted upon both sides.
Which type of terrorism do you think would be most effective and why?
While the handout Typologies of Terrorism: Useful Tools discusses "types of terrorism as they pertain to revolutionary and guerilla movements," I feel that it would be a mistake to limit myself to focusing on only the terrorism used by "revolutionary and guerilla movements"... i.e. the masses. History shows that the most effective means of terrorism is state-sponsored terror. It does not matter which method is used (usually states will use a combination of random terror, focused random terror, tactical terror, and economic terror) as long as the terrorist act has the backing of, or is carried out by, a powerful state.
It is an act of focused-random terror when the Israeli military fires missiles at apartment buildings in order to kill PLO leaders or suspected terrorists because the blast from those missiles kills civilian residents as well as the targeted person (this example assumes that the targeted person is actually a criminal/terrorist). The reason this method is effective is because the government of Israel does not have to call it terrorism…it can call it a police action or a security measure or anti-terrorism. Support, by way of money and weapons, from the US validates this claim; therefore elevating the action out of the realm of terrorism. This increases the action’s effectiveness because the superfluous population can no longer make a legitimate claim of defense when it retaliates.
When the US attacked Nicaragua using a combination of the four typologies of terror, its effectiveness was based solely on the power of the US. America was convicted by the highest international authorities (International Court of Justice, UN Security Council, etc.) of conducting a terrorist war against Nicaragua, but suffered no consequences and effectively won the war. The US avoided punishment because of its power.
The method of terror is inconsequential. Effectiveness is determined by how the world views the terrorist. In the event that world opinion (meaning: the opinion of the political elite) is unfavorable toward the terrorist nation or NGO, the terrorist must be supported by a powerful state that can render existing institutions of international law useless.
What is Behavioralism? How does it relate to the study of world politics?
Behavioralism began as an area of psychological study. Behavioralism, as it relates to political science, is essentially using the scientific method to study individual political behavior. It applies the techniques of experimentation and statistical testing to construct theoretical models of human behavior and attitudes within political systems.
It allows one to study political trends in a more objective manner, by not leaving room for the researcher to impose his/her own set of values (except when interpreting data). Studying international politics using the techniques of Behavioralism allows the political scientist to take the emphasis of his/her study away from the examination of political theory and the method of comparative politics…neither of which compensate well for the distinction between the political attitudes of the ruling sector or the attitudes of the different factions within the general population.
Define globalization. How would you measure this process?
Globalization is "to make worldwide in scope or application." When the term is used in a social, political, and/or economic context, it refers to the creation of a global economy, international ruling bodies (like the United Nations), and the proliferation of cultural aspects (like music, clothing styles, etc.
The most important facet of globalization has to do with the economic implications, though, because they have the most pressing effect on the largest number of people. After World War II, international institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank) and trade agreements (NAFTA, GATT, MAI - which was voted down in the official sense, but was implemented anyway through the process of amending the GATT) were set up to monitor and implement neo-liberal reforms; thus, creating the new version of the global economy. So a good way to measure the process of globalization is to determine its major effects and gauge how they have changed the world for the majority of the population. Since the economic, not the social or political, policies associated with globalization affect the most people it should take precedence.
One aspect, probably one of the most telling, of the global economy’s affect on the world population are the rulings passed down from the international institutions that are in charge of monitoring it. The WTO is officially responsible for making sure that the efficiency and/or existence of world trade is not being threatened. It is run by a panel of folks from the elite sector (mostly associated with agribusiness) which makes rulings on cases, brought to it by governments or corporations, sans outside influence - essentially, it is a totalitarian institution with the job of protecting corporations’ "right to profit." As any community college student knows, what is good for corporate profit margins is bad for the majority of the world’s population...the 80% of us who are not part of the elite sector. So global poverty rates are one way to measure the process of globalization.
Another, and probably more telling yardstick, is the standard of working conditions both in the "industrialized" (the sometimes-called "Northern") nations and in the "developing" (a.k.a. "Southern") nations. Working conditions, wages, and benefits have steadily declined in industrialized nations due to "free trade" agreements like NAFTA. These agreements allow corporations to move production to countries where environmental standards are enforced with less zeal and workers have less rights; therefore, production costs are cheaper and profit is greater. This leads to a decline in the welfare of workers in industrialized nations because fear of unemployment becomes a deterrent that keeps workers from getting out of hand and asking for things like decent wages and benefits, both of which would slim the corporation’s profit margins.
It is important to note that the global economy is not a modern entity. It has existed for centuries...thriving on exploitation. The crucial difference between the global economy of the past and its recent mutation is the existence of regulating institutions. Before WWII, colonization and the subsequent exploitation of Southern countries was an accepted fact of life...the populations of which were viewed as redundant by the Northern ruling classes. Today, with our modern notions of justice and whatnot, it is necessary to disguise colonization with a cloak of altruism; thus, the creation of the WTO, which has institutionalized colonization.
Define power and discuss any two attributes of a country that contributes to its ability to influence the behavior of another country.
Power, in relation to international politics, is the ability of one country (or transnational actor) to influence the actions of another country. There are tangible indicators of how much or how little power a country has (size and sophistication of military, and wealth are two examples), as well as immaterial indicators (like regional politics).
Unless force is used, power is a perception, which is to say that it only exists to the extent that the subordinate entity is willing to submit. Cuba repeatedly refuses to capitulate to U.S. demands, just as the U.S. repeatedly dismisses the rulings of international courts; therefore, the U.S. has little power over Cuba and the international justice system has little power over America.
Conversely, Great Britain and Colombia consistently obey orders from the United States. It can also be said that power is relative to dependence...whether it be economic or militarily strategic, if dependence is high then the provider has more influence over the recipient. Great Britain’s relationship with the U.S. cannot be categorized as one based on power since it involves relatively little dependence; therefore, it is a voluntary alliance (which, in my opinion, exists because the ruling classes of both countries share a similar vision of global hegemony). While this voluntary alliance does exist, to some extent, between the elites of the U.S. and Colombia, their relationship is that of master and slave because Colombian dependence on American military aide is high.
In a potentially rich country (Colombia) where close to half the population lives below the poverty line, the people that do have money, the people in power, need some way to control the increasingly angry, poor masses. Colombian poverty is caused by what is known in the U.S. as globalization - to the population of the non-aligned countries it is known as old-world imperialism.
Trade barriers are stripped to open markets and access to fertile land for American agribusiness companies...this causes commodity prices to fluctuate (agribusiness has little to fear from fluctuating price due to state financial protections and the wide array of crops they produce). Local farmers are also forced off the fertile public land and onto land that will sustain little. This leaves the farmers with two options: work for an insulting wage from the American agribusiness company, or switch to crops that have stable markets and can be grown on their less than fertile land... i.e. drugs. America then gives Colombian elites money and weapons to "fight the drug war," which is a thinly veiled cover for social control. The Colombian population has a long history of disaffection, and rebellion (in the form of terror and traditional political means) due to the very uneven distribution of wealth.
American money and weapons are used to control the element of the population that want a fairer system...the Colombian elites have the option of murder as a form of control, whereas American elites just allow the drugs, that the Colombian military and paramilitary have admitted to trafficking, into the country so they can be sold to us, then throw us in jails (if the U.S. were interested in curbing drug use it would pursue treatment options for addicts, and commodity price stabilization and land redistribution programs for Colombian farmers). The unwanted, potentially dangerous, sector of both nations is disposed of -- everybody wins...
Aside from a new market and cheap labor, Colombia has drugs and land to offer America, whereas the Colombian elite depends heavily on the U.S. to keep them rich and in power. Dependence is high and willingness to submit is also high, so the U.S. has a lot of power over Colombia.
Credibility is also a factor in defining America’s power over Colombia. If the Colombian government decides it no longer wants to tow the line, as it were, it will no longer exist as a government. The U.S. has the equipment and the audacity to destroy them, as was seen in so many Latin American countries.
The reason that the U.S. has little power over Cuba is because America does not have much to hang over Castro’s head. It tried embargos, and while they did cause problems for the Cuban population they were ineffective in that Castro did not step down (so that America could replace him with a "democratically" elected leader). The sanctions failed to produce results because other countries were willing to continue trading with Cuba, the Cuban people were willing to change their lifestyles in order to shift needs away from American goods, and the Cuban health care system compensated for most of the health problems caused by the embargo. An outright military attack would not be tolerated. Despite massive propaganda efforts, Cuba cannot seriously be considered a threat to American security (excluding, of course, the Cuban Missile Crisis). Dependency was low, willingness to submit was low, and the military option (outside of covert terror operations designed to provoke a revolution or Cuban attack on America) was out of the question...so power is present in minute quantities.
What’s an unstable society and why do you think it’s more likely to use force to resolve international conflict?
An unstable society is one that is made up of a discontent population. Discontent can be expressed individually (crime, drug use, etc.) or in a group fashion (strikes, demonstrations, civil war, etc.). And although some societies show less signs of discontent than others (or are at least portrayed that way by the media), all societies are discontent. But for the purposes of this essay, we’ll pretend that stable societies do exist and that there is a mythical land where people enjoy being subordinate.
Statistically, unstable societies resort to force more often than "stable" societies. I think this is because discontent people are easier to manipulate and therefore easier to mobilize (physically and/or intellectually). For purposes of illustration, lets examine the US...individual discontent is high. Drug addiction, alcoholism, crime, and depression are all present to a large degree in our society. Also, the US is constantly resorting to force to resolve international conflicts (Kosovo, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, ad infinitum), so it fits the model.
The sources of most US citizens’ discontent is due largely to the economic layout of the country and the way corporate propaganda systems (T.V.) distorts the reality of a citizen’s predicament. This creates a situation in which millions of angry, oppressed people have no focus; thus, allowing for the masters of our society to focus the population’s anger on whichever target will strengthen their position at the top or fatten their wallets.
Of the multiple theories posited to answer this question, I’d say that the Diversionary Theory has the most merit because I’m exposed to it daily. But the Power Theory and the Reverse Theory seem applicable too.
What is the most likely New International System? Unipolar, Mulitpolar, or Regional?
To me the most likely New International System is going to be a cross between version one ("A unipolar world based on military and economic power") and version two ("A regionalized world based on economic trading blocs.").
If you look at the world now, there is undeniably one super power. But there is strong resistance to it…economically, militarily, and ideologically. The EU has imposed $200 million in tariffs on U.S. imports. This is a response to Bush’s policy of giving tax breaks to exporters. The EU is threatening more tariffs on commodities that come from areas that are considered important to Bush’s reelection in retaliation to Bush’s 30% tariff on foreign steel (so much for free trade). To me, this is just one example of the growing dissatisfaction with American economic policies that are designed to maintain its superiority (which isn’t to say that other countries don’t have this aim).
Since the end of the Cold War, nonalignment has become an option…it has also become apparent how little the U.S. cares about what is called the Third World. This does two things: 1) gives the nonaligned countries a chance to form their own unions (regional trading blocs), and 2) creates socioeconomic situations which lead to disaffection and overall disdain for the real American ideology…as opposed to the rhetorical one.
Although, at the same time, there are many countries (including key European and Asian countries) that depend heavily on American markets…China comes to mind. This has been and will be a major factor in destroying regional trading blocs.
And nonalignment is quickly losing its viability as an option due to the neo-cons "war on terror." There is the "you’re either with us or against us" sentiment coming from Washington in addition to the promise of aid to countries that agree to help "fight terror." It’s not hard for dictatorial elites to see how to take advantage of this situation. Uzbekistan’s masters have been condemned by many human rights outlets, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, but is now receiving aid in the form of "defense" (a bit Orwellian, don’t you think?) equipment, training, proposed arms sales, and general financial support.
So, as of now, the one super power scenario is taking shape, especially in the military realm. But there is resistance to the idea of letting the U.S. continue to be economically superior; meaning, the world will most likely become dependent on regional trading blocs.
----------------------------------------------
class in 5 hours. can't sleep...oh well.