ISBN-10:
0073397202
ISBN-13:
9780073397207
Pub. Date:
03/09/2007
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Companies, The
Clashing Views on World Politics / Edition 13

Clashing Views on World Politics / Edition 13

by John T. Rourke

Paperback

Current price is , Original price is $34.75. You
Select a Purchase Option (Older Edition)
  • purchase options
    $30.37 $34.75 Save 13% Current price is $30.37, Original price is $34.75. You Save 13%.
    Currently Unavailable for Shipping
    Please check below for Buy Online, Pick up in Store.
  • purchase options

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9780073397207
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Companies, The
Publication date: 03/09/2007
Series: Taking Sides Series
Edition description: Older Edition
Pages: 408
Product dimensions: 5.90(w) x 9.10(h) x 0.90(d)

About the Author

John T. Rourke, Ph.D., professor emeritus, is former head of the Department of Political Science at The University of Connecticut. He is author of International Politics on the World Stage, Eleventh Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2007); the author of Presidential Wars and American Democracy: Rally ‘Round the Chief (Paragon House, 1993); a coauthor of Direct Democracy and International Politics: Deciding International Issues through Referendums (Lynn Rienner, 1992); the editor of Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Politics, Twelfth Edition, expanded (McGraw-Hill, 2007) and You Decide: Current Debates in American Politics (Longman, 2005); the author of Making Foreign Policy: United States, Soviet Union, China (Brooks Cole, 1990), Congress and the Presidency in U.S. Foreign Policymaking (Westview, 1985), and numerous articles and papers. He continues to teach and especially enjoys introductory classes. His regard for the students has molded his approach to writing—he conveys scholarship in a language and within a frame of reference that undergraduates can appreciate. Rourke believes, as the theme of this book reflects, that politics affect us all and we can affect politics. Rourke practices what he propounds; his career long involved the university’s internship program and advising one of its political clubs. Additionally, he has served as a staff member of Connecticut’s legislature, and has been involved in political campaigns on the local, state, and national levels.

Table of Contents

PART 1. Globalization

ISSUE 1. Is Economic Globalization a Positive Trend?

YES: Anne O. Krueger, from “Expanding Trade and Unleasing Growth: The Prospects for Lasting Poverty Reduction,” Remarks at the International Monetary Fund Seminar on Trade and Regional Integration, Dakar, Senegal (December 6, 2004)

NO: José Bové, from “Globalisation’s Misguided Assumptions,” OECD Observer (September 2001)

Anne O. Krueger, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, asserts that the growth of economic globalization is the best approach to improving the economies of Africa and, by extension, other countries as well. José Bové, a French farmer and anti-globalization activist, contends that multinational corporations, government leaders, and others are engaged in a propaganda campaign to sell the world on the false promise of economic globalization.

ISSUE 2. Does Globalization Threaten Cultural Diversity?

YES: Julia Galeota, from “Cultural Imperialism: An American Tradition,” The Humanist (May/June 2004)

NO: Philippe Legrain, from “In Defense of Globalization,” The International Economy (Summer 2003)

Julia Galeota of McLean, Virginia, who was seventeen years old when she wrote her essay that won first place for her age category in the 2004 Humanist Essay Contest for YoungWomen and Men of North America, contends that many cultures around the world are gradually disappearing due to the overwhelming influence ofcorporate and cultural America. Philippe Legrain, chief economist of Britain in Europe, an organization supporting the adoption by Great Britain of the euro as its currency, counters that it is a myth that globalization involves the imposition of Americanized uniformity, rather than an explosion of cultural exchange.

ISSUE 3. Will State Sovereignty Survive Globalism?

YES: Stephen D. Krasner, from “Sovereignty,” Foreign Policy (January/February 2001)

NO: Kimberly Weir, from “The Waning State of Sovereignty,” An Original Essay Written for This Volume (2002)

Professor of international relations Stephen D. Krasner contends that the nation-state has a keen instinct for survival and will adapt to globalization and other challenges to sovereignty. Kimberly Weir, an assistant professor of political science, maintains that the tide of history is running against the sovereign state as a governing principle, which will soon go the way of earlier, now-discarded forms of governance, such as empire.

PART 2. Regional and Country Issues

ISSUE 4. Should the United States Decrease Its Global Presence?

YES: Louis Janowski, from “Neo-Imperialism and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Foreign Service Journal (May 2004)

NO: Niall Ferguson, from “A World Without Power,” Foreign Policy (July/August 2004)

Louis Janowski, a former U.S. diplomat with service in Vietnam, France, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya, maintains that the view that the 9/11 attacks ushered in a new geo-strategic reality requiring new foreign policy approaches is based on a false and dangerous premise and is leading to an age of American neo-imperialism. Niall Ferguson, Herzog Professor of History at New York University’s Stern School of Business and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, contends that a U.S retreat from global power would result in an anarchic nightmare of a new Dark Age.

ISSUE 5. Should the United States Continue to Encourage a United Europe?

YES: A. Elizabeth Jones, from Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Europe, Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (March 13, 2002)

NO: John C. Hulsman, from “Laying Down Clear Markers: Protecting American Interests from a Confusing European Constitution,” The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder (December 12, 2003)

A. Elizabeth Jones, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, maintains that the United States looks forward to working cooperatively with such exclusively or mostly European institutions as the European Union, the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. John C. Hulsman, a research fellow for European affairs in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at the Heritage Foundation, argues that the United States should support European countries on a selective basis but not be closely tied to Europe as a whole.

ISSUE 6. Is Russian Foreign Policy Taking an Unsettling Turn?

YES: Ariel Cohen and Yevgeny Volk, from “Recent Changes in Russia and Their Impact on U.S.-Russian Relations,” The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder (March 9, 2004)

NO: Leon Aron, from Testimony During Hearings on “U.S.-Russia Relations in Putin’s Second Term,” Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (March 18, 2004)

Ariel Cohen, research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, and Yevgeny Volk, The Heritage Foundation’s Moscow office director, write that the revival of statism and nationalism has seriously diminished Russia’s chances of being regarded as a close and reliable partner that is clearly committed to democratic values. Leon Aron, director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute, recognizes that there are pressures within Russia to try to take a more confrontational stance but believes that the forces for moderation are stronger.

ISSUE 7. Does a Strict "One China" Policy Still Make Sense?

YES: Michael D. Swaine, from Testimony During Hearings on “The Taiwan Relations Act: The Next Twenty-Five Years,” Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (April 21, 2004)

NO: William Kristol, from Testimony During Hearings on “The Taiwan Relations Act: The Next Twenty-Five Years,” Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (April 21, 2004)

Michael D. Swaine, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, testifies before Congress that for the foreseeable future, any workable U.S.-China relationship depends on maintaining the long-standing understanding between Beijing and Washington on the status of Taiwan. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard magazine, contends that it is time to question whether U.S. interests and those of Taiwan are served by the long-standing understanding between Beijing and Washington on the status of Taiwan.

ISSUE 8. Should North Korea’s Nuclear Arms Program Evoke a Hard-Line Response?

YES: William Norman Grigg, from “Aiding and Abetting the ‘Axis,’” The New American (February 24, 2003)

NO: Robert J. Einhorn, from “The North Korea Nuclear Issue: The Road Ahead,” Policy Forum Online (September 14, 2004)

William Norman Grigg, senior editor of The New American, arguesthat North Korea is a dangerous country with an untrustworthyregime and that it is an error for the United States to react to NorthKorea’s nuclear arms program and other provocations by offering itdiplomatic and economic incentives to be less confrontational. Robert J. Einhorn, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, maintains that the idea that Pyongyang can be squeezed until it capitulates and surrenders its nuclear weapons capabilities or collapses altogether is wishful thinking.

ISSUE 9. Would It Be an Error to Establish a Palestinian State?

YES: P. J. Berlyn, from “Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine,” A Time to Speak, (December 2002)

NO: Rosemary E. Shinko, from “Why a Palestinian State,” An Original Essay Written for This Volume (2004)

P. J. Berlyn, an author of studies on Israel, primarily its ancient history and culture, refutes 12 arguments supporting the creation of an independent state of Palestine, maintaining that such a state would not be wise, just, or desirable. Rosemary E. Shinko, who teaches in the department of political science at the University of Connecticut, contends that a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians must be founded on a secure and sovereign homeland for both nations.

ISSUE 10. Was War with Iraq Justified?

YES: Richard Cheney, from “Meeting the Challenge of the War on Terrorism,” Address at the Heritage Foundation (October 17, 2003)

NO: Robert Byrd, from “Invasion of Iraq,” Remarks in the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record (November 25, 2003)

Vice President Richard Cheney argues that Saddam Hussein’s drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction, links with terrorists, and brutal dictatorship warranted U.S. action to topple his regime. West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd criticizes the decision to invade Iraq in the first place as ill-founded and further contends that the consequences have been too costly.

ISSUE 11. Are Strict Sanctions on Cuba Warranted?

YES: Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, from “Hastening Cuba’s Transition,” Report to the President: 2004 (May 6, 2004)

NO: William Ratliff, from “The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba Is an Abysmal Failure. Let’s End It,” Hoover Digest (Winter 2004)

The Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, which President George W. Bush established on October 10, 2003, and charged with making recommendations about how to hasten a transition to democracy in Cuba, argues in its report to the president that the U.S. government should take stronger measures to undermine the Castro regime and to promote conditions that will help the Cuban people hasten the end of President Fidel Castro’s dictatorial regime. William Ratliff, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, argues that sanctions on Cuba only hurt the Cuban people because nothing the United States is doing today contributes significantly to the achievement of any change in the Castro regime.

PART 3. Economic Issues

ISSUE 12. Is Capitalism the Best Model for the Global Economy?

YES: Johan Norberg, from “Three Cheers for Global Capitalism,” American Enterprise Online (June 2004)

NO: Walden Bello, from “Justice, Equity and Peace Are the Thrust of Our Movement,” Acceptance Speech at the Right Livelihood Award Ceremonies (December 8, 2003)

Johan Norberg, a fellow at the Swedish think tank Timbro, portrays capitalism as the path to global economic prosperity and argues further that free markets and free trade mean free choices for individuals that transfer power to them at the expense of political institutions. Walden Bello, executive director of Focus on the Global South, the Bangkok, Thailand-based project of Chulalongkorn University’s Social Research Institute, and professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines, contends that global capitalism is the source of societal and environmental destruction.

ISSUE 13. Should the Rich Countries Forgive All the Debt Owed by the Poor Countries?

YES: Romilly Greenhill, from “The Unbreakable Link—Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals,” A Report from Jubilee Research at the New Economics Foundation (February 2002)

NO: William Easterly, from “Debt Relief,” Foreign Policy (November/December 2001)

Romilly Greenhill, an economist with Jubilee Research at the New Economics Foundation, contends that if the world community is going to achieve its goal of eliminating world poverty by 2015, as stated in the UN’s Millennium Declaration, then there is an urgent need to forgive the massive debt owed by the heavily indebted poor countries. William Easterly, a senior adviser in the Development Research Group at the World Bank, maintains that while debt relief is a popular cause and seems good at first glance, the reality is that debt relief is a bad deal for the world’s poor.

PART 4. Issues About Violence

ISSUE 14. Is Preemptive War an Unacceptable Doctrine?

YES: High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, from “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility,” A Report to the Secretary General of the United Nations (December 2, 2004)

NO: Steven L. Kenny, from “The National Security Strategy Under the United Nations and International Law,” Strategy Research Project, U.S. Army War College (March 19, 2004)

The High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, which was appointed by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in response to the global debate on the nature of threats and the use of force to counter them, concludes that in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order posed by preemptive war is too great for its legality to be accepted. Colonel Steven L. Kenny argues in a research report he wrote at the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, that substantial support from the acceptability of preemptive war results from such factors as the failure of the UN to enforce its charter, customary international law, and the growing threat of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

ISSUE 15. Is the War on Terrorism Succeeding?

YES: Douglas J. Feith, from “On the Global War on Terrorism,” Address to the Council on Foreign Relations (November 13, 2003)

NO: John Gershman, from “A Secure America in a Secure World,” Report of the Foreign Policy in Focus Task Force on Terrorism (September 1, 2004)

Douglas J. Feith, U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, tells his audience that in the global war on terrorism, the United States is succeeding in defeating the terrorist threat to the American way of life and argues that the terrorists are on the run, that the world is safer and better for what has been accomplished, and that Americans have much of which to be proud. John Gershman, who is co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus for the Interhemispheric Resource Center and teaches at the Robert F. Wagner School for Public Service at New York University, contends that the "war on terrorism" being waged by the administration of President George W. Bush reflects a major failure of leadership and makes Americans more vulnerable rather than more secure.

ISSUE 16. Is Government-Ordered Assassination Sometimes Acceptable?

YES: Bruce Berkowitz, from “Is Assassination an Option?” Hoover Digest (Winter 2002)

NO: Margot Patterson, from “Assassination as a Weapon,” National Catholic Reporter (September 6, 2002)

Bruce Berkowitz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, argues that while government-directed political assassinations are hard to accomplish and are not a reliably effective political tool, there are instances where targeting and killing an individual is both prudent and legitimate. Margot Patterson, a senior writer for National Catholic Reporter, contends that assassinations are morally troubling, often counterproductive, and have a range of other drawbacks.

PART 5. International Law and Organization Issues

ISSUE 17. Is the United Nations Fundamentally Flawed?

YES: Brett D. Schaefer, from “U.N. Requires Fundamental Reforms,” Heritage Lecture #842, Heritage Foundation (June 16, 2004)

NO: Mary Robinson, from “Relevance of the United Nations,” Address to the Plenary Session of the Conference on the Relevance of the United Nations (June 26-28, 2003)

Brett D. Schaefer, the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, contends that the UN is not doing as well as it should in championing the principles set forth in its charter and that, therefore, fundamental UN reform is required. Mary Robinson, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights and a former president of Ireland, argues that despite all the United Nations’ shortcomings and criticism, the UN is as relevant now as it was when created.

ISSUE 18. Should the United States Ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty?

YES: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, from Statement Before the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (July 25, 2000)

NO: John R. Bolton, from Statement Before the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (July 25, 2000)

The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, in a statement submitted tothe U.S. Congress, contends that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an expression, in institutional form, of a global aspiration for justice. John R. Bolton, senior vice president of the AmericanEnterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., contends that support for aninternational criminal court is based largely on naive emotion and thatadhering to its provisions is not wise.

ISSUE 19. Is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Worthy of Support?

YES: Harold Hongju Koh, from Statement Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (June 13, 2002)

NO: Christina P. Hoff-Sommers, from Statement Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (June 13, 2002)

Harold Hongju Koh, the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale University and former assistant secretary of state for human rights and democracy, contends that the United States cannot be a global leader championing progress for women’s human rights around the world unless it is also a party to the global women’s treaty. Christina P. Hoff-Sommers, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., tells Congress that the United States can and should help women everywhere to achieve the kind of equity American women have. She maintains, however, that ratifying the CEDAW is the wrong way to pursue that goal.

PART 6. People and the Environment

ISSUE 20. Do Environmentalists Overstate Their Case?

YES: Bjørn Lomborg, from “Debating ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist,’” A Debate Held at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (April 9, 2002)

NO: Fred Krupp, from “Debating ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist,’” A Debate Held at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (April 9, 2002)

Professor of statistics Bjørn Lomborg argues that it is a myth that the world is in deep trouble on a range of environmental issues and that drastic action must be taken immediately to avoid an ecological catastrophe. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, asserts that although Lomborg’s message is alluring because it says we can relax, the reality is that there are serious problems that, if not addressed, will have a deleterious effect on the global environment.

ISSUE 21. Are Adequate Preparations Underway For a Possible Avian Influenza Pandemic?

YES: Paula J. Dobriansky, from Testimony Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (November 9, 2005)

NO: Laurie Garrett, from Testimony Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (November 9, 2005)

Paula J. Dobriansky, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, contends that the United States government is taking strong steps to deal with any outbreak of avian influenza among Americans and is also exercising international leadership in preparing the global response to the threat of bird flu. Laurie Garrett, Senior Fellow for Global Health, Council on Foreign Relations, tells Congress that the U.S. and international efforts represent a good start, but no more, and that much more needs to be done to prevent and, if necessary, respond to an avian influenza pandemic.

ISSUE 22. Are U.S. Efforts to Control Global Warming Gas Emissions Adequate?

YES: David Conover, from Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts, Commitee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate (July 20, 2005)

NO: Wesley B. Renfro, from “Kyoto and Beyond: America Will Gain by Ratifying the Environmental Agreement,” Original Essay Written for This Volume (November 2005)

David Conover, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy and head of the Office of Policy and International Affairs, maintains that the Bush administration has developed a comprehensive strategy on climate change that is informed by science, emphasizes innovation and technological solutions, and promotes international collaboration to support the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Wesley Renfro, a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut, takes the position that the United States should cooperate with the rest of the world by signing the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emission and abandon its unilateral and inadequate policy on global warming.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews