INTRODUCTION TO

CURSO 2023-2024

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
SARA BEN -SMIDA CORTAZAR

1
INDEX
1. IR DEBATES AND THEORIES

1.1 IDEALISM VS REALISM

1-2 TRADITIONALISM VS BEHAVIOURISMS

1-3 STATISM VS TRANSITIONALISM VS STRUCTURALISM

1-4 MAINSTREAM VS NEW APPROACHES:

• Constructivism

• Critical security studies

2. POLITICAL SCIENCE

2.1 THE ROLE OR STATE

2.2 SECURITY

2.3 PEACE STUDIES

2.4 INTERNATIONAL SCENARIO IN THE 90’s

2.5 EARLY 21st CENTURY

2.6 INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

3. GLOBAL ISSUES

3.1 DESCOLONOZATION PROCESS

3.2 BRICS

3.3FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUEALITY IN IR

3.4 MDG VS SDG

3.5 FLOWS OF PEOPLE: MIGRATION

3.6 CLIMATE CHANGE

3.7 INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

3.8 US POWER AND DONALD TRUMP'S FOREIGH POLICY

4. COOPERATION

2
 1. IR DEBATES AND THEORIES
1.1 DEFINITION
The study of IR is said to have started in 1919 in Aberystwyth (Wales), IR at first was Anglo-centric and US –
centric nowadays. Furthermore, it can be defined in more than one definition; everything (public) that hap-
pens in the international area can be IR. In addition, it is a combination from many fields of study such as
Economics, Political Theory, History, Ethics, Sociology… Besides, in IR total objectivity is impossible, it is bi-
ased, as everybody has a different opinion, background, and point of view.

• International relations (ir) -> Whatever happened between borders, relation between countries (cli-
mate change, terrorism...).

• International Relations (IR) -> A mix of different disciplines (philosophy, history, law, sociology, eco-
nomics...).

Power, state, war borders, international are terms that don't have a unique definition.

1.2 OUTSIDE VS INSIDE

Inside vs outside: There is no divide between inside and outside. IR must know about the inside and the
outside of a country.

• State has to deal with their problems -> Managed by political science.
• Having a relation with foreign country -> Managed by diplomats.

Everything that happens OUTSIDE affects INSIDE and vice versa.

To understand a country’s relation with another ->Need to understand the inside of the country.

1.3 HISTROY OF IR
➢ Can / Should you be objective and neutral while talking about IR?
o To explain the international world, we need analytical tools like theories.

➢ Started  When humans started conquering other countries and when they knew they could trade
with other countries.
o Can go back -> Roman & Greek times.
o Officially -> 1919, Wales.

➢ Formally created ->Wales (UK)

➢ Developed -> USA

1.4 THE FOUR GREAT DEBATES

In international relations theory, the Great Debates refer to disagreements between international relations
scholars of different phases.

Problems that worried different scholars:

➢ WW1/WW2
➢ Cold War

3
 ➢ Economic cooperation between western states

FIRST DEBATE: IDEALISM VS REALISM

During the 1930s and 1940s, after the first world war, it took place the first debate of the discipline. It was a sociological
debate (how we are, human nature) opposing groups of scholars called as idealist and realist.

The idealism emerged during the liberalism and the French revolution, and it argues that our main feature is that, hu-
mans, are rational, are conflictual but they have the capacity to regulate it. Idealism supports that, diplomacy, trade and
cooperation are fundamental. It emphasizes to create international institutions like the League of Nations. One of the
biggest supporters of this idea was N. Angel and in 1913 he published “The Great Illusion” in which a war was claimed
to be socially and economically irrational.

However, the realism refers to the pessimistic view of the human being and it argues that the human being is aggressive,
selfish and they have to be strong enough to arrange what they want (humans are constantly wanting power and ma-
terial capacities). The predominant way of behaviour is aggressive, conflictual, machiavellic… The nature of international
relations is that there is no world government; instead, there is a system of armed countries fighting each other. World
politics is an international anarchy. Realism has a cyclical view of history; it is based on continuity and repetition. In
conclusion, the most powerful countries will live greatly, while the poorest countries will die. E. Carr and Hans Morgen-
thau were supporters of this arguments, so they publish their books such as The Twenty Years of Crisis written in 1939
by E. Carr and Politics among Nations written by Hans Morgenthau in 1948.

The realism won that debate because the second world war started.

SECOND DEBATE: TADITIONALISM VS BEHAVIORISM

The second debate took place after the second world war, where technological advances were made such as, nuclear
bombs or even computers. Furthermore, this debate was a methodological debate (how we know). There are two
branches.

On the one hand, traditionalism also known as classical approach, it is based in a multidisciplinary approach such as
history or philosophy. In addition, it states that social beings are unpredictable, nevertheless, it can be given plausible
and coherent arguments to explain human actions, because norms and values have to be taken into account as the
historical knowledge. Hedley Bull and Martin Wight used to explain the reality by elaborating good essays, they tried
to take elements from different fields of knowledge and elaborate logical arguments to convince the others.

On the other hand, there is behaviourism, it is based on hypothesis and empirical test, so as to look for behavioural
patterns, in other words is based in scientific knowledge, due to, it states that IR should be a pure, objective and neutral
science, because humans are rational (action – reaction). Furthermore, as many computer advances were made, they
could calculate enough information to predict what actions are going to be done next by humans. Morton Kaplan is one
of the greater supporters of behaviourism.

THIRD DEBATE: NEOREALISM VS TRANSITIONALISM VS STRUCTURALISM

This debate was discussed in the 1970s, while the European process was made to become a supernational state. In
addition, it was an inter-paradigmatic debate (different ways of seeing the world).

At first, Neorealism is the way of seeing the world in a systematic level and it was developed in the US. One of the
scholars that defended Neorealism is K. Waltz and he wrote the book Theory of International Politics in 1979. Moreover,
according to K. Waltz this are the principles of neorealism:

1) We are living in an international system of anarchy, that is to say, there is an absence of the structural hierarchy
(there’s no vertical cohesion). According to Waltz, we are in a self-help system, in other words, talking in the states size,
no one is going to help you, so you have to survive on your own. → Military alliances (NATO) are not 100% reliable

2) The states are equal units in terms of functions, which are being rational and surviving. The latter one is the most
important one, which means even if they get in clashes, they can’t be broken or disappear.

4
 - In terms of function =; in terms of material capacities ≠
3) The states have different material capacity, that is to say, not every country has the same quantity of nuclear weapons,
economic resources, military tools, population… The one with the greater would be the most powerful one, emphasizing
the importance of power. States must be improving their material capacity in order to survive.
·
- Principle of Prudence (the weighing of the consequences of alternative political action), “you go to a
war if you need it”. This principle affirms that states make the decision of going to a war if their survival
is threaten or if they can extend their capacities.

Secondly, the transnatiolism focused on flows and things that move across borders, that’s what we see when analysing
the international scenario, things that happen on one side of the world that have a huge impact on another side as we
live in a world of interdependence. That’s why international regimes were created, in order to tackle global issues that
involve every country by putting countries together as it’s easier to cooperate and collaborate. It was also developed in
the US. Keohane and Nye were to scholars that defended this idea, and they wrote the book Power an Interdependence
in 1976, but in 1986 due to the synthesis Neo-Neo (Complex interdependence + Neorealism) (4th Debate) (Keohane &
Nye wrote “Power and Interdependence revisited”.

Thirdly, structuralism see that the world is not divided in countries, but in social classes. They focus, mainly in socioec-
onomic aspects. That is the reason why they made a clear division between the centre of the world and the periphery...
Furthermore, it was developed by Latin American scholars and I. Wallerstein.

On the one hand, at the centre is where the power is concentrated and decisions are
taken, where the progress takes place. On the other hand, the periphery is who in-
corporates labour forces commodities and raw materials.

FOURTH DEBATE: NEO-NEO VS NEW APPROACHES

This fourth debate took place after the cold war, and it was a reflectivist-sociological turn in which ontology (Composi-
tion of things: MATERIAL) and epistemology (How we know things) were important.

On the one hand, there was Mainstream (Synthesis Neo-Neo). At first in the epistemology (how we know things) view,
this approach defended the positivist rationalism. We know things objectively, it is like we see a picture of the world,
that is, we see things from outside. Ontologically speaking, they give importance to the material capacity, to the classical
power. In fact, the power achieved by tangible things such as weapons.

On the other hand, New Approaches scholars do not try to explain the world, they focus on specific topics Constructivism,
Critical Theory, Postcolonial Studies, Feminism, Critical Security Studies...At first, in the epistemology (how we know
things) view it was reflectivist and it used the subjectivity. Then in the ontology view: that claims that the world is
created from norms, values, languages, ideas… rather than from material things. We need a context to understand
things, to understand the others and the world.

One of the most important new approaches is constructivism, which is the main challenger of the mainstream.

CONSTRUCTIVISM: it was mainly developed in Europe

5
The two main ideas of constructivism are that they see the world in a dynamic process in which the world changes (the
opposite of what K. Waltz said of the idea of crystallizing the world) and they support an intersubjective process based
on values, languages.... thanks to which things change and we can interact and learn more from others. Moreover, they
emphasize the idea of normativity (not describing the world but trying to change it)

- Constructivism “light”: (There is not a real difference between “light” and “radical” Constructivism, not such thing
exists, it is just for understanding it better)
The creator of this trend is Alexander Wendt, the antagonist of K. Waltz. According to him, the world is divided into
states. For them, ideational elements are rather more important than material ones, even if the latter ones are still
relevant. Identities and interests are not fixed, so they could change.
- Constructivism “radical”:
Nicholas Onuf who wrote World of our making in 1989, is an important supporters of this constructivism. Norms not
only regulate but also redefine it. Language and speeches determine our thinking.

CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES (VS STRATEGICAL SECURITY STYLES (Preserving territories))

The new ideal of security is supported by the neorealist, so the security is a material thing. In other words, in order to
protect the countries, arms should be used. Its main idea is to protect national sovereignty, territorial integrity and
border control. (Stephen Walt)
Critical security studies:
There are critical approaches that come from European schools. Rather than in material things, they focus on ideas,
values, languages, norms...
- Copenhagen school:
It’s a securitization process in which you use your language and expression in order to convince the audience. That is to
say, the speeches given by the gouvernantes, are usually used as securitization processes. In a security issue you can
take extraordinary measures because as the population feels threatened, they would accept the measures in order to
be safer, so there will always be a way of getting out of that problem. Moreover, we have to take into account that due
to the speeches, people are afraid of things that weren’t a problem before (11S).
- Aberystwyth School (Wales):
This critical security study is quite related to Marxism. Is important to know that their motto was emancipation vs.dom-
ination, which means that we must leave behind the material capacity since the only way to solve this security problem
is by deleting every form of domination and social and economic inequalities. They believe that investment in material
capacity for a security problem, wont do anything in the long term. (If the border between Europe and Africa represents
such an inequality in the world no matters how much money you spend in security, you will never feel safe because of
the inequality. The unique way to feel safe is human cohesion.)
- Paris School:
This approach is linked to the sociologists as they acquire a socio-political point of view. In this case, it is said that the
state instead of providing security, creates a sense of insecurity given by the government dispositives (police, military).
In this way, fear is created in the society in order to protect them.
- Strategical Security Studies
- National sovereignty, territorial integrity, border control
- Arnold Wolfers, Stephen Walt

6
 2. POLITICAL SCIENCE
Politics (process), polity (structure), policy (outcome)

Political science? Political science is the art of the way of knowing things.
- State→ today nobody can imagine a political organization but a state.
- Power→ different definition, power is not something that I have. Is mainly defined in a relational
way. Capacity to make others do something that they weren't willing to do.

Power becomes authority when it succeeds at being legitimated. You can be powerful by violence, but you are not
legitimated.
• Legitimacy:
• Traditional: it has always been like that. Sifths into an authority because it has always been like that.
• Charismatic: he or she has some special charisma, someone to follow. Able to seduce or convince others to do
something.
• Legal-rational: (police) some actors of a state are powerful because of legal rational legitimacy.

2.1 THE ROLE OR STATE

The State is a “Monopoly of legitimate violence” as Max Weber states:

• Institutions that successfully claim for themselves the monopoly of legitimate violence. We assume that the
state response is the correct one.
It has three elements:

• Population: inhabitants are needed. Configured according to different legal rational bases. Nationals and for-
eigners, the distinction is important, the rights and duties are different.

• Territory: the land, the soil, air and sea where you have capacity to control.
• Sovereignty (coercion): capacity of coercion, being able to apply your laws. Nevertheless, it could be limited by
internal and external factors:
- Internal limitations: rule of law (a state cannot do whatever it wants, previsibility) and failed states (those states that
internally weren't able to control all their territory and population).
- External limitation: regional integrity (supranational institutions, some states voluntarily decide to lead some decisions
and competences to some institutions) and external interventions/ wars/ occupations (sometimes states are not able
to control involuntarily because another actor is intervening).

From Absolutism (Hobbes, leviathan. Main goal to justify absolutism, we human being we used to be in a state of nature
were we had freedom to do whatever we wanted, leviathan was a social pact we artificially decide to sign a pact and
renounce the liberty and we are going to lead it to the beast, the state made clear the move from state of nature to
social pact.) to Liberalism (John Locke, that absolute power has to justify what is he doing accountability if the absolute
monarch does not do what he has to do we can eliminate it, UK, XVII): Liberal state and limited state (controls):

• Rule of law: previsibility, general justice for all. the same response for every body
• Division of powers (Montesquieu, XVIII): system of check and balances
• Representative government (fair elections): incorporating representatives

7
 • Right to resist and to revolution (accountability)
Those elements were crystallized in 1648 Westphalia; after the religious war the European system was based on king-
doms that needed mutual recognition of states: “Cuius regio, eius religio” (from each king, his religion). They were
independent sovereign states (non-interference, non-foreign intervention)

Democracy as general will (Rousseau, XVIII):

• Aspirational goal, the ideal type of trying to distribute power among everybody. Greatest democracy used to
be the USA.
• Ultimate goal.
Pluralism (Robert Dahl, XX): “Polyarchies”:
• Represent inclusive/universal suffrage, free and fair elections, freedom of expression, elected officials…
• Full democracy is impossible.

Welfare State (Beveridge Report 1942, UK): From liberal limited regulated state to social state. Welfare system, like a
promise. Do the greatest effort to win the war, at the end the state will regard it with free health and education.
Neoliberalism (80’s): “Rolling back the state!” Social state put in a sake. State something too big. privatization, the reg-
ulation… (Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Rigan)

Re-emergence of the state: dominant statist approach nowadays (nationalism & protectionism) Since the 2008 interna-
tional financial crisis. National responses to this crisis, different events proving the role of the state (COVID-19).

2.2 SECURITY

Before 1994, State was the one providing security (leviathan) and it is based in material military security. However, in
1994 UNDP (United nation development program) started talking about human security. It was main focused in not only
providing military security but providing food, energy, environmental, societal, education and health security. Broaden
horizontally the understanding of the fields regarding security.

Human beings are the priority, the most important thing is about individuals feeling safe. In addition, the state has the
responsibility to protect individuals but if the state is not providing security, for example, the state is the one applying
violence the International community should take action, R2P (responsibility to protect) According to human security,
there is an assumption that if the state applies violence, the international commission has the responsibility to protect.
Rules of engagement, are those rules for entry into force, use violence if they were directly attacked. Nevertheless,
legally rules of engagement don't allow us to intervene.

2.3 PEACE STUDIES

- Negative peace:
• Absence of physical/material violence (ceasefire)
• Freedom from fear.
+ Positive peace:
• The possibility to life with dignity, satisfying your main needs: education, health, food...
• Freedom from want/need.

8
 If we want a positive peace, we need to know the cultural and structural violence, in other words, we need to know
the roots of the conflict.

Instead of war studies, peace studies were made. Johan Galthon was the leader of the world peace studies, this means,
try to know why conflicts take place, in order of that, he created the triangle of violence.

- physical violence

-psicological violence

- Racisimsm

- Sexism
- Socioeconomic
- Religious

- Gender
In invisible violence, happens because somebody justifies it and they are more difficult to tackle to find a solution.
- Ethic

2.4 INTERNATIONAL SCENARIO IN THE 90’S

• Context:
Cold war: 1947- 1991 (or 1989 the start of the end)
-US unipolar, optimism.
-Globalization.
-EU (1993, Mastrich treaty)

• Globalization:

Time and space being reduced, whatever is happening somewhere if known somewhere else immediately.

- possibility of travelling

- technological improvement: mobiles, planes, proliferation of internet

• US unipolar hegemony:

Way of guaranty of putting the US as the 1st potential.

Try to spread their values:

Economy→ Washington consensus (neoliberalism):

-Privatization.
-Liberalization, try to open states to free trade, open to market, try to avoid any constraint or regularization.
-Deregulation, avoid any kind of legislation that could regulate trade.

9
Politics→
-Democracy.
-Human rights.

Somalia 1993:
US marin went to Mogadiscio trying to foster democracy, and the marine were killed and tortured in TV.
Rwanda 1994:
During The Bill Clinton administration, that time government didn't define that as a genocide. The blue helmets didn't
do anything.

*Regionalism: most regions try to organize themself, but it is really weak → the world divided in regions to be strong
enough to be globalized

• European Union

The word is going to be divided into regions, regionalism. Proliferation of regional projects, share competences, plat-
forms to take decisions, the European model, the European Union. (1993).
Strategy to try to be all together, to get closer in order to be more competitive in the global economy, economic inser-
tion.
Mastricht 1993→ EU political competences.
Three pillars:
- Supranationality→Some of the national competences are transferred to a supranational body. Economy, trade,
euro, CAP, EEC.
- Intergovernmental→ Everything that is decided between different states. Security and defence. And foreign policy,
- Judicial cooperation, internal affairs.

2.5 EARLY 21ST CENTURY

2001
• Reaction to the terrorism happened in 11th of September:
-George W.Bush, we have to make them pay back for what they did.
-Generated fear.
• China entered the WTO (is a way of recognizing China as a competitive economy, a capitalist one), and the US
and UN (NATO) declined. China + BRICK has been rising since the early 21st century.
2003
The US invaded Irak, but it was illegal according to International law. UNSC (US security council): 5 permanent mem-
bers (US, UK, China, Russia, France) 10 rotatories, voted no to the invasion.

2008
International financial crisis mainly affected in EU and US. It solution was to put more banks together.

10
 *Lack of legitimacy as soon as it was proven that it wasn't any weapon of mass destruction. Soft power = LEGITIMACY

The rise of the rest→ A new world order?

US

The new

world order

China
2001 2003 2008

2.6 INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

IPE is the relation between states and markets, this means there should be a connection between economy and poli-
tics. There are some days of understanding IPE:

1) Hegemony stability (US school) → it is connected to neorealism.

• Gilpin: to be a powerful actor you need a powerful economic dimension.

2) Critical/postmodern (UK school)

• Susan Strange: state tries to have more power but in a certain point they try to regulate international fi-
nances. She criticized the lack of responsibility of state. There is a travel from Westphalia to West-failure,
supporting the idea cui bono? (who is taking the benefit), in this case investors are taking benefit.

After the crisis:

- US → fed: to incorporate more money in the economic system (liquid) → it was a fast recover WINNERS (cui bono?)

- EU → austernity: you need to survive on your own → late recover LOOSERS

- Rest of the world → They were not so affected thanks to Chinese demand

• Robert Cox: humans are not objective.

1. Problem solving theories: all the theories that try to find a solution to a current problem

2. Critical theory (most important): try to discover the relations of power that created the current power→try to find
the roots of the conflict thinking what should be changed. World order:

- social forces

- ideas

- institutions

If there are no necessities (Positive peace) there are no limits

3) Latin American school

Weak states: problems in institutional designs, difficulties to control the territory.

vs

11
Multinational companies: amazon, google.

Main priority→ autonomy: possibility to take economic decisions without political influence: want political economy.

These analytical tools can be applied in any global issue.

3. GLOBAL ISSSUES
3.1 DECOLONIZATION PROCESS
We need to bring ourselves to the context of post-2WW, during the mid-20th century. At these times,
we identify world order we´re contextualized in:

• The end of European hegemony: weakening of colonial empires that have all been brought to the
brink of collapse by the Second World War, only saved by US and USSR intervention. In this way,
many colonies were fighting for their independence, as we saw in Egypt, Morocco, the Far East… In
this way, Europe is no longer the unquestioned global hegemony.
• The development of a bipolar world ( Cold War): The “center” of action throughout the world was
moved to Washington and Moscow, creating a two block division throughout the world. In 1949, the
Western Bloc formed NATO, which will firmly tie European states under the US´s grip. Whereas on
the other hand the creation of the Warsaw Pact arose in 1955.
• The zero-sum game: the race is on to fill the gaps left by decaying or deceased powers (in Japan,
Korea, Indochina, Egypt, Israel…). There will be a fierce competition to influence those countries
where the opposite side might gain the upper hand. In this new system, quick interventions and
pragmatic diplomacy will prove to be more important than ever, as new countries may not lean to-
wards either side of the global conflict.
• Socialism and national liberation movements: The socialist bloc will hold a huge ideological affinity
with national liberation movements, as they will struggle against the capitalist power. The USSR will
picture itself as a friend of oppressed people.
• The US and its pragmatic approach: The USA, although they accepted France and Britain, they
were´not interested in alienating allies that are still subjugated by their empires. In this way, the
European domination can barely be maintained in the current world system, which left the USA in
an hegemonic worldwide position, only questioned by the USSR. Decolonization will openly display
the limits of friendship between Europe and the US especially during the Suez Crisis.

Once tackled the issue of the new- world order after the Second World war, the factors from the colonies
that contributed to decolonization shall be discussed:
Economic factors:
➢ Dependence:
Colonized countries depended on their Metropolis to function: they were completely managed
by them economically, politically, etc. They were basically proxy regions of those states.

➢ European countries use colonies as exploitable resources, impoverishing them.

➢ Taxes, labor conditions

Sociological factors:
➢ Post-war discontent
Many colonies’ citizens were drafted into the armies of their European “masters” to fight during WW2,
and later when they won the war, the amount of losses and the lack of credit they received in the out-
come of the war created resentment and tension between both sides.

➢ Natives of the colony are treated as 2nd category citizens.

Most of the colony’s native citizens were uneducated, illiterate, poor, etc. They were paid less compared
to their European counterparts, they weren’t allowed to vote or partake in any major political decisions,
12
 etc. For example, in Algeria, they were called French Muslims of Algeria and although they were consid-
ered to be part of the French Empire, they weren’t in the same category as their European counterparts

➢ Racism
Natives, as stated above, were disregarded and discarded when it came to living in a “European” society.
They were mocked with racist caricatures and stereotypes

➢ General civil unrest

It wasn’t uncommon to see acts of civil disobedience or challenges to the authorities, this made only
made political tension grow in the colonies.

➢ Harsh punishments, tortures

Political factors:
➢ Rise of nationalism
With all the elements mentioned above against them, it’s understandable that the native population
started sticking together and a growing ambiance of nationalism started forming. People wanted their
rights, their freedom and peace, which was taken away from them. In Arab countries for example, the
people felt united by a common language, history and culture based on Islamic culture, which ignited
nationalist protests in Arab colonies, especially in Egypt and Algeria. A big example of nationalist fights is
the Suez Crisis in 1956, when General AbdelNassar nationalized the Suez Canal in order to modernize
Egypt.
➢ Cold war polarization
As stated before, the US and the Soviet bloc are both rooting for decolonization and offer support in
exchange of loyalty/allegiance from decolonized states. They fund guerrillas, armies, etc.

➢ Weakened European states after WW2.

After WW2, most European states are weakened both economically and politically, and that had an im-
pact in the management of their colonies: independence groups and parties saw weakness and most of
them saw that it was a good opportunity to strike back at their “masters.”

THE INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM

➢ What is the International Trusteeship System: Chapter XII of the United Nations Charter deals
with the international trusteeship system."Promote the political, economic, social, and educa-
tional advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development
towards self-government or independence". It also provides that the trusteeship system applies
to.
➢ In 1945, under Chapter XII of its Charter, the United Nations established the International Trus-
teeship System to administer and supervise the Trust Territories.
➢ Trust Territories:
- Territories now held under mandate.
- Territories that had been under the control of the defeated states in the IIWW. o Territories volun-
tarily placed under the system responsible for their administration.
➢ The main goals of the System: to promote the advancement of the inhabitants of Trust Territories
and their progressive development towards self-government or independence.

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1960. Un resolution 1514, document that guarantees
the right of independence of the different colonies around the world it's a key moment in the decoloni-
zation movement. THE CHANGE STARTED HERE.

13
3.2 BRICS
BRICS is an acronym for Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa. All of these countries nowadays
represent an economic union that was founded officially in 2009, after three years of informal meetings
and negotiations. All of it started when in 2001 the economist Jim O'Neill developed an account for Gold-
manSchams that claimed the emerging potential these nations had, in 2001. Firstly, the group didn´t
include South Africa ( BRIC), which was attacked in 2011. The potential this union has as a whole it's
outrageous:
- 23% GDP worldwide
- 30% planet´s territory
- 42% world's population
- 18% global territory

Their main goals are:

1. Create a multipolar institutional world without ruling hegemonies.
2. International cooperation
3. Promote international economic reforms and technological development.
4. Fight climate change

This organization has passed through three different phases:

➢ Economic phase
Once the Goldman Schams report was published, in which they tackled the potential of these emerging
countries by 2050. Taking that into account, their rulers had a reflectivist turn (change on perspectives
and ideas) and started to think about this coalition and their economic capacities, which were brutal
compared to their individual capabilities. In this way, informal negotiations started to take place, on the
20th of September 2006 in New York, for three years, until 2009 June 16th Russia, that the union was
formally done, at that time it was only BRIC. Once this was created, they claimed their disapproval with
many international institutions as the IMF or the WB, because they claimed they were not making efforts
to eradicate inequalities between many nations, but they were depending on the interests of Western
and European countries. Also, their declaration served to:
- Affirm the BRIC political importance and the call for more space in international forums.
- Transfer power from Europe and North America towards emerging countries, which seemed inevita-
ble.
➢ Geopolitical phase
The second phase of the union, tackles geopolitics and international position. In this sense, South Africa
joined the group, because of their strategic position in Africa. Throughout the continent, we have coun-
tries with more potential regarding economic issues, such as Nigeria, yet they do not have the global
attraction nor importance that SA has. Besides, the incorporation reflected their contribution to the
structuring of the socio-economic regeneration of Africa, as the involvement of acquiring peace, security
and reconstruction in the continent. Having done this, they had the geopolitical control throughout
mainly the whole world, their main interests now weren´ t economic. Besides, it's important to note the
Arab spring event, considered as a turning point in BRICS´s history. During the interventions imposed by
the UN in Libya, the coalition didn´t support it, because of several reasons:
- Opposition to foreign interventions
- Ever since the beginning they had criticized both the Libyan and Syrian position regarding the
Libyan crisis, stressing the principle of respect for national sovereignty and the need for a political
solution to the increasing violence between the two.
- To share a message about their newfound importance in the international arena. As certainly,
without that set of abstentions, Resolution 1973 could never have been passed.

After all of this, the BRICS and the UN positions in the international arena faced different paths.

14
 Another action important to note is the creation of the New Development Bank, after the sixth summit,
whose main objective was to establish a non-US-centered alternative to the current multinational insti-
tutions as a source of financing.

➢ Decrease phase and importance of China.

Years after the incorporation of the NDB and SA, the economic welfare of each country took a different
road. In this sense, their economic growth has pretty much disappeared, and it's important to note the
arising of China, whose GDP and economy continued to increase widely,as did the other members. Be-
cause of this, China became the main vehicle of the coalition, and supporter, mainly as a result of their
foreing investments and development. Regarding these differences, China does not contemplate the idea
of leaving the group, due to the global position they give them.

Nowadays, the BRICS have achieved many important goals:

1. To increase participation in global institutions based on cooperation: The central idea of the BRICS is
to improve cooperation and economic and commercial relations between members and non-mem-
bers of the group.
2. To accelerate the economic development of emerging countries: To do this, the BRICS invited emerg-
ing economies to open their markets and join forces.
3. To expand the financing capacity outside institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank: To achieve this idea, the BRICS leaders signed agreements aimed at economic sup-
port through the New Bank of Development. 4. Question the western-european hegemony towards
the future.

3.3 FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUALITY IN IR

Different types to take into account:

➢ First distinction to tackle is the ontological one:

- Liberal feminism: we´re equals, gender doesn't mean political, social, or economic division. How-
ever, there is less presence of women in conflicts.
- Radical: they assure the radical division of men and women, establishing the superiority of
women plus they establish that historically welfare would've been different if women would have
ruled, because men´s perspective regards more power means. Female nature is better, they try
to reach things a pacific way using their rationality.

➢ Second distinction is epistemology regarding IR:

- Empirical feminism: IR has been explaining the world, without including women, so whenever
we´re explaining events, we should apply a wider vision, broaden the scope. This is a critical PV
with a limit.
- Standpoint feminism: It regards that when tackling ideas, we do not incorporate women’s
knowledge in IR, but men´s. In this sense, ideas from women should also be included in the
speeches and knowledge. This trend does not claim the broadening of knowledge but changes
the perspectives between men and women. Denounces the prevailing values in the international
sphere and the need for their substitution by other values. (Related to structuralism: center im-
portant periphery no).
- Postmodern feminism: They claim that when regarding feminism we focus on a westernized type
of women; therefore, many other types of women end up being discriminated against. In this
way, gender inequality goes along with many other socioeconomic divisions. In the end, not only
gender equality but inequalities as a whole. Example of Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton. In the
end, in many times positive discrimination is needed to foster social equality. There is no single
point of view of women but as many as there are women.

15
3.4 MDG VS SDG (AGENDA 2030)
They were created in the year 2000 because of international optimism, once the Ussr fell. In this way, in
2000 the most developed countries created the MDG. It was a north-south cooperation; they were aimed
at creating international cooperation. They thought we should foster these goals. North from the south.
It has been an even degree of achievement regarding this because: China. MDG weren’t so successful
because, just a year after its creation, 11s, then, security became the main issue. In this way, in a global
perspective, the MDG was successful, but because of China, individually no.

SDG isn´t a north-south recommendation, instead they´re proposed by main actors from civil society,
companies, states etc. They wanted to promote this for everybody.

Pros: Mainly aspirational goals, they are not achievable, yet they show a direction to take when devel-
oping any policy. Any of these should take into consideration SDG. Closest to a general consensus all
around the world. They´re for everyone, not just for North-South countries.

Cons: Due to this representativeness, we have 17 goals, in all of them a lot of targets, which end up being
80 goals, more or less, which translates to hundreds of indicators = Very complicated to push forward
the agenda. Plus, many times there´re many contradictions between them, for instance SDG 8 vs 12.
Many countries, instead of trying to fulfill a wider range of goals, they try to improve in the ones which
they're closer to, so as to obtain international recognition. Constrains our way of behavior.

3.5 FLOWS OF PEOPLE: MIGRATION

Migration, exiliation of people escaping their country to another one.
Types of migration:
• Internal flow
• External flow
• Emigration
• Immigration

Refugees, change of country, without a clear destination, as emigrants do, plus they travel with few pack-
ages.

Main reasons:
● Lack of essential services
● Wars (political migration)
● Natural difficulties
● Poverty

One of the most important issues that arises with immigration is securitization. This takes into account
the importance of speech. In this way, we´re seeing how many leaders are taking political advantage of
these people, by claiming that they´re the cause of national problems, populism.

UNHCR is the most important institution that tackles this issue. They've taken many conventions and
international treaties. 1951 Refugee convention. 1967 Protocol to the refugee convention, that ex-
panded the geographical AND temporal reach of the organization. Nowadays, UNHC is financed by mem-
ber states, such as the USA, EU, or Germ.

International flows of people became a global issue when it was securitized. For example, migration be-
fore was normal, and in many cases seen as beneficial for the country. The bureaucratic issue of immi-
gration started after the 2WW, due to the increasing flow of people. There's a distinction between: Mi-
gration (more skilled people) and refugees (less skilled), in many cases the first of them are accepted

16
 throughout the countries. Indeed, in many cases the most irregular people entering Spain, they do it
through the airport, but the media doesn't show that, or even British people. In this sense, it's a very
important assumption regarding this.
issue. In many cases, migration is done South-South, because people try to remain as close as possible to
their country (80% migration in Africa remains in Africa). Asylum seeker´s conditions have been pro-
posed, as giving asylum in the own embassies of the countries, it could be an idea.

There´s different countries taking advantage of migration:

o Some, motivate the return of many past immigrants, in order to use them as an asset.
o Others that are taking advantage of the fact that can take benefit of it, such as Turkey or Mexico

3.6 CLIMATE CHANGE

Context:
Climate change wasn't a major concern firstly for the UN, but after an environmental crisis In 1968 it
became an important issue. The first summit was in 1972, the major thing tackled here wasn't individual
actions, yet global ideas. Afterwards, in 1992 the first real summit in Rio took place, it was the climax of
a series of negotiations between the members of the UN.

1: The first reflection to have in mind, is how a scientific phenomenon is incorporated into the IR agenda.
This is because global warming affects also societies, migration, inequalities and so on. The most devel-
oped countries, that indeed have caused climate change, are the ones suffering the least= double ine-
quality. It's thought to be future conflicts due to these issues. The Rio summit was the point of departure
for it.

2: The second idea to highlight is the Kyoto protocol. It was a series of policies which were aimed at 2005,
in which 35 industrialized countries and the European union were committed to reduce greenhouse
emission gases. The most interesting aspect of this protocol is the flexible market mechanism which is
based on the trade of emission permits, and the assistance of countries in adapting to the adverse effect
of climate change. The main pros about it, was that it reduced slightly the greenhouse gas emissions. The
cons are that it blinded the most developed countries.

The USA left the protocol, after signing it, because it wasn't ratified in the senate. It was motivated by
political aims. Only the USA and South Sudan did not ratify the protocol. Thereafter, Canada withdrew
from the protocol after the USA. This underlines the important position of international actors. The pro-
tocol was promoted by the UE. It took almost a decade to enter it into action, to be ratified by the coun-
tries. Whereas, the Paris agreement took only one year, because the commitment was higher. How the
protocol worked, within the most polluting countries:

● Russia: UE convince Russia to ratify the protocol

● India and China: They were part of the protocol, yet they claimed to the UE their idea of continuing
developing, because the developed countries have been polluting throughout history. This made them
have many special conditions.

The last key idea about the Kyoto protocol is the idea of the pollution quotas.

This claimed that every country had an amount of pollution established. If one country polluted more
than expected, they only needed to pay a fiance. Then, many developing countries that polluted less sold
the polluting quota to other overwhelming polluting countries. In this sense, many countries did not
modify their economic patterns, but created a parallel market trading with polluting quotas.

17
 3: The third idea takes us to the financial crisis of 2008. Here, the UE, the most important actor, changed
roles with the USA, because Europeans were focused on financial solutions to the crisis, whereas Obama
claimed the importance of a green economic change. In this sense, in the 2009 Copenhagen summit, the
USA and developing economies ( BRICS), were the main actors and promoters. They realized the im-
portance of it.

4: The fourth and last idea is the Paris agreement. Treaty signed and ratified by an overwhelming number
of nations world widely, in which the global aim was the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions ( also
becoming carbon neutral, establishing a pathway for developed nations to achieve this goals….), in order
to limit the rising temperature in this century to 2C. The approach adopted in this conference is totally
different. As to Kyoto, this agreement wasn´t focused on economic binding, yet they established a dia-
logue with the different societies, so nations should create a commitment with their own society. In this
way, countries were proposed to establish a proposal, to define their own objectives, and if they aren´t
accomplished they´ll be ashamed. Once a commitment is created, countries are more keen on developing
it, indeed less than one year after it was ratified by the vast majority of the countries = NAME AND SHAME
STRATEGY ( based on international prestige).

The withdrawal of the USA eroded the legitimacy and prestige of the country, but wasn't followed by any
other country. This makes a difference from the Kyoto protocol (following Canada). Many US states con-
tinued to follow the agreement, by trespassing their own federal government. COMMITMENT IS A DIF-
FERENT WAY.

3.7 INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

➢ Historical Approach
The term was popularized during the French Revolution, in order to describe a determined counterrevo-
lutionary violence coming from the French state against its opponents during the period called “le
terreur”. More than 17.000 people were killed. In tgis case terrorism was labelling violence coming from
state actors against normal populations.

Big change: It happens during the decolonization process. In this case the terrosim was used by the colo-
nial states (Great Britain, Germany, or France) labelling anticolonial groups fighting for the independence
of their own state. It was the way colonial Powers tried to delegitimize movements undermining the
community support they had and erasing the political claims under their acts. Condemnation of the co-
lonial Powers to non-state actors, that wanted to achieve goals different from the state ones. Nearest
definition to the one we have today to terrorism.

In the 1960s -1970s, maintaining the connotations it had acquired, expanded to include nationalist and
separatists groups, that were fighting outside of the decolonization processes, like Front de libération du
Québec or ETA.

In the 1980s the term terrorism started to describe all kind of illegitimate political violence Two main
approaches/ Two ways of understanding terrorism-

1. Orthodox Approach:
Influenced by mainstream social sciences.

Ontology: objectivism. The object in question is not related to sociopolitical actors and contexts (terror-
ists will exist no matter what the historical context is).

Epistemology: positivist. Focuses on what can be empirically verified (like physical violence). Only facts
that come from the scientific method are legitimate. Methodology: behaviorist. Application of scientific
methods.

18
 2. Critical Approach
Critical Terrorism Studies are relatively new, and they were created as a reaction to the limitations of
Orthodox Terrorism Studies, which were called simplistic. Adopted the concepts developed by the Welsh
School of Security Critical Studies. Ontology: minimal foundationalism (the approach does not totally
deny the distinction between object and subject) and social constructivism (how the world is constructed
depending on our perception of the world). Based on socio-political interaction. Focuses on actors and
contexts. The object doesn’t exist autonomously (terrorism doesn’t just exist, the reason of its existence
can be found on context). Epistemology: elements from positivism, ethnography, post-structuralism...but
we can categorize it as critical positivism and post-positivism.

It does not reject positivism, since it can be useful for examining some specific situations, but context
needs to be reviewed. Without context it would not be possible to understand the meanings that terror-
ists attach to their actions. Ex.: Suicide bombing. Emancipation (‘the realization of greater human free-
dom and human potential and improvements in individual and social actualization and well-being’): it
opens a space for silent and marginalized voices like those of terrorists.

Methodology: interdisciplinary. Traditionalism.

➢ Orthodox vs. Critical studies

1. Ontology
Orthodox: terrorism is a phenomenon that exists by itself, it is observable, ahistorical, and objective (it
does not depend on who is observing it).

Critical: terrorism is a social construction. is the product of a categorization of a certain type of violence
that takes place in a historical, social and political point in time. That is why acts of violence with the
same characteristics are considered, according to the cultural interpretation, as "war", "revolution" or
"terrorism". This depends on the interests of the people categorizing these acts.

Changing the ontology, the entire analysis changes, and with it how the phenomenon is understood and
its possible solutions.

2. State and non-state terrorism

Orthodox: Because of its epistemology, orthodox scholars believe terrorism must be conducted by non-
state actors. It rejects the concept of state terrorism since the state has the monopoly of legitimate use
of force (State terrorism would have been the Nazi regime. We call it genocide but never use the term
terrorism to describe it).

Critical: Terrorism can also be perpetrated by anyone, given the existece of a particular context (so state
terrorism can exist).

3. New International Terrorism?

Orthodox: we are witnessing the consolidation of a new type of terrorism, motivated more by religious
ideology than political goals, willing to use weapons of mass destruction and with the aim of causing
massive damage.

Critical: all the elements that characterize this “new” terrorism, such as its structure network, its global
goals, new weapons, religious goals and intent to cause massive damage, have been present in terrorism
for more than a hundred years. If terrorism is a social phenomenon product of a specific historical period,
it is normal that it has adapted. However, these changes do not affect the phenomenon in such a radical
way as to consider it something totally new.

19
3.8 US POWER AND DONALD TRUMP’S FOREIGN POLICY
➢ US HISTORY
The 13 colonies of America.

The Thirteen American Colonies, founded in the 17th and 18th centuries, were a group of British colonies
on the Atlantic coast of North America. These early colonies eventually formed the United States of
America.The first colony was founded at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607 by the British.

The Thirteen Colonies had a high degree of self-governance, and resisted London’s demands for more
control. As more and more people arrived in the New World, several disputes and wars arose over terri-
tory. England and France fought for control of North America in the French and Indian War (1754-1763).
England won the war and got control of Canada, as well as keeping control of all the English colonies.
However, the war led to growing tensions between Britain and the Thirteen Colonies. After the war,
Britain had huge war debts the British government decided to impose new taxes on its American colonies.
By the mid-1770s, relations between Americans and the British administration had become tense and
bitter.

➢ American revolutionary war and declaration of independence

Grievances with the British government led to the American Revolution, in which the colonies collabo-
rated to remain independent from Great Britain. The armed conflict between them initiated in 1775,
when Americans fought for their rights with the help of the French and Spanish.

In mid-June 1776, a five-man committee made a drafted formal statement of the colonies’ intentions -
affirming their right to choose their own government which was formally adopted by The Congress as
the Declaration of Independence.

In October 1781, the war virtually came to an end in the battle of Yorktown where both Americans and
French trapped the British.Two years later, the Treaty of Paris ended the war and made it official: America
was independent.

➢ The Treaty of Paris

(The Treaty of Paris was signed by U.S. and British Representatives on September 3, 1783, ending the
War of the American Revolution.) Here, the British crown recognized American independence and
granted the U.S. significant western territory.

➢ Articles of confederation and the Constitution

This was the first written constitution of the United States, and it established the functions of the national
government of the United States after it declared independence from Great Britain. However, under
America’s first governing document, the national government was weak, and states operated like inde-
pendent countries with too much power, because they feared a strong central government (like the Eng-
lish parliament). The main issue was that the national government could not tax citizens directly, only
request money from the states, and this last rarely contributed with money, meaning the national gov-
ernment could not pay its debts or fund initiatives, on this you must have into account that the American
Revolutionary war was going on. This is why it only lasted 8 years and then they created the.

The Constitution of the United States besides establishing America’s national government and funda-
mental laws and guaranteeing certain basic rights for its citizens (10 amendments), solved the problems
caused by the articles of confederation.

20
 ➢ WW1 : 1914-1918.
Began in 1914 after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and lasted until 1918. The
US tried to stay neutral because Germany was not an enemy, they didn't have anything against them.
Berlin offered Mexico a generous financial support to go to war with the United States and recover the
territories of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, conquered in the 19th century by its powerful neighbor to
the north.

After Wilson said they should view German actions as a declaration of war against the US, the US senate
voted in favour of Wilson's proposal and they entered the war.

This intervention had some consequences, for example, it was a huge help to the Allies and US industries
produced much-needed supplies for the Allies. The US was the one that decided the outcome of the war.

➢ WW2: 1939-1945
World War II is a conflict that involved virtually every part of the world during the years 1939– 45. The
principal belligerents were the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) and the Allies: France, Great Brit-
ain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and, to a lesser extent, China.

The European Situation was becoming more tense the United States continued to hold to its isolationist
policy. Although in retrospect U.S. entry into World War II seems inevitable, in 1941 it was still a subject
of great debate.

In 1941, about 180 aircrafts of the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked the US Naval base at Pearl Harbor
on the island of Oahu in Hawaii. The bombing killed over 2,300 Americans and destroyed the battleships
USS Arizona and USS Oklahoma. After this the US declared war against Japan, and in response, three days
later Germany and Italy declared war against the United States.

By 1944 America led the world in arms production, making more than enough to fill its military needs. At
the same time, it was supplying the allies.

The US ended the war with Japan by dropping nuclear bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

➢ Cold war:
It was the first time that large-scale nuclear warfare became a truly realistic threat. Spanning approxi-
mately 45 years between 1947 and 1991, when no direct battles were fought, the Cold War was a period
of intense geopolitical tension between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The Nuclear Bomb: The United States was the first to develop nuclear weapons through the Manhattan
Project during World War II. The US ended the war with Japan by dropping nuclear bombs on the cities
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Start of the Arms Race: On August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic bomb.
The world was shocked. They did not think the Soviet Union was this far along in their nuclear develop-
ment. The Arms Race had begun, and in 1952 the United States detonated the first hydrogen bomb. This
was an even more powerful version of the nuclear bomb. The Soviets followed up by exploding their first
hydrogen bomb in 1953.

Vietnam War: explained later.

21
 During the Cuban Missile Crisis, leaders of the US and the Soviet Union engaged.
in a tense, 13-day political and military standoff in October 1962 over the installation of nuclear-armed
Soviet missiles on Cuba, just 90 miles from U.S. shores.
The Space Race: was a 20th-century competition between two Cold War rivals, the Soviet Union and the
United States, to achieve firsts in spaceflight capability. The technological advantage required to rapidly
achieve spaceflight milestones was seen as necessary for national security, and mixed with the symbol-
ism and ideology of the time.

➢ Vietnam War: 1955-1975

With the Cold War intensifying worldwide, the United States hardened its policies against any allies of
the Soviet Union, and by 1955 President Dwight D. Eisenhower had pledged his firm support to Diem and
South Vietnam. The Vietnam War was a long, costly and divisive conflict that pitted the communist gov-
ernment of North Vietnam against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States. The conflict
was intensified by the ongoing Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.

➢ Fall of the Berlin Wall 1989

On August 13, 1961, the Communist government of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany)
began to build a wall between East and West Berlin because they wanted to keep Western “fascists”
from entering East Germany. The Berlin Wall stood until November 9 (1989) when the head of the East
German Communist Party announced that citizens of West Germany could cross the border whenever
they pleased. Most Americans celebrated the fall Gorka Zorrilla y Ane Marquinez of the Berlin Wall as a
sign that international trends were going well for the United States and a stunning victory for democracy,
individual liberty, the rule of law and the free market system.

➢ End of the Cold War 1947- 1991

During 1989-1990, the Berlin Wall disappeared, borders were opened etc. In late 1991 the Soviet Union
itself dissolved into its component republics. With stunning speed, the Iron Curtain was lifted and the
Cold War came to an end.
The Communist government in Russia disintegrated due to economic pressures, the war in Afghanistan
and the revolt in Eastern Europe. The USA was the only superpower left.

➢ 11 S
The September 11 attacks (also called 9/11 attacks) were associated with the Islamic extremist group al-
Qaeda against targets in the United States. These caused extensive death and destruction and triggered
an enormous U.S. effort to combat terrorism. After this, the US government responded with immediate
action: more security and controls in airports and planes, and long-term action, including investigations,
legislative changes, military action and restoration projects.

Investigations into the motivations and execution of the attacks led to the declaration of War on Terror-
ism that lead to ongoing military engagements in Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq.

➢ FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGIES

• INTERNATIONALISM / INTERVENTIONISM
States should intervene in other sovereign states in order to pursue their objectives (humanitarian aid,
military invasion…)

o Neoconservative internationalism: supportsf unilateralism + feel comfortable with using brute

force in promoting democracy.
o Liberal internationalism: supporst multilateralism + democracy promotion through international
organizations, diplomatic channels and multilateral efforts ● ISOLATIONISM (THE ONE THAT IS
MORE VISIBLE IN THE US)

22
 Isolationism suggests that states do not want to get involved in political developments taking place out-
side their territorial borders. Countries that tend to pursue isolationist foreign policies generally believe
that they are self-sufficient. On the other hand, the feeling of weakness might also equally lead to isola-
tionist thinking that the more active they become outside their borders, the more they would be exposed
to external challenges and their interests would be threatened.

The relevance of both logics,to isolationism can be clearly seen in the example of the United States for-
eign policy. From its establishment in the late 18th century until the beginning of the 20th century, the
U.S. pursued an isolationist foreign policy. During this era, the U.S. had been weaker than many European
colonial powers and the latter had geopolitical designs on the American continent. Due to thi, American
statesments thought they should not go outside their borders to seek monsters to defeat. However, later,
coming out of the Spanish-American War in 1898, World War I in 1918 and World War II in 1945 as
victorious, the U.S. has become the most powerful country in global politics by quite a wide margin.It
was powerful enough to deal with another countries but they thought multilateral agreements or adopt-
ing free-trade with minimum protectionism would benefit others more than the U.S.

• TRUMP:
Against multilateralism:
o Multilateralism= When countries reach agreements with more than one country. Obama and
Biden are in favor of this approach, they claim the importance of keeping the agreements so as
to continue maintaining their hegemony.
o As the US started withdrawing from many of these agreements, their allies were doubting their
promises, and many of them started to become closer to each other. For instance, Japan and
China.

WHY DID HE WON THE ELECTIONS?

• Globalization has brought economic insecurity for the working class in

• Particular, and China’s integration into the global economy has changed.
• The employment rates in the United States.
• Ince the end of the Cold War, it has become harder for Americans to identify why the United
States must make such efforts to keep the global order.
• Previous policies such as the Iraq War under President George W. Bush and the subsequent with-
drawal from Iraq and creation of a security vacuum in that country under President Barack
Obama — have led to disasters.
• US not focusing enough on its own problems.
• Previous policies where good for the wealthy
• People miss 60ths american life, bbq ect. they voted Trump due to that (sergio)

TRUMP´S FOREIGN POLICY:

Isolationism examples:
- Trump discussed pulling US from NATO
- Trump withdrew US troops from Germany.
- Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Deal
- Withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal

23
4. COOPERATION
International official aid: I.O.A is a North South relationship. This tool of foreign policy is an aid is based on altruism and
in political conditionality (I am giving you money in order to you give me something in exchange), in other words, it is
paternalistic (les dicen lo que tienen que hacer con el dinero).

However, there is another way of cooperation between south - south countries. These countries help each other by
exchanging knowledge to achieve development. For example, the forum of IBSA.

Finally, China is a country very important for cooperation. It portrait it self as a south country that is trying to achieve
development, so it can be closer to the southern countries. China offers money or infrastructure in exchange of raw
materials and food.

24