Pls rad the Reading 1 and answer the question in one paragraph
What are some major events that could happen in international relations that might contribute to public opinion becoming more hesitant to engage with the rest of the world? Can you think of other events that would encourage public opinion to support increased engagement with the rest of the world? (one paragraph)
pls read the reading 3 and answer this question.( one paragraph )
1. How has globalization played a role in challenging the power of the state? In other words, which of the challenges are attributable to globalization and which are attributable to forces that may run counter to globalization, such as religion?
2. Is there an alternative to the nation-state? Are there more natural ways to organize politics? Think about alternatives that are smaller (ethnic groups, tribes, regions) and larger (multistate coalitions like the European Union or world government).
3. One way to think about the European Union is as a natural progression into larger political units. Centuries ago, Europe was a series of city-states, then slightly larger kingdoms, then larger principalities, then nation-states, and now a larger union. Can you foresee a similar evolution in any other geographic region, such as Latin America or Africa?
answer based on the reading 3 to this question briefly.( one to two paragraph)
Globalization: Vanishing State Power?
What do you expect will be the character of the twenty-first century? Peaceful? War-prone? Orderly? Chaotic? Why do you have the expectations you do, and what clues from the unfolding of world events might tell you whether your guesses are correct? (minimum of 140 words)
Globalization, which is often defined as the widening, deepening, and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life, has been viewed as a key organizing principle of global politics in the post-Cold War era. Yet the concept itself is fundamentally contested and its impact on the state is hotly debated, with liberal economists, global skeptics, and transformationalists each offering competing understandings of the process.
Contrast the perspectives on globalization offered by liberal economists, global skeptics, and transformationalists, focusing in particular on the implications of their respective viewpoints on the power and authority of the nation state. Does globalization undermine the authority and power of the nation state? Why?(500 to 700 words)
Can the United States and China Coexist Peacefully?(one paragraph)
China-Taiwan Tensions on the Rise
In 1949, Chinese nationalist forces fled China after defeat in civil war against the Chinese communists. These nationalist forces set up a government on the island of Taiwan that claimed to be the legitimate government of all China. Indeed, many countries, including the United States, recognized Taiwan as the “real China” for many years. By the mid-1970s, however, the United States and most other countries of the world recognized the “real China” as the People’s Republic—the government in power in Beijing. China’s seat on the UN Security Council switched from Taiwan’s control to Beijing’s. But Taiwan’s own status then became unclear. Was it an independent nation-state? Or part of China? Or something like an independent territory? For decades, the United States has officially recognized Beijing’s sovereignty over “One China” but sold advanced weapons to Taiwan to defend itself in case of an attack from the mainland.
This is perhaps the fundamental question of Chinese-Taiwanese relations. The (communist) Chinese government considers Taiwan a renegade province that should rejoin the mainland as part of a unified China. Indeed, that is China’s top foreign policy issue. In Taiwan, a capitalist and democratic society, some political elements continue to believe in governing all of China someday, but a growing segment wants Taiwan to become an independent country, fully sovereign and independent from mainland China. In practice, an uneasy status quo has cemented Taiwan’s ambiguous status for decades, because reunification by force would be expensive and disruptive for China, while a declaration of independence by Taiwan would likely precipitate a Chinese military attack. While this uneasy status quo prevails, trade and financial ties have expanded greatly in recent years, making the two economies interdependent.
Over the years, tensions have flared up over the question of unification or Taiwanese independence, yet to date there has been no full-scale war between China and Taiwan. At the end of 2018, two episodes raised tensions between the two states. First, the United States signed a new law that incrementally increased America’s support for Taiwan, weakening the formula by which the United States had recognized the communist government of China and maintained only an unofficial relationship with the government of Taiwan. China protested this law as harmful to diplomacy in the region.
Second, at the start of 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping gave his first speech about Taiwan, declaring that China “must be” and “will be” reunified, peacefully if possible but by force if necessary. Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen denounced this call and suggested that until China becomes a democracy, Taiwan has little interest in reunification. Around the same time, the leadership of the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), announced they will spend 2019 improving training and “preparing for war.” Of course, they did not say who the war would be fought against, but the statement was clearly a signal about China’s willingness to use military force if necessary. Soon after, in early January, Taiwan’s president called for international support against Chinese military threats.
Thus, as 2019 begins, tensions between China and Taiwan are high. But, tensions have flared in the past and have not resulted in war between the two. It is unlikely this time will be different. Yet, what clouds the picture currently is the fact that tensions between China, other neighbors, and the United States are also running very high. In the case of the United States, the threats over Taiwan as well as a Chinese military buildup in the South China Sea and trade disputes make for very fraught times between the two powers. So, while it is still unlikely that a major war will occur, it is also not clear how these tensions will de-escalate in the short term.
Let’s Debate the Issue
Globalization: Vanishing State Power?
For over 300 years, the nation-state has been the main organizing principle in the world. State governments fight wars, protect their citizens, collect taxes, and provide services for everyday life (from running transit systems to collecting garbage). The idea of the state as a key organizing principle dates back hundreds of years. Political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes saw governments as providing individuals protection from the state of nature (where life without the state was “nasty, brutish, and short”) and from other groups of individuals.
The idea of a nation-state was European in origin. Prior to colonization, large portions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America were organized in different ways: either by families, clans, or other group units. Yet as Europeans spread throughout the world in efforts to colonize and settle new lands, they brought the idea of a nation-state with them. In a relatively short period of time, the world was organized as a set of states interacting on the world stage. States became the central actors providing services to individuals and came into conflict or cooperated with one another.
Yet in the era of globalization, the power of the state is being challenged. With globalization has come the rise of technology, nonstate actors, fluid state borders, and intergovernmental organizations, all of which are eroding the state’s ability to control what goes on within and across its borders. Could we be seeing the beginning of the end of the nation-state as an organizing principle in international relations?
State Power Is on the Decline
Nonstate actors are now as important as the state. Whether they are nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or multinational corporations (MNCs), nonstate actors play an increasingly important part in world politics. NGOs pressure governments to change human rights practices, MNCs compel states to adapt laws to suit their businesses, and terrorist groups undermine state security. These challenges to state power have grown in the past decade and will continue to grow as globalization allows citizens more access to one another.
States are no longer the key economic actors. Except for the economically largest states such as the United States and Japan, MNCs and private investors control more resources and capital than many nation-states. Add to this list the powerful IGOs such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund, and states are but one category of player in the global economic game.
Many substitutes for nationalism have emerged. While nationalism was a powerful force supporting the state in the past, other ideas have emerged to challenge it. Religion has replaced allegiance to the state for some, and strong ethnic ties also challenge loyalty to the state. If more individuals’ primary loyalty is to something besides their nation-state, state power will continue to decline.
States Are Down, but Not Out
States have always been challenged, but they have always persevered. States have been under threat for centuries. Whether the threat was from nonstate actors (pirates), from NGOs (the antislavery movement), or from MNCs (the British East India Tea Company), the state has emerged as the central power in international relations. No successful replacement for the state has yet arisen.
States still perform functions that cannot be handed off to other actors. Despite the rise of nonstate actors, certain functions will always fall to states, such as collecting taxes, making laws, and protecting citizens from external threats. States will always need help to perform these duties, and no other entity can perform them outright.
Nationalism will remain a powerful ideological force for the foreseeable future. While alternatives to nationalism exist, none are as widely accepted. Individuals still have strong allegiances to their countries. Witness the number of separatist groups that still try to achieve their independence as a state. If the state did not still have distinct advantages, why would people go to such lengths to achieve statehood?