Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Politics, Expanded
14th Edition
Published on 16. March 2010
Book
Paperback/Softback
464 pages
978-0-07-804993-4 (ISBN)
Description
Taking Sides volumes present current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript or challenge questions. Taking Sides readers feature an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites. An online Instructor's Resource Guide with testing material is available for each volume. Using Taking Sides in the Classroom is also an excellent instructor resource. Visit www.mhhe.com/takingsides for more details.
More details
Edition
14th edition
Language
English
Place of publication
United States
Publishing group
McGraw-Hill Education - Europe
Weight
513 gr
ISBN-13
978-0-07-804993-4 (9780078049934)
Copyright in bibliographic data and cover images is held by Nielsen Book Services Limited or by the publishers or by their respective licensors: all rights reserved.
Schweitzer Classification
Person
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 writinghe 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 universitys internship program and advising one of its political clubs. Additionally, he has served as a staff member of Connecticuts legislature, and has been involved in political campaigns on the local, state, and national levels.
Content
Table of Contents
Clashing Views in World Politics, Fourteenth Edition, Expanded
Unit 1 Globalization and the International System
Issue 1. Is Economic Globalization a Positive Trend?
YES: International Monetary Fund Staff, from ?Globalization: A Brief Overview,? Issues Brief (May 2008)NO: Nancy Birdsall, from ?The World Is not Flat: Inequality and Injustice in Our Global Economy,? WIDER Annual Lecture 9, United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economics Research (October 31, 2005)Staff members of the International Monetary Fund conclude on the basis of experiences across the world that unhindered international economic interchange, the core principle of globalization, seems to underpin greater prosperity. Nancy Birdsall, founding president of the Center for Global Development, argues that globalization is not benefiting all and that a major challenge of the twenty-first century will be to address persistent and unjust inequality, which global markets alone cannot resolve.
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 Young Women and Men of North America, contends that many cultures around the world are gradually disappearing due to the overwhelming influence of corporate 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. Does Capitalism Undermine Democracy?
YES: Robert B. Reich, from ?How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy,? Foreign Policy (September/October 2007)NO: Anthony B. Kim, from ?The Link between Economic Freedom and Human Rights,? Heritage Foundation Web Memo #1650 (September 28, 2007)Robert B. Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and former U.S. secretary of labor, writes that capitalism leaves democratic societies unable to address the tradeoffs between economic growth and social problems. Taking the opposite point of view, Anthony B. Kim, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation?s Center for International Trade and Economics, contends that economic progress through advancing economic freedom has allowed more people to discuss and adopt different views more candidly, ultimately leading societies to be more open and inclusive.
Unit 2 Regional and Country Issues
Issue 4. Should the United States Substantially Limit Its Global Involvement?
YES: Ivan Eland, from ?Homeward Bound?? The National Interest (July/August 2008)NO: Barack Obama, from ?The American Moment,? Remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (April 23, 2007)Ivan Eland, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, a libertarian think tank in Oakland, California and Washington, DC, contends that neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party in the United States has shown any inclination to follow the wise counsel of the country?s founders such as George Washington and practice restraint in the country?s overseas involvement. By contrast, Barack Obama, then a Democratic U.S. senator from Illinois and the 2008 nominee of the Democratic Party for president, sharply criticizes the foreign policy of President George W. Bush for undercutting American leadership of the world and argues that it is time to reclaim that leadership through a new approach.
Issue 5. Has Russia Become Undemocratic and Antagonistic?
YES: Tucker Herbert and Diane Raub, from ?Russian Geopolitik,? The Stanford Review (June 2, 2006)NO: Eugene B. Rumer, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Developments in U.S.?Russia Relations? before the Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats, Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (March 9, 2005) Tucker Herbert and Diane Raub, both of whom are on the staff of the Stanford Review, an independent, student-run newspaper at Stanford University, argue that under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has fallen from the ranks of democracies and is engaged in a foreign policy that pits U.S. interests against those of Russia. Eugene B. Rumer, a senior research fellow at the National Defense University?s Institute for National Strategic Studies in Washington, DC, recognizes that Russian democracy falls short of full scale and that Russian policy sometimes clashes with that of the United States, but argues that compared with the history of Russian democracy, which was zero before the 1990s, the country is not doing poorly and that Russia?s pursuit of its own interests should not be construed as necessarily antagonistic.
Issue 6. Will China Soon Become a Threatening Superpower?
YES: John J. Tkacik, Jr., from ?A Chinese Military Superpower?? Heritage Foundation Web Memo #1389 (March 8, 2007) NO: Samuel A. Bleicher, from ?China: Superpower or Basket Case?? FPIF Discussion Paper, Foreign Policy In Focus, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (May 8, 2008) John J. Tkacik, Jr., a senior research fellow in China policy at the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, contends that the evidence suggests instead that China?s intent is to challenge the United States as a military superpower. Disagreeing, Samuel A. Bleicher, principal in his international consulting firm, The Strategic Path LLC, argues that while China has made some remarkable economic progress, the reality is that the Chinese ?Communist? central government and Chinese economic, social, political, and legal institutions are quite weak.
Issue 7. Would It Be an Error to Establish a Palestinian State?YES: Patricia Berlyn, from ?Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine,? An Original Essay Written for This Volume (2006)NO: Rosemary E. Shinko, from ?Why a Palestinian State,? An Original Essay Written for This Volume (October 2006)Patricia 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 8. Should All Foreign Troops Soon Leave Iraq?YES: Lawrence B. Wilkerson, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Iraq: Alternative Strategies in a Post-Surge Environment,? before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives (January 23, 2008) NO: Michael Eisenstadt, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Iraq: Alternative Strategies in a Post-Surge Environment,? before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives (January 23, 2008)Lawrence B. Wilkerson, the Pamela C. Harriman Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary and formerly chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, tells Congress that most U.S. forces in Iraq should be quickly withdrawn because they are poorly positioned to protect U.S. interests and are exacerbating the antagonisms that make it difficult to defeat terrorism. Rejecting this position Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow and director of The Washington Institute?s Military and Security Studies Program, contends that there is no doubt that the surge of U.S. forces into Iraq in 2007 has dramatically improved the security environment in Iraq, and that too rapid a withdrawal would reverse the gains that have been made.
Issue 9. Does Hugo Chavez Threaten Hemispheric Stability and Democracy?YES: Norman A. Bailey, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Venezuela: Looking Ah
ead,? before the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (July 17, 2008)NO: Jennifer McCoy, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Venezuela: Looking Ahead,? before the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (July 17, 2008)Norman A. Bailey, a senior fellow at the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank in Vienna, Virginia, and formerly senior director of international economic affairs for the National Security Council, argues that Venezuela?s President Hugo Chavez is ruining the country economically, destroying its democracy, and undertaking foreign policies, including supporting terrorism, which threaten hemispheric stability. Taking a more sympathetic viewpoint toward Venezuela, Jennifer McCoy, professor of political science, Georgia State University and director of The Americas Program at The Carter Center, argues that the reforms Hugo Chavez has instituted in Venezuela are very popular there, that the charges that he supports terrorism are overdrawn, and that the best course for U.S. foreign policy is to start with positive signals and focus on pragmatic concerns of interest to both countries.
Issue 10. Is Military Intervention in Darfur Justified?YES: Susan E. Rice, from ?Dithering on Darfur: U.S. Inaction in the Face of Genocide,? Testimony during Hearings on ?Darfur: A ?Plan B? to Stop Genocide?? before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (April 11, 2007)NO: Alex de Waal, from ?Prospects for Peace in Darfur Today,? Testimony during Hearings on ?Current Situation in Darfur,? before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (April 19, 2007)Susan E. Rice, a senior fellow in foreign policy and global economics and development at the Brooking Institution, formerly U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs and nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to the UN in January 2009, says that using military force is long overdue to halt what she portrays as an ongoing genocide in Darfur. Alex de Waal, program director at the Social Science Research Council, a research organization in New York City, contends that inserting a military force into a very unstable situation would not likely bring success and that using diplomacy to create a situation where all sides want peace is a better strategy for now.
Unit 3 Economic Issues
Issue 11. Is World Trade Organization Membership Beneficial?
YES: Peter F. Allgeier, from Testimony during Hearings on ?The Future of the World Trade Organization,? before the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (May 17, 2005)NO: Lori Wallach, from Testimony during Hearings on ?The Future of the World Trade Organization,? before the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (May 17, 2005) Peter F. Allgeier, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, describes the World Trade Organization as beneficial to U.S. strategic and economic interests and argues that there is overwhelming value to be gained through continued U.S. participation in the organization. Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen?s Global Trade Watch, part of Public Citizen, a Washington, DC?based advocacy group, maintains that Congress should demand a transformation of WTO trade rules because they have failed to achieve the promised economic gains and have also undercut an array of nontrade, noneconomic policies and goals advantageous to the public interest in the United States and abroad.
Issue 12. Do Sovereign Wealth Funds Threaten Economic Sovereignty?
YES: Patrick A. Mulloy, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Sovereign Wealth Fund Acquisitions and Other Foreign Government Investments in the U.S.: Assessing the Economic and National Security Implications,? before the Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress (February 13, 2008)NO: Stuart E. Eizenstat, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Do Sovereign Wealth Funds Make the U.S. Economic Stronger or Pose a National Security Risk?? before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate (November 14, 2007)Patrick A. Mulloy, Washington representative of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and formerly a U.S. assistant secretary of commerce for international trade administration, tells Congress that the upsurge of investments in the United States by sovereign wealth funds presents economic and national security problems for the country. To the contrary, Stuart E. Eizenstat, a partner in Covington & Burling, a Washington, DC, law firm and formerly chief domestic policy adviser to the U.S. president, undersecretary of state, and deputy secretary of the treasury, reassures Congress that sovereign wealth funds bolster the U.S. economy and balance a significant net plus for the U.S. economy.
Issue 13. Is Immigration an Economic Benefit to the Host Country?
YES: Dan Siciliano, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Immigration: Economic Impact,? before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (April 24, 2006)NO: Barry R. Chiswick, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Immigration: Economic Impact,? before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (April 24, 2006)Dan Siciliano, executive director, Program in Law, Business, and Economics, and research fellow with the Immigration Policy Center at the American Immigration Law Foundation, Stanford Law School, contends that immigration provides many economic benefits for the United States. Barry R. Chiswick, UIC Distinguished Professor, and program director, Migration Studies IZA?Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany, takes the position that legal immigration has a negative impact on the U.S. economy and that illegal immigration increases the problems.
Unit 4 Issues About Violence and Arms Control
Issue 14. Is Patient Diplomacy the Best Approach to Iran?s Nuclear Program?
YES: Christopher Hemmer, from ?Responding to a Nuclear Iran,? Parameters (Autumn 2007) NO: Norman Podhoretz, from ?Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands,? Commentary (February 2008) Christopher Hemmer, an associate professor in the Department of International Security Studies at the Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama, writes that while a nuclear-armed Iran will pose challenges for the United States, they can be met through an active policy of deterrence, containment, engagement, and the reassurance of America?s allies in the region. Disputing that assertion, Norman Podhoretz, editor-at-large of the opinion journal Commentary, argues that the consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will be disastrous and that there is far less risk using whatever measures are necessary, including military force, to prevent that than there is in dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Issue 15. Should U.S. Development of a Missile Defense System Continue?
YES: Jeff Kueter, from Testimony during Hearings on ?What Are the Prospects, What Are the Costs? Oversight of Missile Defense (Part 2),? before the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives (April 16, 2008) NO: Philip E. Coyle, III, from Testimony during Hearings on ?What Are the Prospects, What Are the Costs? Oversight of Missile Defense (Part 2),? before the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives (April 16, 2008) Jeff Kueter, President of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, DC, urges continued support for building a defense against missile attacks because doing so would provide options for addressing a growing threat in an uncertain world. Taking the opposite side, Philip E. Coyle, III, senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information, a liberal think tank in Washington, DC, and former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, takes the view that trying to build a missile defense system will be very expensive, is unlikely to work, and will reignite a destabilizing nuclear arms race.
Unit 5 International Law and Organization Issues
Issue 16. Is UN Peacekeeping Seriously Flawed?
YES: Brett D. Schaefer, from Testimony during Hearings on ?United Nations Peacekeeping: Challenges and Opportunities,? before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate ( July 23, 2008)NO: William J. Durch, from ?Peace and Stability Operations: Challenges and Opportunities for the Next U.S. Administration,? Testimony during Hearings on ?United Nations Peacekeeping: Challenges and Opportunities,? before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Committee on
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (July 23, 2008)Brett D. Schaefer, the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, DC, contends that the increased number and size of recent UN deployments have overwhelmed the capabilities of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, leading to problems that make support of UN peacekeeping questionable. William J. Durch, senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center, an internationalist-oriented think tank in Washington, DC, acknowledges that UN peacekeeping has had problems, but argues that the UN is making major reforms and deserves strong support.
Issue 17. Is U.S. Refusal to Join the International Criminal Court Wise?
YES: John R. Bolton, from ?The United States and the International Criminal Court,? Remarks to the Federalist Society (November 14, 2002) NO: Jonathan F. Fanton, from ?The Challenge of International Justice,? Remarks to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York (May 5, 2008)John R. Bolton, at the time U.S. under secretary of state for arms control and international security and beginning in 2005, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, explains why President George W. Bush had decided to reject membership in the International Criminal Court. Taking a different position, Jonathan F. Fanton, president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which is headquartered in Chicago, IL, and is among the world?s largest independent foundations, maintains that creation of the International Court of Justice is an important step toward creating a more just world, and that the fear that many Americans have expressed about the court have not materialized.
Issue 18. Has the U.S. Detention and Trial of Accused Foreign Terrorists Been Legally Unsound?
YES: Kate Martin, from Testimony during Hearings on ?How the Administration?s Failed Detainee Policies Have Hurt the Fight against Terrorism: Putting the Fight against Terrorism on Sound Legal Foundations,? before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (July 16, 2008)NO: David B. Rivkin, from Testimony during Hearings on ?How the Administration?s Failed Detainee Policies Have Hurt the Fight against Terrorism: Putting the Fight against Terrorism on Sound Legal Foundations,? before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (July 16, 2008) Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, criticizes what she describes as extraordinary and unsupportable claims by the executive branch that the president is free to ignore statutory law and violate civil rights in order to conduct the war against terror. She also notes that the president?s stand has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. Rebutting this point of view, David B. Rivkin, a partner in the law firm of Baker & Hostetler and former deputy director of the Office of Policy Development, U.S. Department of Justice, contends that while some aspects of the treatment of accused foreign terrorists in U.S. custody have not met the civil liberties standards normally enjoyed by Americans, the Bush administration?s policies have been indispensable in protecting Americans during the war on terrorism and that the administration?s legal positions have generally been upheld by the courts.
Unit 6 The Environment
Issue 19. Are Warnings about Global Warming Unduly Alarmist?
YES: James Inhofe, from Remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record (October 26, 2007)NO: Barbara Boxer, from Remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record (October 29, 2007)James Inhofe, a Republican member of the U.S. Senate from Oklahoma, tells the Senate that objective, evidence-based science is beginning to show that the predictions of catastrophic humanmade global warming are overwought. Rejecting Senator Inhofe?s contentions, Barbara Boxer, a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate from California, responds that Senator Inhofe?s is one of the very few isolated and lonely voices that keeps on saying we do not have to worry about global warming, while, in reality, it is a major problem that demands a prompt response.
Issue 20. Should the United States Ratify the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women?
YES: Harold Hongju Koh, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,? before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (June 13, 2002)NO: Grace Smith Melton, from ?CEDAW: How U.N. Interference Threatens the Rights of American Women,? Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2227 (January 9, 2009)Harold Hongju Koh, the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale University and former U.S. assistant secretary of state contends that the United States cannot champion progress for women?s human rights around the world unless it is also a party to the global women?s treaty. Grace Smith Melton, an associate for social issues at the United Nations with the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, contends that ratifying would neither advance women?s equality nor serve American foreign policy interests, including the security and advancement of women around the globe.
Issue 21. Is President Barack Obama?s Strategic Nuclear Arms Control Policy Sound?
YES: William J. Perry, from Testimony during Hearings on ?The July Summit and Beyond: Prospects for U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Reductions,? before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (June 24, 2009)NO: Keith B. Payne, from Testimony during Hearings on ?The July Summit and Beyond: Prospects for U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Reductions,? before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (June 24, 2009)William J. Perry, former U.S. secretary of defense, reviews and generally supports the statements and early policy moves of the Obama administration with regard to strategic nuclear weapons. Keith B. Payne, professor in and head of the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, outlines ?six major concerns? he has with the apparent early direction of the Obama administration?s efforts to re-establish strategic arms control as a centerpiece of U.S.-Russian engagement.
Clashing Views in World Politics, Fourteenth Edition, Expanded
Unit 1 Globalization and the International System
Issue 1. Is Economic Globalization a Positive Trend?
YES: International Monetary Fund Staff, from ?Globalization: A Brief Overview,? Issues Brief (May 2008)NO: Nancy Birdsall, from ?The World Is not Flat: Inequality and Injustice in Our Global Economy,? WIDER Annual Lecture 9, United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economics Research (October 31, 2005)Staff members of the International Monetary Fund conclude on the basis of experiences across the world that unhindered international economic interchange, the core principle of globalization, seems to underpin greater prosperity. Nancy Birdsall, founding president of the Center for Global Development, argues that globalization is not benefiting all and that a major challenge of the twenty-first century will be to address persistent and unjust inequality, which global markets alone cannot resolve.
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 Young Women and Men of North America, contends that many cultures around the world are gradually disappearing due to the overwhelming influence of corporate 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. Does Capitalism Undermine Democracy?
YES: Robert B. Reich, from ?How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy,? Foreign Policy (September/October 2007)NO: Anthony B. Kim, from ?The Link between Economic Freedom and Human Rights,? Heritage Foundation Web Memo #1650 (September 28, 2007)Robert B. Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and former U.S. secretary of labor, writes that capitalism leaves democratic societies unable to address the tradeoffs between economic growth and social problems. Taking the opposite point of view, Anthony B. Kim, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation?s Center for International Trade and Economics, contends that economic progress through advancing economic freedom has allowed more people to discuss and adopt different views more candidly, ultimately leading societies to be more open and inclusive.
Unit 2 Regional and Country Issues
Issue 4. Should the United States Substantially Limit Its Global Involvement?
YES: Ivan Eland, from ?Homeward Bound?? The National Interest (July/August 2008)NO: Barack Obama, from ?The American Moment,? Remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (April 23, 2007)Ivan Eland, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, a libertarian think tank in Oakland, California and Washington, DC, contends that neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party in the United States has shown any inclination to follow the wise counsel of the country?s founders such as George Washington and practice restraint in the country?s overseas involvement. By contrast, Barack Obama, then a Democratic U.S. senator from Illinois and the 2008 nominee of the Democratic Party for president, sharply criticizes the foreign policy of President George W. Bush for undercutting American leadership of the world and argues that it is time to reclaim that leadership through a new approach.
Issue 5. Has Russia Become Undemocratic and Antagonistic?
YES: Tucker Herbert and Diane Raub, from ?Russian Geopolitik,? The Stanford Review (June 2, 2006)NO: Eugene B. Rumer, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Developments in U.S.?Russia Relations? before the Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats, Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (March 9, 2005) Tucker Herbert and Diane Raub, both of whom are on the staff of the Stanford Review, an independent, student-run newspaper at Stanford University, argue that under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has fallen from the ranks of democracies and is engaged in a foreign policy that pits U.S. interests against those of Russia. Eugene B. Rumer, a senior research fellow at the National Defense University?s Institute for National Strategic Studies in Washington, DC, recognizes that Russian democracy falls short of full scale and that Russian policy sometimes clashes with that of the United States, but argues that compared with the history of Russian democracy, which was zero before the 1990s, the country is not doing poorly and that Russia?s pursuit of its own interests should not be construed as necessarily antagonistic.
Issue 6. Will China Soon Become a Threatening Superpower?
YES: John J. Tkacik, Jr., from ?A Chinese Military Superpower?? Heritage Foundation Web Memo #1389 (March 8, 2007) NO: Samuel A. Bleicher, from ?China: Superpower or Basket Case?? FPIF Discussion Paper, Foreign Policy In Focus, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (May 8, 2008) John J. Tkacik, Jr., a senior research fellow in China policy at the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, contends that the evidence suggests instead that China?s intent is to challenge the United States as a military superpower. Disagreeing, Samuel A. Bleicher, principal in his international consulting firm, The Strategic Path LLC, argues that while China has made some remarkable economic progress, the reality is that the Chinese ?Communist? central government and Chinese economic, social, political, and legal institutions are quite weak.
Issue 7. Would It Be an Error to Establish a Palestinian State?YES: Patricia Berlyn, from ?Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine,? An Original Essay Written for This Volume (2006)NO: Rosemary E. Shinko, from ?Why a Palestinian State,? An Original Essay Written for This Volume (October 2006)Patricia 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 8. Should All Foreign Troops Soon Leave Iraq?YES: Lawrence B. Wilkerson, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Iraq: Alternative Strategies in a Post-Surge Environment,? before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives (January 23, 2008) NO: Michael Eisenstadt, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Iraq: Alternative Strategies in a Post-Surge Environment,? before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives (January 23, 2008)Lawrence B. Wilkerson, the Pamela C. Harriman Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary and formerly chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, tells Congress that most U.S. forces in Iraq should be quickly withdrawn because they are poorly positioned to protect U.S. interests and are exacerbating the antagonisms that make it difficult to defeat terrorism. Rejecting this position Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow and director of The Washington Institute?s Military and Security Studies Program, contends that there is no doubt that the surge of U.S. forces into Iraq in 2007 has dramatically improved the security environment in Iraq, and that too rapid a withdrawal would reverse the gains that have been made.
Issue 9. Does Hugo Chavez Threaten Hemispheric Stability and Democracy?YES: Norman A. Bailey, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Venezuela: Looking Ah
ead,? before the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (July 17, 2008)NO: Jennifer McCoy, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Venezuela: Looking Ahead,? before the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (July 17, 2008)Norman A. Bailey, a senior fellow at the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank in Vienna, Virginia, and formerly senior director of international economic affairs for the National Security Council, argues that Venezuela?s President Hugo Chavez is ruining the country economically, destroying its democracy, and undertaking foreign policies, including supporting terrorism, which threaten hemispheric stability. Taking a more sympathetic viewpoint toward Venezuela, Jennifer McCoy, professor of political science, Georgia State University and director of The Americas Program at The Carter Center, argues that the reforms Hugo Chavez has instituted in Venezuela are very popular there, that the charges that he supports terrorism are overdrawn, and that the best course for U.S. foreign policy is to start with positive signals and focus on pragmatic concerns of interest to both countries.
Issue 10. Is Military Intervention in Darfur Justified?YES: Susan E. Rice, from ?Dithering on Darfur: U.S. Inaction in the Face of Genocide,? Testimony during Hearings on ?Darfur: A ?Plan B? to Stop Genocide?? before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (April 11, 2007)NO: Alex de Waal, from ?Prospects for Peace in Darfur Today,? Testimony during Hearings on ?Current Situation in Darfur,? before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (April 19, 2007)Susan E. Rice, a senior fellow in foreign policy and global economics and development at the Brooking Institution, formerly U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs and nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to the UN in January 2009, says that using military force is long overdue to halt what she portrays as an ongoing genocide in Darfur. Alex de Waal, program director at the Social Science Research Council, a research organization in New York City, contends that inserting a military force into a very unstable situation would not likely bring success and that using diplomacy to create a situation where all sides want peace is a better strategy for now.
Unit 3 Economic Issues
Issue 11. Is World Trade Organization Membership Beneficial?
YES: Peter F. Allgeier, from Testimony during Hearings on ?The Future of the World Trade Organization,? before the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (May 17, 2005)NO: Lori Wallach, from Testimony during Hearings on ?The Future of the World Trade Organization,? before the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (May 17, 2005) Peter F. Allgeier, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, describes the World Trade Organization as beneficial to U.S. strategic and economic interests and argues that there is overwhelming value to be gained through continued U.S. participation in the organization. Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen?s Global Trade Watch, part of Public Citizen, a Washington, DC?based advocacy group, maintains that Congress should demand a transformation of WTO trade rules because they have failed to achieve the promised economic gains and have also undercut an array of nontrade, noneconomic policies and goals advantageous to the public interest in the United States and abroad.
Issue 12. Do Sovereign Wealth Funds Threaten Economic Sovereignty?
YES: Patrick A. Mulloy, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Sovereign Wealth Fund Acquisitions and Other Foreign Government Investments in the U.S.: Assessing the Economic and National Security Implications,? before the Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress (February 13, 2008)NO: Stuart E. Eizenstat, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Do Sovereign Wealth Funds Make the U.S. Economic Stronger or Pose a National Security Risk?? before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate (November 14, 2007)Patrick A. Mulloy, Washington representative of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and formerly a U.S. assistant secretary of commerce for international trade administration, tells Congress that the upsurge of investments in the United States by sovereign wealth funds presents economic and national security problems for the country. To the contrary, Stuart E. Eizenstat, a partner in Covington & Burling, a Washington, DC, law firm and formerly chief domestic policy adviser to the U.S. president, undersecretary of state, and deputy secretary of the treasury, reassures Congress that sovereign wealth funds bolster the U.S. economy and balance a significant net plus for the U.S. economy.
Issue 13. Is Immigration an Economic Benefit to the Host Country?
YES: Dan Siciliano, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Immigration: Economic Impact,? before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (April 24, 2006)NO: Barry R. Chiswick, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Immigration: Economic Impact,? before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (April 24, 2006)Dan Siciliano, executive director, Program in Law, Business, and Economics, and research fellow with the Immigration Policy Center at the American Immigration Law Foundation, Stanford Law School, contends that immigration provides many economic benefits for the United States. Barry R. Chiswick, UIC Distinguished Professor, and program director, Migration Studies IZA?Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany, takes the position that legal immigration has a negative impact on the U.S. economy and that illegal immigration increases the problems.
Unit 4 Issues About Violence and Arms Control
Issue 14. Is Patient Diplomacy the Best Approach to Iran?s Nuclear Program?
YES: Christopher Hemmer, from ?Responding to a Nuclear Iran,? Parameters (Autumn 2007) NO: Norman Podhoretz, from ?Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands,? Commentary (February 2008) Christopher Hemmer, an associate professor in the Department of International Security Studies at the Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama, writes that while a nuclear-armed Iran will pose challenges for the United States, they can be met through an active policy of deterrence, containment, engagement, and the reassurance of America?s allies in the region. Disputing that assertion, Norman Podhoretz, editor-at-large of the opinion journal Commentary, argues that the consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will be disastrous and that there is far less risk using whatever measures are necessary, including military force, to prevent that than there is in dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Issue 15. Should U.S. Development of a Missile Defense System Continue?
YES: Jeff Kueter, from Testimony during Hearings on ?What Are the Prospects, What Are the Costs? Oversight of Missile Defense (Part 2),? before the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives (April 16, 2008) NO: Philip E. Coyle, III, from Testimony during Hearings on ?What Are the Prospects, What Are the Costs? Oversight of Missile Defense (Part 2),? before the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives (April 16, 2008) Jeff Kueter, President of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, DC, urges continued support for building a defense against missile attacks because doing so would provide options for addressing a growing threat in an uncertain world. Taking the opposite side, Philip E. Coyle, III, senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information, a liberal think tank in Washington, DC, and former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, takes the view that trying to build a missile defense system will be very expensive, is unlikely to work, and will reignite a destabilizing nuclear arms race.
Unit 5 International Law and Organization Issues
Issue 16. Is UN Peacekeeping Seriously Flawed?
YES: Brett D. Schaefer, from Testimony during Hearings on ?United Nations Peacekeeping: Challenges and Opportunities,? before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate ( July 23, 2008)NO: William J. Durch, from ?Peace and Stability Operations: Challenges and Opportunities for the Next U.S. Administration,? Testimony during Hearings on ?United Nations Peacekeeping: Challenges and Opportunities,? before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Committee on
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (July 23, 2008)Brett D. Schaefer, the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, DC, contends that the increased number and size of recent UN deployments have overwhelmed the capabilities of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, leading to problems that make support of UN peacekeeping questionable. William J. Durch, senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center, an internationalist-oriented think tank in Washington, DC, acknowledges that UN peacekeeping has had problems, but argues that the UN is making major reforms and deserves strong support.
Issue 17. Is U.S. Refusal to Join the International Criminal Court Wise?
YES: John R. Bolton, from ?The United States and the International Criminal Court,? Remarks to the Federalist Society (November 14, 2002) NO: Jonathan F. Fanton, from ?The Challenge of International Justice,? Remarks to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York (May 5, 2008)John R. Bolton, at the time U.S. under secretary of state for arms control and international security and beginning in 2005, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, explains why President George W. Bush had decided to reject membership in the International Criminal Court. Taking a different position, Jonathan F. Fanton, president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which is headquartered in Chicago, IL, and is among the world?s largest independent foundations, maintains that creation of the International Court of Justice is an important step toward creating a more just world, and that the fear that many Americans have expressed about the court have not materialized.
Issue 18. Has the U.S. Detention and Trial of Accused Foreign Terrorists Been Legally Unsound?
YES: Kate Martin, from Testimony during Hearings on ?How the Administration?s Failed Detainee Policies Have Hurt the Fight against Terrorism: Putting the Fight against Terrorism on Sound Legal Foundations,? before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (July 16, 2008)NO: David B. Rivkin, from Testimony during Hearings on ?How the Administration?s Failed Detainee Policies Have Hurt the Fight against Terrorism: Putting the Fight against Terrorism on Sound Legal Foundations,? before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (July 16, 2008) Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, criticizes what she describes as extraordinary and unsupportable claims by the executive branch that the president is free to ignore statutory law and violate civil rights in order to conduct the war against terror. She also notes that the president?s stand has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. Rebutting this point of view, David B. Rivkin, a partner in the law firm of Baker & Hostetler and former deputy director of the Office of Policy Development, U.S. Department of Justice, contends that while some aspects of the treatment of accused foreign terrorists in U.S. custody have not met the civil liberties standards normally enjoyed by Americans, the Bush administration?s policies have been indispensable in protecting Americans during the war on terrorism and that the administration?s legal positions have generally been upheld by the courts.
Unit 6 The Environment
Issue 19. Are Warnings about Global Warming Unduly Alarmist?
YES: James Inhofe, from Remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record (October 26, 2007)NO: Barbara Boxer, from Remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record (October 29, 2007)James Inhofe, a Republican member of the U.S. Senate from Oklahoma, tells the Senate that objective, evidence-based science is beginning to show that the predictions of catastrophic humanmade global warming are overwought. Rejecting Senator Inhofe?s contentions, Barbara Boxer, a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate from California, responds that Senator Inhofe?s is one of the very few isolated and lonely voices that keeps on saying we do not have to worry about global warming, while, in reality, it is a major problem that demands a prompt response.
Issue 20. Should the United States Ratify the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women?
YES: Harold Hongju Koh, from Testimony during Hearings on ?Ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,? before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (June 13, 2002)NO: Grace Smith Melton, from ?CEDAW: How U.N. Interference Threatens the Rights of American Women,? Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2227 (January 9, 2009)Harold Hongju Koh, the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale University and former U.S. assistant secretary of state contends that the United States cannot champion progress for women?s human rights around the world unless it is also a party to the global women?s treaty. Grace Smith Melton, an associate for social issues at the United Nations with the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, contends that ratifying would neither advance women?s equality nor serve American foreign policy interests, including the security and advancement of women around the globe.
Issue 21. Is President Barack Obama?s Strategic Nuclear Arms Control Policy Sound?
YES: William J. Perry, from Testimony during Hearings on ?The July Summit and Beyond: Prospects for U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Reductions,? before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (June 24, 2009)NO: Keith B. Payne, from Testimony during Hearings on ?The July Summit and Beyond: Prospects for U.S.-Russia Nuclear Arms Reductions,? before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (June 24, 2009)William J. Perry, former U.S. secretary of defense, reviews and generally supports the statements and early policy moves of the Obama administration with regard to strategic nuclear weapons. Keith B. Payne, professor in and head of the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, outlines ?six major concerns? he has with the apparent early direction of the Obama administration?s efforts to re-establish strategic arms control as a centerpiece of U.S.-Russian engagement.