Political Science 468

Comparative Foreign Policy

Winter Intersession 2005/06

Bill Newmann

Office Hours: This is an online course, so there will be no office hours. However, e-mail as often as you like.

Phone: 828-8038

e-mail: wnewmann@vcu.edu

home page with links to other syllabi. If you are a blackboard use and encounter problems, you can also access this syllabus through my home page: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~wnewmann/index.htm

Introduction:

This course is an on line course. All papers will be submitted through e-mail. All papers will be returned with comments through e-mail as well. There will be no class meetings. A full schedule of the class assignments and expectations is included in this syllabus. The university listed the course as an in-class course this year. We have even been assigned a room number. Ignore it. Do not go to our room, unless you ant a quiet place to read. I will not be there.

This course is an examination of theoretical and policy-related aspects of foreign policy. All readings and all papers explore one simple, but difficult to answer question: Why do states behave they way they do in the international arena? As you read the assigned books and write your papers keep that question in mind. Scholars of international relations and foreign policy have been trying to answer that question for decades. Now it’s you turn. Linked to the syllabus is a short essay on theories of international relations and foreign policy. Read this before you read anything else (unless of course you’ve already started reading). This is a good preliminary introduction that will be a useful reference for you as you read and write. Please read this or you may find yourself lost. In the past this course has been taught by examining several nations’ foreign policies. This semester, however, the course will be a more theoretical examination of what is the root explanation for states’ foreign policies.

This is a writing intensive class. You will read five books and write five papers. You will have an opportunity to rewrite one paper to get a better grade. That rewrite can be turned in at any time during the two weeks of the class, but must be turned in by the last day of classes, January 7, 2006.

Your initial papers may be rocky, but I am looking for your effort and indications that you are learning. Early difficulty will be overshadowed by the quality of your papers at the end of the course. Your grade will reflect the improvement. In other words, put the grade aspect aside for the moment and learn. If you learn something, you will ultimately be happy with your grades. What you have learned and your level of effort will be reflected in your final grade. So, don’t be discouraged if your early grades aren’t what you had hoped.

The Papers

You will write five papers that will be five full pages in length, at least. You can write more, but you will be penalized for writing less. Each paper is worth 20% of the grade. I base the grade on several things:

· Introductory paragraph

· Organization of the paper

· Command of the theoretical material

· Command of the supporting evidence the author introduces

· Analysis of the author’s argument

In your paper, please do not simply summarize the book. Your paper should be 40% summary and 60% your ideas – critical comments on the author’s ideas and argument. When I say critical, I don’t mean that you have to disagree with the author. I mean that you should assess the author’s argument in terms of:

· theoretical consistency (are there big contradictions in the author’s argument?)

· theoretical logic (does the theoretical argument make sense to you?),

· supporting evidence (does the author’s evidence support the theory?)

· accuracy (does the author’s argument seem realistic given what you know about the world. If so, why? If not, why not?)

Be creative. If you want to redesign the author’s theories, go ahead.

Revision You will be required to rewrite one of your papers based on the comments I make on it after I have graded it. This is a requirement, but it is also an opportunity. If you are unhappy with a grade, you get the chance to fix a paper. Any one of the papers can be chosen for a rewrite except the last paper.

Texts

The following books are available at the Virginia Book Company (Franklin and Shafer St.) and at the VCU Bookstore. They are not on reserve; the library will not always be open during the intersession.

· Stephen M. Walt. The Origins of Alliances. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987).

· Jack Snyder. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991)

· Deborah Welch Larson. Anatomy of Mistrust: US-Soviet Relations During the Cold War. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997.)

· G. John Ikenberry. After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of World Order After Major Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.

· G. John Ikenberry and Michael Mastanduno, eds. International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific. NY: Columbia University Press, 2003.

Important note: The Ikenberry and Mastanduno book is an edited volume. Each chapter is written by a different author and focuses on a slightly different issue. Remember that as you read it. There will be contradictions among the author’s arguments and disputes about what motivates state behavior. You are essentially, the referee of these disputes. Who is right? Who is wrong? And why do you think so? That’s what your paper should explore. In the Asia-Pacific region as a whole, what accounts for the behavior of the states? Use the authors’ arguments to make your case. Read only

Chapter 1 (Christenson)

Chapter 2 (Goldstein)

Chapter 4 (Kang)

Chapter 5 (Tamamoto)

Chapter 6 (Nau)

Chapter 10 (Copeland)

Chapter 12 (Berger)

The Papers:

1. The papers must be five full pages, at least. More is fine, but not necessary. Less is a problem. Papers should be double-spaced, with one-inch margins or less, and reasonable font size (no more than 12 point). Shorter papers, with big margins, and large print size font will be penalized.
2. The papers are due at midnight of the due date assigned (By midnight I mean that if the paper is due on December 29, the paper is due as December 29 becomes December 30).
3. Make sure the author’s name and the title of the book are in the first paragraph of the paper.
4. Any references to specific facts or ideas in the paper should be cited. Since you will be citing from one single work you can just use parenthetical references, for example -- (p. 35). You don't need citations necessarily, but after a few papers you'll begin to get a sense of what needs to be cited and what doesn't.
5. Do not include long quotes!!!! There is no real need to quote an author, just paraphrase the idea in your own words then cite the page number where you found the idea. You can quote actual policy makers (Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, General Secretaries), but do this sparingly if you feel it is necessary. A paper that is even 10% quotes is unacceptable. You should be writing this, not filling up space with other people’s writing.
6. WHEN YOU TYPE YOUR PAPER ON A COMPUTER MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A BACKUP DISK WITH THE PAPER ON IT. AS YOU TYPE THE PAPER SAVE THE FILE TO THE BACKUP DISK EVERY TEN MINUTES OR SO. This is especially important if you type on the university computers. Putting your paper on the hard drive in the computer lab is useless if they sweep the hard drives of files at night. Keep a backup copy for yourself. I have several backup copies of anything I write. You don't ever want to lose work because you didn't back it up.
7. In your papers feel free to refer back to concepts, issues, and foreign policies we have discussed in previous books.
8. Late Paper Policy: Since the class is based on these papers, I will be pretty rigid about this. Late papers are penalized 20 points per day. You do not want to fall behind in this class. Of course, if you have a serious reason for handing in a paper late, let me know, and I will give you an extension. Family crises, illnesses, and the like are legitimate reasons for an extension. Computer problems or too much fun on New Year’s Eve are not.

On Writing a Good Analytical Paper

1. Make sure you have a subject and verb in every sentence. (You would be surprised how many important journals and books allow non-sentence sentences). This is non-fiction, not fiction. So you need to observe the basic rules of grammar.
2. A long sentence is not necessarily a better sentence -- each sentence should express only one thought. Don't be afraid to break up a long sentence into two or three shorter ones. It will usually flow better that way.
3. Make an argument in the paper. Do you agree or disagree with the author, and why? Does the author get the answer to his question right, but has faulty evidence? Does he provide strong evidence, but get the answer wrong? Is the author even asking the correct question? I'm interested in your opinions of the issue and the way you back up your analysis. You can summarize the author's argument as you analyze it. Remember what the purpose of your paper is. It is not a summary of the author's argument. It is an analytical examination of the author's argument and the issue the author is addressing. I want to know what you think. I know what the author thinks. I read the book. I don't know what you think.
4. What do I mean by analytical? If someone makes an argument or statement, it needs to be examined, not taken at face value. As a good reader and scholar, you want to see if you can answer the following questions. (You might not always be able to do this; authors aren't always clear, but if you can't answer them, then you've learned something about the author's argument right there -- it is unclear.) (Some of this is mentioned above as well.)

• What is the major argument the author is making? What kind of cause--effect relationship does the author make? Can you summarize the argument for the whole book or chapter with one or two sentences?
• What are the theoretical assumptions the author makes? They may be explicit or implicit. They might be stated up front or you might have to search for them. Do these basic assumptions stack the deck? If those assumptions were changed does it invalidate or change significantly the author's argument?
• What is the author's evidence? What is the quality of the author's evidence? Does the evidence support the argument?
• Are there hidden themes within the book, ideas that are not stated explicitly, but are crucial to the author's argument?
• If the arguments contain significant theoretical perspectives, do those perspectives fit other cases or the historical record as you know it?
• What are the implications of the author's argument? What does the argument say about the future?

For example, someone might say "China is an expansionist nation because it is going to invade Taiwan." So, challenge that idea; analyze it. Ask and answer some questions. Is it valid to prove a point using evidence that has not yet happened? Can someone say "I know that you are hungry because I believe that you will eat soon?" Isn't that simply hypothetical? If China hasn't invaded Taiwan, but the author believes it will, then the entire argument is based not on what China is or has done, but on what the author perceives about China. Have we learned anything about China? No, but we have learned something about the author. (I'm using an example taken from an op-ed piece in the Washington Post from 1997, which used this exact logic.) Now, you may believe that China is an expansionist power, but the author made a poor argument. So, you've got to make the argument stronger. If the author is convinced that China will invade Taiwan because China is building missile batteries along its eastern coast, buying equipment for amphibious landings, practicing amphibious landings, holding military exercises near Taiwan that simulate an invasion of an island, and saying “we will invade Taiwan.” Then the author has a better argument. What have we done here? We’ve done some basic social science analysis. We've challenged the author's argument, examined his cause and effect logic, and revealed his assumptions.

The introduction of your paper (Important!!!)

Make sure that the reader of your paper knows: (1) what is your theme or argument; (2) how you are going to go about supporting that theme or argument -- all within the first couple of paragraphs of the paper. In other words, these first paragraphs or first paragraph should provide your reader with a "road map" that explains exactly what you will say during the paper. This is not as difficult as it sounds. Basically, what you need to do is write the outline you have for your paper in complete sentences in the first few paragraphs of the paper.

Your opening paragraph (or couple of opening paragraphs) should also give the reader some reason to be interested in your topic and in your argument. Tell the reader why this subject is important. Here is an example of an opening paragraph.

The growing threat from al-Qaeda may be the major challenge for US national security in the early decades of the 21^st century. (There's the topic) Al-Qaeda should be seen as a new form of hegemonic challenger to the US, a challenge perhaps so unique that the US must rethink many of its past national security policies to adapt to this challenge. (There's the general argument and why it is important) This paper will argue that al-Qaeda’s hegemonic threat is based upon: (1) its growth as a vanguard of an extremist ideology, which is gaining adherents around the globe; (2) increasing passive support for al-Qaeda in many areas of the Middle East, Europe, and Asia, which could lead to the overthrow of US-allied regimes; and (3) its use of a network-based organization and strategy to create global insurgency that may be difficult to crush. (There's the specific argument and the organization of your evidence to prove your point.) In essence, though al-Qaeda may not be able to replace the US as a hegemon, it could have the capability to disrupt US global hegemony, lead the US to decide to withdraw from several regions, and create zones of extremism and civil war from Morocco to Indonesia that would remain outside US influence and global norms. To prevent this, the US must continue its counterterrorism policies, but also embark on a new priority – convincing the world’s population, through word and deed that the international system established under US hegemony is beneficial to everyone. (That is the conclusion.)

So, this paragraph tells me what you think summarizes why you think that is true and why I should care. The paper might then proceed to give a meatier introduction with a bit of history. The bulk of the paper will give detail on the support for the argument. The three arguments given in that opening paragraph provide the organization; a concluding section might once again summarize the main argument, and perhaps speculate a bit on the implications of the argument.

You can use lots of topic headings and subheadings to correspond to the points on your "road map" -- they'll help you organize your thoughts, and they'll help your reader clearly identify where he is on the "road map." The above paper might have five main sections:

• Introduction: The al-Qaeda threat
• An Ideological Vanguard
• Passive Support for al-Qaeda and its Implications
• Network-based Hegemonic war
• Conclusion: The Disruption of Hegemony and How to Rebuild the International System

As you make the points that support your argument, you'll probably be aware of the places in which your argument is controversial or in which a reasonable person might disagree with you. Preempt those controversies in your text. Point out what those opposing arguments might be, and why you think your point of view is more accurate or reasonable. Going back to the above example, a good paper would point out that some people think that al-Qaeda is not that big a threat and US actions that treat al-Qaeda as a global threat enhance its power and reputation; explain why those people think that's the case, and show why the author thinks they're wrong.

The VCU honor system covers plagiarism. It is not a fine line. Either ideas are yours, or they are not. But just because someone else has already written an idea that you agree with 100% doesn't mean you can't discuss it in your paper. Just point out whose idea it is; paraphrase it in your own words, cite the source of the idea, and expand upon it. Generally, that is how Political Science works. 90% of all Political Science articles and books do the following:

There are various analyses of al-Qaeda’s power. Stan says al-Qaeda is a nuisance, but has no real ability to achieve any of its regional and global goals. (Stan 2004). Kyle, disagrees, arguing that al-Qaeda can use its passive support to instigate the overthrow of many governments in the Middle East; however, once it does so, it makes itself more vulnerable to destruction by conventional-style US military operations. (Kyle 2005). Cartman contends that al-Qeada could successfully achieve its goals. Once having taken control of several regimes in the Middle East, the US will not have the capability to fight four or five simultaneous wars such as the current war in Iraq; the US will only have one option – containment of a new revolutionary ideology in a new cold war, in which terrorism will play a key role in the balance of power. Cartman 2005). Each analysis has merit; however, this essay concludes that a significant effort by the US at bringing populations in the Middle East into the realm of global capitalism and democracy, if accompanied by a new emphasis on human rights and international labor standards, will isolate al-Qaeda from Muslim populations around the world and leave it an extremist and fringe organization.

The article would then outline the theories of Stan, Kyle and Cartman, analyze each one, and then develop the fourth theory. There is no problem as long as Stan, Kyle, and Cartman get credited with developing their theories, and the fourth theory is new. If the fourth theory belongs to a fourth author (Kenny? Timmy?), the reader must be told that the fourth theory is Kenny's or Timmy’s and your article will show why his theory is superior to the other three.

Here’s an example that’s a bit more relevant to what you will be doing in your paper that gives a sample intro paragraph for Fareed Zakaria’s book From Wealth to Power.

In From Wealth to Power Fareed Zakaria examines what causes wealthy nations to become “great powers” with large militaries and global foreign policy ambitions. Historically, some nations translate their wealth into power, while others do not. The reasons why nations make this transition is crucial – in almost all historical cases in which wealthy nations become militarily powerful the result is international conflict and/or war. Though most analysts say that the transition from wealth to power and ambition is inevitable, Zakaria argues that the key ingredient in a nation’s rise to global power lies within the domestic political system. When a nation’s government becomes strong, ready to use the nation’s resources for political ends at home, it also becomes ready to harness the nation’s resources to achieve political goals abroad. His case study of the lag between US wealth (mid-19^th century) and US ambition (late 19^th century) provides an excellent argument of how the strength of the US government lagged behind the growth of its economy. However, Zakaria has discounted two other important factors that play a role in this transition: national ideology and historical legacy. Some ideologies are more aggressive than others and will shape the way a nation deals with the rest of the world. Some nations have a historical legacy of insecurity (Russia), or aggression (Japan), or even regional supremacy (China) that deeply influences its foreign policy.

The in your paper you will outline Zakaria’s argument, your addition to his theory, and your evidence to explain you modifications of his ideas.

I will try to mark up your papers pretty heavily in this regard, but the grade will reflect more of the substance. But this is a writing intensive class, so expect to work on the writing style. Even if your first papers are a bit ragged, your last papers will be sharply analytical and organizationally elegant.

A note on reading these books

These books all do similar things. First, each one is trying to answer the same question: Why do states behave the way they do in the international system. Second, each book has a specific theoretical focus. The books are trying to find theories that explain why states behave the way they do. The search for theory is a search for rules to explain social science phenomenon (in this case foreign policy behavior). Each author is developing a theory to explain the behavior of all states, not just one state. That is the trick here. Can you find universal patterns of activity, universal rules that can be used to explain how any state behaves? Each author is developing a theory (a rule about state behavior) and then testing it with case studies. You are assessing those theories and the evidence that supports them. So think in those terms. Don’t be confused by scientific jargon. Just remember that theories are statements about cause and effect. When I heat up a liquid, it will boil. That’s cause and effect. To become a scientist, you start to experiment – you heat up different liquids to see if they all boil at the same temperature, then you try to make rules about the different types of liquids you heat up, say types of juices vs. types of oil. That’s science. Now, since this is social science and we’re dealing with nations, we can’t run experiments. You can’t invade several nations to see what their different reactions to invasion might be. So you use historical data to test your theories. That’s what you’re examining in your papers. An author has developed a theory or tested two theories. How well does the author’s argument hold up when tested against the historical data? Ask me if you have any questions about this.

You might think to yourself. I’ll never keep up. I’ll never be able to read and write all this in such a short time. Here are a couple tips. A good non-fiction author (and I think I’ve picked good authors) has a definite structure to his/her book. There is a theory chapter that explains the purpose of the book, the theory being examined, the questions being asked, the answers being tested, and a summary of the evidence. In a good book, you should know what’s in the entire book from reading the first chapter. The rest of the book is filled with case studies that prove the point. Then there is a concluding chapter which re-summarizes the case studies and addresses some of the theoretical issues raised in the introductory chapter. So the question is this: how do I read a book like that. Read the introduction and the concluding chapters carefully. Read the introductions and conclusions of each case study chapter carefully. Read at least one case study chapters carefully. For the other case studies, skim the chapters, picking and choosing sections to read carefully and sections to read more lightly. Feel free to read the whole thing carefully, if you want, of course. Only you know how much time you have and how fast you read. But you don’t have to read every line in every book and highlight it all. I’ll let you know if you’re not getting enough depth. After reading the book, you should be able to tell me, with a significant amount of depth what is in the introductory and concluding chapters. You should also understand how the theories apply to each case study, but, you don’t need to know the small details of every case study. For example, Snyder’s book looks at why nations expand. He uses case studies of Germany, Japan, Britain, the USSR, and the US. You don’t need to come away from the book with a detailed understanding of the military, political, and social history of each nation’s expansionist period.

I will get your papers back to you as soon as I can. I will try to get them back before the next paper is due, so that you can use my comments to improve your next paper.

Class Schedule

This is a tight schedule. Don’t fall behind because you may not be able to catch up. Also you might want to start reading Walt as soon as you can to get a head start.

December 27: Read the small essay called “A Brief Introduction to Theories of International Relations and Foreign Policy” linked to the syllabus above.

Read Walt

December 28: Paper on Walt due at midnight

December 29: Read Snyder

December 30: Read Snyder

December 31: Paper on Snyder due at midnight

January 1: Read Larson

January 2: Read Larson

January 3: Paper on Larson due at midnight

January 4: Read Ikenberry

January 5: Paper on Ikenberry due at midnight

January 6: Read Ikenberry and Mastanduno

January 7: Read Ikenberry and Mastanduno

January 8: Paper on Ikenberry and Mastanduno due; Rewrite due, at midnight