1

UNIT GUIDE 2017/18

POLI30017 U.S. Foreign Policy Teaching Block 2 Weeks 13-24

Unit Owner: Dr. Ashley Dodsworth Level: H/6

Phone: 0117 954 5565 Credit points: 20

Email: ashley.dodsworth@bristol.ac.uk Prerequisites: None

Office: G3 3 Priory Road Curriculum area: Comparative and National Politics

Unit owner office hours:

Scheduled office hours do not run during reading weeks, though you can still contact tutors for advice by email and to arrange individual appointments

Teaching arrangements: Seminar: Monday 2pm-5pm, Tuesday 9am-12pm You are expected to attend ONE seminar each week. Your online personal timetable will inform you to which group you have been allocated. Seminar groups are fixed: you are not allowed to change seminar groups without permission from the office.

Weeks 18 and 24 are Reading Weeks; there is NO regular teaching in these weeks. In addition to timetabled sessions there is a requirement for private study, reading, revision and assessments. Reading the required readings in advance of each seminar is the minimum expectation. The University Guidelines state that one credit point is broadly equivalent to 10 hours of total student input. Learning outcomes The learning outcomes of this unit are to:

Demonstrate a sophisticated awareness of the major themes, events, structures, and actors that have influenced US foreign policy, both historically and in the contemporary era;

Evaluate different approaches to the analysis of US foreign policy

Offer a critical evaluation of US foreign policy.

Requirements for passing the unit:

Satisfactory attendance at seminars

Completion of all formative work to an acceptable standard

Combined mark of all summative work must be a pass (40 or above) Assessment: Word count: Weighting: Deadline: Day: Week: Formative Assessment: In-class presentations

n/a 0% Details regarding presentations will be provided in seminar.

Summative Assessment: Annotated Bibliography

1500 words 25% 9.30am 20th February 2018

Tuesday Week 17

Summative Assessment: Essay

3,000 words 75% 9.30am 14th May 2018

Monday Summer Assessment Period

Summative essay questions will be made available on the unit’s Blackboard site.

Instructions for the submission of coursework can be found in Appendix A

Assessment in the school is subject to strict penalties regarding late submission, plagiarism and maximum word count. A summary of key regulations is in Appendix B.

Marking criteria can be found in Appendix C.

2

Overview

As a new Presidential era dawns, it is time to take stock and examine the issues and challenges that will confront the new administration and what will shape their response. As the economic, military, political and cultural reach of the United States remains internationally significant, studying and understanding the actions that the U.S. government takes in the world remains important. This course therefore undertake a study of the institutions, practices, people, objects and ideas working both domestically and internationally – from the military to the media – that shape the decision-making processes that underlie U.S. foreign policy. Through a study of history, theory and debates on current U.S. foreign policy issues, this unit provides students with a basis for understanding the transformations and continuities in U.S. Foreign Policy in order to understand some of its current and future challenges.

Requirements for Credit Points

1. Formative: Attendance, preparation and participation in seminars 2. Formative: In-class presentations 3. Summative: Annotated Bibliography (25%) 4. Summative: Essay, 3,000 words (75%)

Formative Assessment

Satisfactory attendance, preparation and participation in workshops. Marked pass/fail by the tutor. You must come prepared for workshops. This means, at the very minimum: having read the core readings; having spent some time considering the readings and arriving prepared with questions and comments on the readings (bring your readings to class); and being ready to participate in an intelligent, informed, polite and good-natured discussion. Attendance at all seminars is monitored, with absence only condoned in cases of illness or for other exceptional reasons. Please inform your seminar tutor and email spais- absence@bristol.ac.uk if you are unable to attend.

Prepare and deliver a 10-minute presentation in class (the first in Weeks 2-5, the second in Weeks 7- 10). Presentation topics and dates will be allocated in Week 1, and each presentation will focus on a choice of text (e.g. a speech, key document, object, film, or image) or a person associated with the week being examined.

Summative Assessment

Prepare an annotated bibliography of 1500 words (25%). You will develop an annotated bibliography, selecting the 8-10 sources you believe are key to understanding one aspect of US foreign policy that you yourself have chosen and providing a brief explanation to justify their selection. Further guidance on this assignment will be provided in Week 1.

Submit a 3,000-word essay (75%). The essays provide you with the opportunity to research, in some depth, an aspect of a US foreign policy that particularly interests you. Each essay MUST contain a clear argument statement in the introduction, situate the problem within an on-going USFP debate, and you must unpack this argument throughout the body of the essay, demonstrating the ability to

Unit aims

The aims of this unit are to:

develop students’ knowledge and understanding of, and ability to critically evaluate, US foreign policy;

provide a participatory approach to learning in which students can further develop their independent research and communication skills.

3

assess and analyse competing explanations. The argument and analysis must be based on your own extended selection of readings and on your own scholarship.

This contributes directly to your degree result and all work submitted late is subject to strict penalties (see School UG Handbook and Blackboard).

Development and Feedback: You will receive feedback on the formative summaries submitted and formal written feedback on the submitted essay. You can also raise any other issues or problems in office hours. You are encouraged to use office hours to discuss your essay and your tutor’s feedback on them.

Transferable Skills: The learning outcomes for this unit are focused on strengthening specific academic and more generic ‘transferable’ skills. The skills developed on this course fall into the following broad categories: self-motivation: reading and research for seminars and essays; communication (oral, written, visual): seminar discussion, summative assignments, essays; use of ICT: web searches, Blackboard, drafting essays, using film editing software; analytical & research: the course as a whole.

Essential Reading Essential articles that are assigned as part of unit reading will be made available electronically and as part of a Course Pack.

The following books will be used and referenced repeatedly, copies of which are available in the Arts and Social Sciences Library and for purchase:

1. Ambrose, S. and Brinkley, D.G. (2010) Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938,

London: Penguin. A classic study of US Foreign Policy used in most American USFP courses.

2. Herring, G.C. (2008) From Colony to Superpower: US Foreign Relations since 1776, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

3. Stone, O. and Kuznik P. (2013) The Untold History of the United States, Croydon: Ebury Press. A counter-history of US foreign policy and its effects. This is the companion book to Stone’s 10-part documentary film of the same name, which students might elect to watch and discuss (available to view online). (Note: Stone’s narrator’s script for the films is also available.)

5. Zelizer, J. E. (2010) Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security - From World War II to the War on Terrorism, New York: Basic Books. Focusing on national security crises, this is a historical account of the interaction between domestic politics and foreign affairs.

6. Cox, M., and Stokes, D. (2012) US Foreign Policy, Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The third edition will be available in early 2018

7. McCormick, J.C., (2017) The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy, Seventh Edition, Rowman and Littlefield. American foreign policy is not just analysed through academic books and journal articles, Books, films and TV also reflect and critique US foreign policy – from the triumphalism of Independence Day to the maverick rule-breaking of Jack Bauer in 24, from the cynicism of Wag the Dog and the moral complexity of Homeland to the optimism of The West Wing. Black Hawk Down, Charlie Wilson’s War, Thirteen Days, Three Kings, W. and Zero Dark Thirty also bring to life specific instances of foreign policy. Graham Green’s The Quiet American, Burdick and Lederer’s The Ugly American and Kurt

4

Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle and Slaughterhouse 5 critique American actions abroad whilst blockbusters such as the Jack Reacher films portray an all-action, victorious America. In the first week students will select the books, films and TV shows they wish to explore in order to supplement and enhance the weekly reading. Class Schedule

Week Topic Assignments

13 Assessing US Foreign Policy

14 Making US Foreign Policy: Congress and the White House Presentations

15 Making US Foreign Policy: Media and the Electorate Presentations

16 Making US Foreign Policy: Military and Intelligence Presentations

17

Legacy of 9/11 Annotated

Bibliography

18 READING WEEK

19 Decline of American Power (?) and the Rise of the Rest Presentations

20 Human Rights and Democracy Promotion Presentations

21 The Return of the Cold War or: The (Soviet) Empire

Strikes Back

Presentations

22 Terrorism Presentations

23 Conclusion: The Future of American Foreign Policy

24 READING WEEK Final essays due in

January

5

Week 13: Assessing US Foreign Policy

The first week will introduce the module as a whole and look at what makes a successful US foreign

policy, focusing particularly on the role of grand strategy or presidential ‘doctrine’

Seminar Questions:

Is there a distinct ‘Obama Doctrine?’

What is the ‘Trump Doctrine’?

Essential Reading:

Jeffrey Goldberg ‘The Obama Doctrine’. The Atlantic, April 2016.

John R. Haines, ‘Divining a “Trump Doctrine”, Orbis, 61(1), 2017, 125-136

Further Reading:

‘Obama’s World: Judging his Foreign Policy Record’ Foreign Affairs Special Issue, September/October 2015 Bentley, M., and Jack Holland, (eds.), The Obama Doctrine, Routledge. Campbell D. (1999) ‘Contradictions of Lone Superpower’, in Slater, D. and Taylor, P.J. (eds.) The American Century: Consensus and Coercion in the Projection of American Power, Oxford: Blackwell, pp.222-236. Department of Defence (2012) Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, available online at: http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf. Drezner, D.W., (2011), ‘Does Obama have a Grand Strategy? Why we need Doctrines in Uncertain Times’, Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 57 - 69 Friedman, T.L., (2017) ‘The Trump Doctrine’ The New York Times, 17th October, 2017 Indyk, Martin S., Lieberthal, Kenneth G. and O'Hanlon, Michael E. (2012) ‘Introduction’, Bending History? Barack Obama's Foreign Policy, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, pp.1-23. Jentleson, B., ‘Strategic recalibration: Framework for a 21st Century NSS’, Washington Quarterly,

37(1), 2014, 115 – 136.

Kirshner, Jonathan (2014) American Power After the Financial Crisis, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp.1-19. Lizza, R., (2012) ‘Obama: The Consequentialist’ in McCormick, J.C., (ed.), The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy Sixth Edition, Rowman and Littlefield.

Parmar, I., Miller, L.B., and Ledwidge, M. (eds.) (2014) Obama and the World: New Directions in US Foreign Policy, London: Routledge.

Posen, B.R,. (2014) ‘Pull Back: The Case for a Less Activist Foreign Policy’ in in G.J. Ikenberry and P. Trubowitz, (eds.), American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays, 7th Edition, New York: OUP. Rothkopf, D. (2014) National Insecurity: National Leadership in an Age of Fear, NY: Public Affairs. Schmidt, B., (2012/2018), ‘Theories of US Foreign Policy’ in Cox, M and Stokes, D. (eds.), US Foreign Policy, Second or Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press

6

Week 14: Making Us Foreign Policy: Congress and The White House

This week will examine the official mechanism by which American Foreign Policy is made through a

study of the powers of Congress and the White House. The tension between the two will be set out

and students will decide where the limits should be drawn.

Seminar Questions:

Is an ‘imperial presidency’ a bad problem when it comes to foreign policy?

Does effective foreign policy require congressional oversight?

Essential Reading:

W.G. Howell and J.C. Pevehouse, ‘Presidents, Congress and the Use of Force’, in G.J. Ikenberry and

P. Trubowitz, (eds.), American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays, 7th Edition, (New York: OUP,

2014).

Schlesinger, Arthur M. (2004 [1973]) ‘The Revolutionary Presidency’, The Imperial Presidency, Boston: Mariner Books, pp.208-277.

Further Reading:

The Constitution of the United States http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html Allison, G. and Zelikow, P(1991) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Second Edition, Longman. Ambrose, S., (1991) ‘The Presidency and Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, 70/1, pp. 120-137. Cox, M. and Stokes, D., (2012/2018) US Foreign Policy, Oxford University Press, Chapter Seven. Kaplan, F., (2016) ‘Obama’s Way – The President in Practice’, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2016. Hendrickson, R., (2015) Obama at War: Congress and the Imperial Presidency, University Press of Kentucky Hook, S., and Jones, C., (2012) The Routledge Handbook of American Foreign Policy, Routledge, Parts Three and Four. Howell W.G., and Pevehouse, J.C., (2007) ‘When Congress Stops Wars’, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2007. Huntington, S.P., (1982) ‘American Ideals Versus American Institutions’, Political Science Quarterly, 97/1, Spring 1982. Lindsay, J.M., (2003) ‘Deference and Defiance: The Shifting Rhythms of Executive-Legislative Relations in Foreign Policy', Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33/3, pp 530-546. McCormick, J.C., (ed.), (2012) The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy, Sixth Edition, Rowman and Littlefield, Chapters Nine and Ten. Owens, J.E., (2009) ‘Congressional Acquiescence to Presidentalism in the US War on Terror’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 15(2-3).

7

Peterson, P.E., (1994) ‘The President’s Dominance in Foreign Policy Making’, Political Science Quarterly 109/1, pp 215-234. Rockman, B.A., (2000) 'Reinventing What for Whom? President and Congress in the Making of Foreign Policy', Presidential Studies Quarterly, 30/1, pp. 133-154. Rudalevige, A., (2006) The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing presidential power after Watergate, University of Michigan Press. Van Meter Crabb, C., (1992) Invitation to Struggle: Congress, the president and foreign policy, CQ Press. Wolfensberger, D.J., (2002), ‘The Return of the Imperial Presidency?’, The Wilson Quarterly, 26(2) Week 15: – Making US Foreign Policy: Media and the Electorate

This week will examine the role that the media and the electorate play in influencing and driving

foreign policy. Less accountable than the President and Congress but just as influential, this week will

focus on how much influence these groups do have and how much they should have.

Seminar Questions:

Should the public be able to make American foreign policy?

Is there such a thing as the ‘CNN effect’?

Essential Reading:

Jim McCormick, (2014) ‘Public Opinion in US Foreign Policy’ in I. Parmar (ed.), New Directions in US

Foreign Policy, Routledge.

Piers Robinson, (2016) ‘The Role of Media and Public Opinion’, in Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors,

Cases, Smith, S, Dunne, T and Hadfield, A., (eds.), Oxford: OUP, 186 – 205.

Further Reading:

Aday, S., (2017) ‘The US Media, Foreign Policy and Public Support for War’ in The Oxford Handbook

of Political Communication, Kenski, K., and Jamieson, K.H., (eds.), New York: OUP

McCormick, J., (ed.) (2012) Domestic Sources of US Foreign Policy, Sixth Edition, Rowman &

Littlefield.

On the Electorate:

Lantis, Jeffrey S. (2013) ‘Interest Groups and Political Parties’, US Foreign Policy in Action, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.163-203. Laville, H., and Johnstone, A., (2012) The US Public and American Foreign Policy, Routledge. Mead, W.R., (2012) ‘The Tea Party, Popularism and the Domestic Culture of US Foreign Policy’ in McCormick, J.C., (ed.), The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy, Sixth Edition, (Rowman and Littlefield, 2012). Sobel, R.,(2001) The Impact of Public Opinion on US Foreign Policy since Vietnam, New York, OUP, Introduction.

8

On the Media: Bacevitch, Andrew J. (2005) ‘California Dreaming’, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.97-117. Baum., M.A., (2005), Soft News Goes to War, Princeton University Press Carruthers, Susan (2000) ‘Media and ‘Limited War’’, The Media at War, pp.108-120, 145-162. Hariman, Robert and Lucaites, John Louis (2005) ‘Photographing the Vietnam War: Democratic Accountability and Liberal Representation in American Iconic Photography: The Image of ‘Accidental Napalm’’, in David Holloway and John Beck, American Visual Cultures, New York: Bloomsbury, pp.199-208. Jentleson, B.W., (1992) 'The 'Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Public Opinion and the Use of Military Force', International Studies Quarterly, 36/1, pp. 49-74. Jentleson B.W., and Rebecca L. Britton, (1998) ‘Still Pretty Prudent. Post-Cold War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42/4, August 1998, pp 395-417. Perlmutter, D.D. (1998) ’When Icons Collide: Somalia’ in Photojournalism and Foreign Policy: Icons of outrage in international crises. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp.91-124. Robinson, P. (1999) ‘The CNN Effect: Can the news media drive foreign policy?’, Review of International Studies, 25:2, pp.301-309.

Strobel, W.P. (1999) ‘The CNN Effect: Myth or Reality?’, in Wittkopf, Eugene R. and McCormick,

James M. (eds) The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, Lanham,

MD: Rowman and Littlefield (3rd edition), pp.85-94.

Weber, C., (2005) Imagining America at War: Morality, Politics, and Film, London: Routledge.

Week 16: Making US Foreign Policy – Military and Intelligence

The role of the military and intelligence services is often downplayed in the assessment of US foreign

policy, with the assumption that these groups implement rather than influence the decisions made.

However the armed forces can shape the decisions made, raising questions regarding accountability.

Furthermore the development of new theatres of war has opened up the understanding of conflict.

Seminar Questions:

Should the intelligence community make foreign policy directly or be restricted to an advisory role?

How have developments in technology changed the face of warfare, and how should the US respond

to this?

Essential Reading:

Jervis, R., (2017) ‘Why Intelligence and Policy Makers Clash’ in McCormick, J.C., (ed.), The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy Seventh Edition, Rowman and Littlefield.

Fuller, C. (2017), ‘The assassin in chief: Obama’s drone legacy’, in Michelle Bentley and Jack

Holland, (eds.), The Obama Doctrine, New York: Routledge

Powers, Shawn and Jablonski, Michael (2015) ‘Introduction: Geopolitics and the Internet’, The Real

Cyber War, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 1-26.

9

Further Reading:

Aldrich, R.J., (2015) ‘The 100 billion dollar braid: central intelligence machinery in the UK and US’, International Affairs, 91(2), pp 393-403. Boyle, M., (2013), ‘The costs and consequences of drone warfare’, International Affairs, 89(1).

Department of Defence, 2017 Defence Posture Statement at https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2017DODPOSTURE_FINAL_MAR17UpdatePage4_WEB.PDF especially Section Five

Garcia, D., (2015) ‘Killer Robots: why the US should lead the ban’, Global Policy, 6(1), pp 57 – 63.

Gibson, J. W. (2000) The Perfect War: Technowar in Vietnam, New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, pp.433-459.

Kello,L., (2013) ‘The Meaning of the Cyber Revolution: Perils to Theory and Statecraft’, International

Security, Vol. 38, No. 2

Latham, Michael E. (2000) ‘Modernisation as Ideology: Approaching the Problem’, Modernisation as Ideology: American Social Science and “Nation Building” in the Kennedy Era, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp.1-20. Latham, Michael E. (2000) ‘Modernisation at War’, Modernisation as Ideology: American Social Science and “Nation Building” in the Kennedy Era, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp.151-201. Lindsay, G.R., (2014/2015), ‘The impact of China on Cybersecurity: Fiction and Friction’, International Security, 39(3), pp 7-47. McCarthy, Daniel R. (2011) ‘Open Networks and the Open Door: American Foreign Policy and the

Narration of the Internet’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 7.

Meyer, P., (2015) ‘Seizing the diplomatic initiative to control cyber conflict’, Washington Quarterly, 38(2), pp 47 – 61.

Parmar, Inderjeet (2014) ‘Obama, Wikileaks, and American Power’ in Inderjeet Parmar, Linda B. Miller, Mark Ledwidge (eds) Obama and the World: New Directions in US Foreign Policy, London: Routledge, pp. 243-257. Shaw, I.G.R., (2013), ‘Predator Empire: The Geopolitics of US Drone Warfare’, Geopolitics, 18(3) Work, R. and Brimley, S. (2014) 20YY: Preparing for War in the Robotic Age, January 2014, Washington, D.C.: Centre for American Security, available online at: http://www.cnas.org/20YY-Preparing-War-in-Robotic-Age#.VIF5WVesWXh See also the podcast from the journal International Security by Lucas Kello on the cyber revolution available at http://www.mitpressjournals.org/page/podcast_episode21_ISEC

10

Week 17: Legacy of 9/11

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 happened over fifteen years ago but that day and the subsequent

repercussions still influence the decisions that the US government makes. This week will explore how

contemporary US Foreign Policy is shaped by the memory and legacy of 9/11 and examine how

foreign policy decisions are influenced by the circumstances in which they are made.

Seminar Questions:

Did the response to the 9/11 attacks represent a continuation or break in US foreign policy? Why?

Did the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq achieve their goals?

Essential Reading:

Crawford, N.C., (2004) ‘The road to global empire: the logic of U.S. foreign policy after 9/11’, Orbis,

48:4.

Hook, S.W. and Spanier J. (2016), American Foreign Policy, 20th Edition, Thousand Oaks: CQ Press, Chapter 11 ‘Hot Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq’

Further Reading:

The 9/11 Commission Report: final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (US Government, 2004), accessed at www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf Global War on Terror: The 9/11 Encyclopaedia, 2011 Boyle, M.J., (2003) ‘The War on Terror in American Grand Strategy’, International Affairs, 84:2. Bentley, M., and Holland, J., (2013) Obama’s Foreign Policy: Ending the War on Terror, Routledge, especially Chapters Four – Six. Chomsky, N., (2011) ‘Looking Back on 9/11 a Decade Later’, The Nation, September 6th 2011 Cox, M., and Stokes, D., (2012/2018) US Foreign Policy, Oxford University Press, Chapter Twenty-One. Ferguson, M., (2005) ‘“W” stands for Women: Feminism and Security Rhetoric in the Post 9/11 Bush Administration’, Politics and Gender, 1(1). Forsyth, D.P. et al, (2013) American Foreign Policy in a Globalised World, Routledge, Chapter Six – Eight. Hassan, Oz and Hammond, Andrew (2011) ‘The rise and fall of America's freedom agenda in Afghanistan: counter-terrorism, nation-building and democracy’, The International Journal of Human Rights, 15:4, pp.532-551. Jackson, R., (2007) ‘Language, policy and the construction of a torture culture in the war on terrorism’, Review of International Studies (7), v.33 (no. 3). Johnson, C., (2002) Blowback: the costs and consequences of American Empire, Time Warner. Kennedy-Pipe, C., and Renegger, N., (2006) ‘Apocalypse now? Continuities or disjunctions in world politics after 9/11’, International Affairs, 82(3). Leffler, M.P., (2003) ‘9/11 and the Past and Future of American Foreign Policy’, International Affairs, 79:5.

11

McCartney, P. T. (2004) ‘American Nationalism and U.S. Foreign Policy from September 11 to the Iraq War,’ Political Science Quarterly, 119:3, pp.399–423. Miller, M.J., (2007), The war on terror in comparative perspective: US security and foreign policy after 9/11 Palgrave. Singh, R., (2012) Barack Obama’s Post-American Foreign Policy, Bloomsbury, Chapters One and Four.

Toaldo, M., (2012) The Origins of the US War on Terror, Routledge. Week 18: READING WEEK

Week 19: Decline of American Power (?) and the Rise of the Rest

In the first week on the issues currently facing America, this session will explore the debate over

America’s supposed decline and the rise of other powers.

Seminar Questions:

Will American institutions outlast America’s power?

Which state would be able to replace America?

How should American foreign policy respond to a waning of America’s power?

Essential Reading:

Acharya, A., (2014) The End of American World Order, Polity, ‘Introduction’

Quinn. A., (2011), “The Art of Declining Politely: Obama’s Prudent Presidency and the Waning of

American Power”, International Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 803-824.

Further Reading:

Bacevitch, A.J. (2008) The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, New York: Metropolitan Books, pp.15-66. Beckley, M., (2011/12), “China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure”, International Security, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 41-78 (see also the response from Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson and a reply from Michael Beckley, “Correspondence: Debating China's Rise and U.S. Decline” in Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 172-181. Haass, R.N., (2008) ‘The Age of Nonpolarity’, Foreign Affairs, 87(3) Huntington, S. (1988) ‘The U.S. - Decline or Renewal?’, Foreign Affairs, Winter, pp.76-85. Also available online at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/43988/samuel-p-huntington/the-us-decline-or-renewal

Feigenbaum, E.A., ‘India’s Rise, America’s Interest’, in A Price-Smith, (ed.), Rising Threats, Enduring Challenges, Oxford University Press. Ikenberry, G., (2013) ‘The Rise of China and the Future of the West’ in A Price-Smith, (ed.), Rising Threats, Enduring Challenges, Oxford University Press. Kirshner, J., (2014) American Power After the Financial Crisis, (Cornell University Press, 2014), especially Chapters Seven and Eight

12

Krauthammer, C., (1990/1991) ‘The Unipolar Moment’, Foreign Affairs, (America and the World special edition). Kupchan, C.A., (2012) No-One’s World, Oxford University Press, particularly Chapter One. Larson, D.W., and Shevchenko, A., (2010) ‘Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to U.S.

Primacy’, International Security, 34(4).

Layne, C., et al , (2012/2018) ‘US Primary or Decline?: A Debate’, in US Foreign Policy, Cox, M., and

Stokes, D., Oxford: OUP

Layne, C., (2009), “The Waning of U.S. Hegemony – Myth or Reality? A Review Essay”, International Security, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 147-172. Mann, M., (2004) “The first failed empire of the 21st century”, Review of International Studies, 30:4. Manning, R.A., (2013), “US Strategy in a Post-Western World”, Survival, Vol. 55, No. 5, pp. 115-132. Patel, K., and Hansmeyer, C., (2014) ‘American Power: patterns of rise and decline’ in I. Parmar, Obama and the World: New Directions in US Foreign Policy London: Routledge. Nye Jr., J., (2015) Is the American Century Over? Polity. Schweller, R.L., (2011) ‘After Unipolarity: China’s visions of international order in an era of US decline’, International Security, 36(1). Stephen, M., (2012) ‘Rising Regional Powers and International Institutions: The Foreign Policy Orientations of India, Brazil and South Africa’, Global Society, 26(3). Thornberry, M., and Krepinevich Jr., A., (2016) ‘Preserving Primacy’, Foreign Affairs, 95(5). Wohlforth, W.C., (1999) ‘The Stability of a Unipolar World’, International Security 29:1 (summer 1999), pp. 5-41 Zakaria, F., (2011), The Post-American World Release 2.0, W.W Norton and Company.

Week 20: Human Rights and Democracy Promotion

This session asks whether the US should seek to promote democracy and human rights as part of its

foreign policy. Whilst these may seem noble goals, this class will explore whether the world’s leading

superpower should be responsible for doing so.

Seminar Questions:

Should the US try and promote democracy abroad?

Compare the Bush and Obama rhetoric on this issue – which do you support?

Essential Reading:

Bouchet, N., (2013), ‘The democracy tradition in US foreign policy and the Obama presidency’,

International Affairs, 89(1).

Moravcsik, Andrew (2005) ‘The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy’, in Michael Ignatieff (ed.)

American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.147-197.

13

See also

George W. Bush, ‘Second Inaugural Address’, Jan 2005, http://www.whitehouse.gov/inaugural/

Barack Obama, ‘A New Beginning (Cairo Speech)’, 2009,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaxZPiiKyMw

Further Reading:

Abrams, K., and Wollack, K., (2009) ‘Democracy promotion: the Bush doctrine in the age of Obama’, Foreign Policy Initiative Forum, accessed at http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/advancing-and-defending-democracy/democracy-promotion-the-bush-doctrine-in-the-age-of-obama Bouchet, N., (2011) ‘Barack Obama’s democracy promotion at midterm’, International Journal of Human Rights, 15(4). Bridoux, J., and Kurki M., (2014) Democracy Promotion: A Critical Introduction, Routledge. Carothers, T., (2006) ‘The backlash against democracy promotion’, Foreign Affairs, Mar/Apr 2006. Cox, M., Ikenberry, G.J., and Inoguchi, T., (eds), (2000) American democracy promotion: impulses, strategies, and impacts, Oxford University Press. Cox, M., et al.,(eds.) (2005) US Foreign Policy and Democracy Promotion: From Theodore Roosevelt to Barack Obama, London: Routledge, pp.159-173. Cox, M., et al., (2013) US Presidents and Democracy Promotion, Routledge, see especially Introduction, Chapter One and Chapters Nine – Eleven. Dalacoura, K., (2005) ‘US democracy promotion in the Arab Middle East since 9/11: a critique’, International Affairs, 81(5). Doty, R.L. (1996) ‘Foreign Aid, Democracy and Human Rights’, in Imperial Encounters, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, pp.127-144. Farer, Tom J. (2004) ‘The Interplay of domestic politics, human rights, and U.S. Foreign Policy, in Thomas G. Weiss, Margaret E. Crahan, and John Goering, Wars on Terrorism and Iraq, London: Routledge, pp.29-60. Kissinger, H., (1994) Diplomacy, Simon & Schuster. Kurki, M., (2013) Democratic Futures: Re-Visioning Democracy Promotion, Routledge. Lynch, M., (2013) ‘Promotion Demotion’, Foreign Policy, October 2013. Markakis, D., (2015) US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East, Routledge. Mertus, Julie A. (2008) “The lingua franca of diplomacy’, Bait and Switch; Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge, pp.25-52. Monten, J., (2005) ‘The Roots of the Bush Doctrine: power, nationalism and democracy promotion in US strategy’, International Security, 29(4). Parmar, I., (2009) New Directions in US Foreign Policy, Routledge, Chapter Sixteen. Perugini, Nicola and Gordon, Neve (2015) ‘Introduction: Human rights as domination’, The Human Right to Dominate, New York: Open University Press, pp.1-25.

14

Quinn, A., and Cox, M., (2007) ‘For Better, For Worse: How America’s foreign policy became wedded to liberal universalism’, Global Society, 21:4. Rice, C., (2008) ‘Rethinking the National Interest: American Realism for a new world’, Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug 2008. Snider, E.A. and Faris, D.M., (2011) ‘The Arab Spring: US democracy promotion in Egypt’, Middle East Policy, 2011.

Week 21: The Return of the Cold War or: The (Soviet) Empire Strikes Back

After the claims that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 US election, the relations between America

and Russia have reached a nadir. This week will examine the relations between the two countries and

ask if future conflict is inevitable.

Seminar Questions:

Are Russia and the US inevitably opposed? IS there common ground in their foreign policies?

What action should the US have taken when Russia invaded Crimea?

Essential Reading:

David, M., (2017) ‘US-Russia Relations in Obama’s second term: A damage limitation exercise’ in

Michelle Bentley and Jack Holland, (eds.), The Obama Doctrine, Routledge.

Mützenich,R., (2015) ‘Rapprochement reloaded: Why détente with Russia is not appeasement’

Foreign Affairs, February 2015.

Further Reading:

Breedlove, P.M., (2016) ‘NATO’s Next Act’, Foreign Affairs, 95(4). Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, (2006), Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do, March 2006, http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Russia_TaskForce.pdf Fisher, M., ‘How World War III became possible’, Vox, 29th June 2015 at http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war Goldgeier, J., and McFaul, M., (2003) Power and Purpose: US policy towards Russia after the Cold War, Brookings. Hook, S.W. and Spanier J. (2016), American Foreign Policy, 20th Edition, Thousand Oaks: CQ Press, Chapter 14, section on ‘Russia’s Declaration of Cold War II’ Jentleson, B., (2013) American Foreign Policy: Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century, Norton, Chapter Twelve Legvoid, R., (2013) ‘The Russia File’, in A Price-Smith, (ed.), Rising Threats, Enduring Challenges, Oxford University Press. Mankoff, J., (2014) ‘Russia’s Latest Land Grab’, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014. Mearsheimer, J.J., (2014) ‘Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault’, Foreign Affairs, 93(5), September/October 2014.

15

Monaghan, A., (2008) ‘‘An enemy at the gates’ or ‘from victory to victory’? Russian foreign policy’, International Affairs, 84(4). Monaghan, A., (2013) ‘Putin’s Russia: shaping a ‘grand strategy’?’, International Affairs, 89(5) Pifer, S., (2016), ‘Pay attention America: Russia is Upgrading its Military, Brookings https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/pay-attention-america-russia-is-upgrading-its-military/ Rutland, P., (2012/2018) ‘US Foreign Policy in Russia’ in US Foreign Policy, Cox, M., and Stokes, D,.(eds.),Oxford: Oxford University Press Sakwa, R.,‘‘New Cold War’ or twenty years’ crisis? Russia and international politics’, International Affairs, 84(2). Simes, D.K., (2007) ‘Losing Russia: The Costs of Renewed Confrontation’, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2007. Trenin, D., (2007) ‘Russia Redefines Itself and its Relations with the West’, Washington Quarterly, Spring 2007. Trenin, D., (2009) ‘Russia Reborn’, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2009.

See also the special edition of Washington Quarterly, 38(2), 2015

Week 22: Terrorism

Assessing new challenges that US foreign policy faces, this week will examine how the US should

respond to terrorism through a case study of the response to IS.

Seminar Questions

Can US foreign policy succeed in eradicating terrorism?

How should America respond to IS?

Essential Reading:

Byman, D., (2016) ‘Understanding the Islamic State – a review essay’, International Security, 40(4),

pp 127 – 165.

Mueller, J., (2006) ‘Is There Still a Terrorist Threat? The myth of the omnipresent enemy’, Foreign

Affairs, Sep /Oct 2006.

Further Reading: Bentley, M., (2017) ‘Ending the Unendable: The rhetorical legacy of the War on Terror’ in Bentley, M., and Holland, J., (eds.), The Obama Doctrine, Routledge. Bobbitt, P., (2008) Terror and Consent: the wars for the 21st century Alfred A. Knopf. Kurzman, C., (2011) ‘Why is it so hard to find a suicide bomber these days?’ Foreign Affairs, 188, September/October 2011. Neumann, P.R., (2007) ‘Negotiating With Terrorists’ Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, 2007. On IS see: Clarke, C.P., (2017) ‘How ISIS is Transforming: Why Predictions of its Demise are Premature’, Foreign Affairs, September 2017

16

Cockburn, P., (2014), ‘How the war on terror created the world’s most powerful terror group’, The Nation, August 2014. Cole, J., (2017) ‘ISIS’s days in Syria are numbers but does Trump have more wars to fight there?’, The Nation, https://www.thenation.com/article/isiss-days-in-syria-are-numbered-but-does-trump-have-more-wars-to-fight-there/

Cronin, A., (2015) ‘ISIS is not a terrorist group’, Foreign Affairs, 94(2). Simcox, R., (2014) ‘ISIS’ worst nightmare: why the group is not trying to provoke a US attack’, Foreign Affairs, September 2014. Tharoor, I., (2014) ‘Nevermind what Obama says: the Islamic State claims it’s facing a crusade’, The Washington Post, September 2014. The Economist ‘Fighting Islamic State: the long haul’, The Economist, September 2014 The Economist, ‘The Evolution of Islamic State’, The Economist, August 2016 https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-chart-10 van den Heuvel, K., ‘Can the US defeat ISIS without bombs?’ Podcast from September 2014, available through The Nation at http://www.thenation.com/blog/181614/isis-militarism-and-new-us-campaign-iraq.

Week 23: Conclusion: The Future of American Foreign Policy

To end, we will revisit some of the previous topics and any new areas of concern that have arisen

during the term. Students can select the material that they wish to discuss and develop their own

seminar questions

Week 24: READING WEEK

17

Appendix A

Instructions on how to submit essays electronically

1. Log in to Blackboard and select the Blackboard course for the unit you are submitting work for. If you cannot see it, please e-mail spais-ug@bristol.ac.uk with your username and ask to be added.

2. Click on the "Submit Work Here" option at the top on the left hand menu and then find the correct assessment from the list.

3. Select ‘view/complete’ for the appropriate piece of work. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have selected both the correct unit and the correct piece of work.

4. The screen will display ‘single file upload’ and your name. Enter your name (for FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) or candidate number (for SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) as a submission title, and then select the file that you wish to upload by clicking the ‘browse’ button. Click on the ‘upload’ button at the bottom.

5. You will then be shown the essay to be submitted. Check that you have selected the correct essay and click the ‘Submit’ button. This step must be completed or the submission is not complete.

6. You will be informed of a successful submission. A digital receipt is displayed on screen and a copy sent to your email address for your records.

Important notes

You are only allowed to submit one file to Blackboard (single file upload), so ensure that all parts of your work – references, bibliography etc. – are included in one single document and that you upload the correct version. You will not be able to change the file once you have uploaded.

Blackboard will accept a variety of file formats, but the School can only accept work submitted in .rtf (Rich Text Format) or .doc/.docx (Word Document) format. If you use another word processing package, please ensure you save in a compatible format.

By submitting your essay, you are confirming that you have read the regulations on plagiarism and confirm that the submission is not plagiarised. You also confirm that the word count stated on the essay is an accurate statement of essay length.

If Blackboard is not working email your assessment to spais-ug@bristol.ac.uk with the unit code and title in the subject line.

How to confirm that your essay has been submitted

You will have received a digital receipt by email and If you click on the assessment again (steps 1-4), you will see the title and submission date of the essay you have submitted. If you click on submit, you will not be able to submit again. This table also displays the date of submission. If you click on the title of the essay, it will open in a new window and you can also see what time the essay was submitted.

18

Appendix B

Summary of Relevant School Regulations

(Further information is in the year handbook)

Attendance at classes SPAIS takes attendance and participation in classes very seriously. Seminars form an essential part of your learning and you need to make sure you arrive on time, have done the required reading and participate fully. Attendance at all seminars is monitored, with absence only condoned in cases of illness or for other exceptional reasons. If you are unable to attend a seminar you must inform your seminar tutor, as well as email spais-absence@bristol.ac.uk. You should also provide evidence to explain your absence, such as a self-certification and/or medical note, counselling letter or other official document. If you are unable to provide evidence then please still email spais-absence@bristol.ac.uk to explain why you are unable to attend. If you are ill or are experiencing some other kind of difficulty which is preventing you from attending seminars for a prolonged period, please inform your personal tutor, the Undergraduate Office or the Student Administration Manager. Requirements for credit points In order to be awarded credit points for the unit, you must achieve:

Satisfactory attendance in classes, or satisfactory completion of catch up work in lieu of poor attendance

Satisfactory formative assessment

An overall mark of 40 or above in the summative assessment/s. In some circumstances, a mark of 35 or above can be awarded credit points.

Presentation of written work Coursework must be word-processed. As a guide, use a clear, easy-to-read font such as Arial or Times New Roman, in at least 11pt. You may double–space or single–space your essays as you prefer. Your tutor will let you know if they have a preference. All pages should be numbered. Ensure that the essay title appears on the first page. All pages should include headers containing the following information:

Formative work Summative work Name: e.g. Joe Bloggs Unit e.g. SOCI10004

Seminar Tutor e.g. Dr J. Haynes Word Count .e.g. 1500 words

**Candidate Number**: e.g. 12345 Unit: e.g. SOCI10004

Seminar Tutor: e.g. Dr J. Haynes Word Count: e.g. 3000 words

Candidate numbers are required on summative work in order to ensure that marking is anonymous. Note that your candidate number is not the same as your student number. Assessment Length Each piece of coursework must not exceed the stipulated maximum length for the assignment (the ‘word count’) listed in the unit guide. Summative work that exceeds the maximum length will be subject to penalties. The word count is absolute (there is no 10% leeway, as commonly rumoured). Five marks will be deducted for every 100 words or part thereof over the word limit. Thus, an essay that is 1 word

19

over the word limit will be penalised 5 marks; an essay that is 101 words over the word limit will be penalised 10 marks, and so on. The word count includes all text, numbers, footnotes/endnotes, Harvard referencing in the body of the text and direct quotes. It excludes, the title, candidate number, bibliography, and appendices. However, appendices should only be used for reproducing documents, not additional text written by you. Referencing and Plagiarism Where sources are used they must be cited using the Harvard referencing system. Inadequate referencing is likely to result in penalties being imposed. See the Study Skills Guide for advice on referencing and how poor referencing/plagiarism are processed. Unless otherwise stated, essays must contain a bibliography. Extensions Extensions to coursework deadlines will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. If you want to request an extension, complete an extension request form (available at Blackboard/SPAIS_UG Administration/forms to download and School policies) and submit the form with your evidence (e.g. self-certification, medical certificate, death certificate, or hospital letter) to Catherine Foster in the Undergraduate Office. Extension requests cannot be submitted by email, and will not be considered if there is no supporting evidence. If you are waiting for evidence then you can submit the form and state that it has been requested. All extension requests should be submitted at least 72 hours prior to the assessment deadline. If the circumstance occurs after this point, then please either telephone or see the Student Administration Manager in person. In their absence you can contact Catherine Foster in the UG Office, again in person or by telephone. Extensions can only be granted by the Student Administration Manager. They cannot be granted by unit convenors or seminar tutors. You will receive an email to confirm whether your extension request has been granted. Submitting Essays

Formative essays Summative essays

Unless otherwise stated, all formative essay

submissions must be submitted electronically via Blackboard

All summative essay submissions must be

submitted electronically via Blackboard.

Electronic copies enable an efficient system of receipting, providing the student and the School with a record of exactly when an essay was submitted. It also enables the School to systematically check the length of submitted essays and to safeguard against plagiarism. Late Submissions Penalties are imposed for work submitted late without an approved extension. Any kind of computer/electronic failure is not accepted as a valid reason for an extension, so make sure you back up your work on another computer, memory stick or in the cloud (e.g. Google Drive or Dropbox). Also ensure that the clock on your computer is correct. The following schema of marks deduction for late/non-submission is applied to both formative work and summative work:

20

Up to 24 hours late, or part thereof Penalty of 10 marks

For each additional 24 hours late, or part thereof

A further 5 marks deduction for each 24 hours, or part thereof

Assessment submitted over one week late

Treated as a non-submission: fail and mark of zero recorded. This will be noted on your transcript.

The 24 hour period runs from the deadline for submission, and includes Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays and university closure days.

If an essay submitted less than one week late fails solely due to the imposition of a late penalty, then the mark will be capped at 40.

If a fail due to non-submission is recorded, you will have the opportunity to submit the essay as a second attempt for a capped mark of 40 in order to receive credit points for the unit.

Marks and Feedback In addition to an overall mark, students will receive written feedback on their assessed work.

The process of marking and providing detailed feedback is a labour-intensive one, with most 2-3000 word essays taking at least half an hour to assess and comment upon. Summative work also needs to be checked for plagiarism and length and moderated by a second member of staff to ensure marking is fair and consistent. For these reasons, the University regulations are that feedback will be returned to students within three weeks of the submission deadline.

If work is submitted late, then it may not be possible to return feedback within the three week period.

Fails and Resits If you fail the unit overall, you will normally be required to resubmit or resit. In units where there are two pieces of summative assessment, you will normally only have to re-sit/resubmit the highest-weighted piece of assessment. Exam resits only take place once a year, in late August/early September. If you have to re-sit an exam then you will need to be available during this period. If you are not available to take a resit examination, then you will be required to take a supplementary year in order to retake the unit.

21

Appendix C

Level 6 Marking and Assessment Criteria (Third / Final Year)

High 1st (80+)

Outstanding comprehension of the implication of the question and your argument

Excellent use or application of theoretical and methodological approaches

Original and creative answer in response to the question set that provides a fluent integration of argument and evidence

A structure that demonstrates excellent logic and coherence and provides the best support for the analysis and the substance of the argument

Outstanding comprehension and utilisation of and critical engagement with the relevant literature and academic debates

Outstanding organisation and style of presentation (including excellent referencing) with no or very few grammatical and spelling errors

1st (70-79) Excellent comprehension of the implications of the question and critical understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues

A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and well-supported

Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the question’

Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument

Extremely well presented: minimal grammatical or spelling errors; written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and bibliographic formatting

2:1 (60–69) Very good comprehension of the implications of the question and fairly extensive and accurate knowledge and understanding

Very good awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological issues, though not always displaying an understanding of how they link to the question

A generally critical, analytical argument, which shows attempts at independent thinking and is sensibly structured and generally well-supported

Clear and generally critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of works beyond the prescribed reading list; demonstrating the ability to be selective in the range of material used, and the capacity to synthesise rather than describe

Very well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors; written clearly and concisely; fairly consistent referencing and bibliographic formatting

22

2:2 (50–59) Generally clear and accurate knowledge, though there may be some errors and/or gaps and some awareness of underlying theoretical/methodological issues with little understanding of how they relate to the question

Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather than critical;

Tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue on the basis of reason and evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical

Good attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit; but displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant material

Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is sometimes awkward; some significant grammatical and spelling errors; inconsistent referencing but generally accurate bibliography.

3rd (40–49) Limited knowledge and understanding with significant errors and omissions and generally ignorant or confused awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues

Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a case; underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but used inappropriately or incorrectly

Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive description

Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources

Poorly presented: not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling errors; limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.

Marginal

Fail

(35–39)

Unsatisfactory level of knowledge and understanding of subject; limited or no understanding of theoretical/methodological issues

Very little comprehension of the implications of the question and lacking a coherent structure

Lacking any attempt at analysis and critical engagement with issues, based on description or opinion

Little use of sources and what is used reflects a very narrow range or are irrelevant and/or misunderstood

Unsatisfactory presentation: difficult to follow; very limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions

Outright

Fail

(0–34)

Very limited, and seriously flawed, knowledge and understanding

No comprehension of the implications of the question and no attempt to provide a structure

No attempt at analysis

Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow range of sources

Very poorly presented: lacking any coherence, significant problems with spelling and grammar, missing or no references and containing bibliographic omissions