Search

The recent North Korean attack on a South Korean ship, killing 11 crew members, underscores the continuing vestiges of the Cold War and Korean War armistice--or does it? While the event suggests imminent conflict between two smaller powers, it is contended here that the primary reason for the continuing tensions on the Korean peninsula is that the four major powers involved are unwilling to seek an agreement among themselves to leave the fate of Koreans up to the self-determination of Korean leadership groups on the Korean peninsula. Further, the reason for this unwillingness is that none have given up hopes that in some alternative future circumstances may change that would enable one of them to reacquire control of the Korean peninsula. At the root of this explanation is the assumption that realist perspectives have not changed much and still control the minds of men. Thus only a major shift in the distribution of power and influence is likely to produce significant change in realist perspectives and conclusions about intentions, opportunities, dangers, and strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is an analysis of the issues, values, priorities, and national interests of major powers on the Korean peninsula, evaluating a number of scenarios. Globalization, technological change, and terrorism have been addressed as trends and political problems that impact Korea and the major powers in the region. Each is discussed in terms of their impact on reunification strategies on the one hand, and maintaining the status quo on the other. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the better half of the last century, the "north-south" distinction, the "east-west" distinction, and similar characterizations such as the "clash of civilizations" today, have been employed to denote key characteristics of international politics and economics. Whether based on economic, technological, political, or religious and ethnic distinctions, it is argued here that such characterizations are fundamentally misleading polemics, distracting political scientists, philosophers, and practitioners from framing discourse in more empirical, analytical and more useful terms. It is argued that a more careful treatment of fundamentals such as the nature of political leadership, political systems, political psychology and political economics is vital to understanding globalization phenomena. It is also argued that careful attention to paradigms and paradigm shifts between political philosophers, scientists and practitioners is needed to more clearly frame key questions and relations between them. A framework for recasting debates is offered in which modern political analysis can more effectively address key issues in globalization such as the distribution of values, environmental concerns, and terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three interwoven streams of pedagogy and methodology are discussed as applied to the teaching of international relations in a multicultural environment: (1) Deming's "theory of profound knowledge," (2) Hughes' International Futures simulation (IFs) of the global political economy and international conflict, and Saaty's "analytic hierarchy process" for coherent decision making. The problems addressed include the teaching of critical thinking, appreciation of a systems perspective, and concepts of decisionmaking and value change. Key findings from twelve years of following a process of "continuous improvement" are put in the form of some controversial perspectives pertaining to: the optimal number of students in a classroom (80 or more!), the classroom as a locus for the continuous improvement of a student culture for learning (intergenerational learning across time in a classroom!), and the unresolved dilemma of addressing long term environmental problems given short term political orientations prevalent in international relations despite globalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Great powers' national security, antiterrorism policies often focus on migrant and other ethnic minorities. Refocusing on classical diasporadic minorities, and perceived social injustices, is suggested to avoid costly if not fatal policy errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three interlaced paradigms prevail among international studies scholars today. Each requires assumptions or "categorical imperatives" which the others of necessity bring into question. In the absence of recognition of this situation, academic cacophony, along with a great deal of frustration and alienation, takes place, primarily via misplaced criticism. Specifically, within the broad framework of science, international relations researchers find themselves easy targets of critiques from the foreign policy and political philosophy perspectives, essentially because of the discipline which science imposes. Similarly, foreign policy scholars find themselves critiqued both for their lack of scientific discipline and philosophical rigor. The political philosophers dealing with the meanings and merits of globalization, find themselves critiqued on practical policy grounds and on their lack of scientific discipline. Recognition of the interdependence and limitations of each paradigm relative to the others, should obviate most of the acrimonious disputation and irrelevant criticism characterizing debates today, as well as lay the groundwork for a new level of cooperation and synergistic research between them. Use is made of the recent National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project report and International Futures simulation on the DNI website to illustrate this thesis. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the National Intelligence Council's "2020 Report," the publicly available computer simulation employed, the nature of its alternative national security futures, and the need for greater public education about this work. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intersection of international politics, technology, and outer space offers a rich area for speculation as well as contemporary historical review. In this paper I address several key area: the fundamentals of IR theory and paradigms that I expect to persist and to be vital to our understanding and envisioning of future outer space regimes; the nature of ongoing technological revolutions and their likely impacts on key political problems of value distributions, including political stability and control; and the nature of changes in beliefs and attitudes towards governance both by the governed and the governing. I conclude that it will be necessary to grow a metadiscipline that permits rich discourse across and between the philosophical, scientific, and practical politics paradigms in which we are presently embedded, if we are to transcend their limitations and prepare for and create a future that is at once complex, chaotic, manageable and desirable. I offer a few suggestions to those ends. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]