reviewer INTEREL

7/29/2019 reviewer INTEREL

1/4

The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Kennedy argues that the vigour of a Great

Power can be properly measured only relative to other powers. For him, Great

Power domination, no matter how lengthy or even in explicit conflicts, correlates

strongly to available resources and economic strength; military "over-stretch"

(hypothesis which suggests that an empire can extend itself beyond its ability to

maintain or expand its military and economic commitments/spending more on whatis alloted) and a simultaneous relative decline are the consistent threat facing

powers whose ambitions and security requirements are greater than their resource

base can provide for.

Preparing for the 21st Century :

(http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/kennedy.html)

According to Kennedy, population growth represents the world's single greatestchallenge today. He points out that when Thomas Malthus made his famousprediction in 1798 that the British population would outgrow the country's resources

in short order, three unforseen developments allowed Britain to escape the disaster:migration, increased agricultural productivity, and industrialization. Todaythe world is facing a dilemma similar the one Malthus described, only on a muchvaster scale. The question is whether development can outpace population growthagain, as it did in the nineteenth century. Kennedy is doubtful. Almost everyonenow agrees, he says, that with our current patterns and levels of consumption, theprojected growth in the world's population cannot be sustained. "Unlike animals andbirds, human beings destroy forests, burn fossil fuels, drain wetlands, pollute riversand oceans, and ransack the earth for ores, oil, and other raw materials."

Economic globalization today's counterpart to the industrial revolution ofMalthus's day has served North America, Japan, and parts of Europe and East

Asia. But in much of the developing world, corrupt regimes, excess spending on themilitary, bureaucratic ineptitude, religious fundamentalism, and other problemshave impeded economic progress. Biotechnology may revolutionize agriculture, butit too is a mixed blessing, Kennedy contends. Its primary beneficiaries are not thepoor people of the developing world, but multinational corporations. A widespreadshift to biotechnology would not only wipe out traditional farming, depriving millionsof rural people of their livelihoods, it would also displace agricultural workers andforce them into already overcrowded urban areas.

Given that these trends are transnational in scope, the effects are likely to be felt allover the globe. But some countries are clearly better positioned than others to meetthe challenges, in Kennedy's estimation. "As we move into the next century," he

writes, "the developed economies appear to have all the trump cards intheir hands capital, technology, control of communications, surplusfoodstuffs, powerful multinational companies and, if anything, theiradvantages are growing because technology is eroding the value of laborand materials, the chief assets of developing countries." The most likelycountries to come out ahead are Japan, Korea, and certain other East Asian tradingstates, along with Germany, Switzerland, some of the Scandinavian states, andpossibly the European Community as a whole. What these countries have in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Powerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Powerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_overstretchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Powerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Powerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_overstretchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic


2/4

common, Kennedy says, are excellent educational systems (particularly for thosenot attending university), high savings rates, skilled work forces and good retrainingprograms, well-established manufacturing cultures, high levels of investment in newplant and equipment, fairly consistent trade surpluses in visible goods, and acommitment to producing well-designed, high-added-value manufactures for theglobal market. Still, he adds, these countries will also need to contend with

declining fertility rates, population imbalances, financial volatility, the need tocushion farming communities from increasing obsolescence, and other problems.

The Global Paradox: (http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/naisbitt.html)

The major new trends in global economics, politics, and social life all point toward a"global paradox," according to John Naisbitt "the bigger the world economy,the more powerful its smallest players." As the overall system grows in sizeand complexity, the importance of the individual parts increases in directproportion. This apparent contradiction is at work in both business and politics, hesays. To survive, big companies today are decentralizing and restructuring. Many

have discovered the increased efficiency and effectiveness of lateral rather thanvertical organization networks of autonomous units rather than formalhierarchies. Similarly, as the world economy gets larger, the componentnation players become smaller and smaller.

By way of example, Naisbitt describes the political and economic imperativesunderlying the break-up of the former Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and

Yugoslavia, as well as the push for national sovereignty that has characterized suchstates as Andorra. While economic and technological forces have weakened thetraditional nation-state, he maintains that they have strengthened, not separatedpeople from, longstanding identities of language, culture, religion, and ethnicheritage. Paradoxically, "the bonding commonality of human beings is our

distinctiveness."

Both of these trends, universalism and tribalism, are supported by technologicaladvances in electronic communications, according to Naisbitt.Telecommunications are the driving force that is simultaneously creatingthe new world economy and making its parts more and more powerful. Weare moving in telecommunications to a single worldwide network of informationnetworks, with everything linked to everything else, he remarks. This change hasimportant consequences for democracy worldwide it can be likened to the shiftfrom sluggish, centralized mainframe computers to interlinked PCs. "As the powerand reach of the communications infrastructure expands, the tools neededto harness that capability shrink."

Consequently, the idea that the central government "one huge mainframe" asthe most significant part of governance is obsolete, he says. In fact, traditionalrepresentative politics is coming to an end for "now citizens who live inrepresentative democracies have the power to radically decentralize andto evolve into direct democracies."


3/4

Naisbitt devotes a chapter each to a look at the telecommunications revolution, thetourism and travel industry, the emergence of new "codes of conduct" in businessand politics, the burgeoning Chinese economy, and the increasing importance ofAsia and Latin America in the global marketplace. In each of these areas, he surveysthe major trends and observes the "global paradox" at work as the worldbecomes vastly more integrated, the small, agile, and informed players

will profit the most.

Supplemental Readings for US-Iraq War and US-Afghanistan War

The Iraq War, also known as the Occupation of Iraq, The Second Gulf War orOperation Iraqi Freedom, is an ongoing military campaign which began on March20, 2003, with the invasion of Iraq by a multinational force led by troops from theUnited States and the United Kingdom.

Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdomclaimed that Iraq's alleged possession ofweapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed

a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies. In 2002, theUnited Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq tocompletely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not inpossession of WMD and cruise missiles. The United Nations Monitoring, Verificationand Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD, but could notverify the accuracy of Iraq's weapon declarations. Lead weapons inspector Hans Blixadvised the UN Security Council that while Iraq was cooperating in terms of access,Iraq's declarations with regards to WMD still could not be verified.

After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concludedthat Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological programs in 1991 and hadno active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume

production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted. Although some degraded remnants ofmisplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, theywere not the weapons which had been the main argument to justify the invasion.

Some US officials also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of harboring andsupporting al-Qaeda, but no evidence of a meaningful connection was ever found.Other proclaimed reasons for the invasion included Iraq's financial support for thefamilies ofPalestiniansuicide bombers, Iraqi government human rights abuses andan effort to spread democracy to the country.

The invasion of Iraq led to an occupation and the eventual capture of PresidentHussein, who was later tried in an Iraqi court of law and executed by the new Iraqi

government. Violence against coalition forces and among various sectarian groupssoon led to the Iraqi insurgency, strife between many Sunni and Shia Iraqi groups,and the emergence of a new faction ofAl-Qaeda in Iraq.

In June 2008, U.S. Department of Defense officials claimed security and economicindicators began to show signs of improvement in what they hailed as significantand fragile gains Iraq was fifth on the 2008 Failed States Index, and sixth on the2009 list As public opinion favoring troop withdrawals increased and as Iraqi forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_campaignhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraqhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraqhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Councilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blixhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Grouphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weaponshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Presidenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Husseinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaedahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraqhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq,_2003%E2%80%93presenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Saddam_Husseinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraqhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_States_Indexhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_campaignhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraqhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraqhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Councilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blixhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Grouphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weaponshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Presidenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Husseinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaedahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraqhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq,_2003%E2%80%93presenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Saddam_Husseinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraqhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_States_Index


4/4

began to take responsibility for security, member nations of the Coalition withdrewtheir forces. In late 2008, the U.S. and Iraqi governments approved a Status ofForces Agreement effective through January 1, 2012. The Iraqi Parliament alsoratified a Strategic Framework Agreement with the U.S., aimed at ensuringcooperation in constitutional rights, threat deterrence, education, energydevelopment, and other areas

In late February 2009, new U.S. PresidentBarack Obama announced an 18-monthwithdrawal window for combat forces, with approximately 50,000 troops remainingin the country "to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to provide intelligenceand surveillance". General Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq,said he believes all U.S. troops will be out of the country by the end of 2011,whileUK forces ended combat operations on April 30, 2009. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said he supports the accelerated pullout of US forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Parliamenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obamahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_security_forceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Odiernohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Malikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Malikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Parliamenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obamahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_security_forceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Odiernohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Malikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Maliki

Documents

reviewer INTEREL