In this unit, students examine the many differences in the world and the challenges posed by increasing global integration. Students are introduced to the study of geopolitics and the importance of homelands to cultural groups. That said, it is very difficult to study Geopolitics without looking at the history of a nation and how it is ruled, as well as the relationships it has had with neighbouring countries.
Take a look at the following current Geopolitical issues around the world:
1. Switzerland currently restricts immigration because their conservative government has the belief that European Union (foreigners) members coming to Switzerland are undermining their wages and economy -- see here
2. The ongoing search for the missing airplane Malaysia flight MH370 in the Pacific -- see here and here
3. Continued tensions in Crimea -- see here and here
Take a look at the following current Geopolitical issues around the world:
1. Switzerland currently restricts immigration because their conservative government has the belief that European Union (foreigners) members coming to Switzerland are undermining their wages and economy -- see here
2. The ongoing search for the missing airplane Malaysia flight MH370 in the Pacific -- see here and here
3. Continued tensions in Crimea -- see here and here
Key Questions:
- Why do we need a sense of place in a global context?
- What is the importance of geopolitics?
- What are the varying levels of economic opportunity in a global / national / regional context?
- What is economic disparity and how does the unequal distribution of natural resources around the globe impact populations?
- What is the role of economic disparities in, the distribution of natural resources, historical and geopolitical factors, and cultural needs/wants in global conflict?
- How can we use GIS to understand patterns of environmental disparity?
- What are some local responses to global issues and how have they worked to redress the balance?
Introduction to Geopolitics
|
Notes:
THE Global Peace Index (GPI)
The Global Peace Index (GPI) is the world’s leading measure of national peacefulness. Now in its eighth year, it ranks 162 nations according to their ‘absence of violence. The GPI is developed by IEP under the guidance of an international panel of independent experts with data partly collated and calculated by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). It is composed of 22 indicators, ranging from a nation’s level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries and the percentage of prison population.
The GPI is intended to contribute significantly to the public debate on peace. The project’s ambition is to go beyond a crude measure of wars—and systematically explore the texture of peace.
The Index is currently used by many international organisations, governments and NGOs including the World Bank, the OECD, and the United Nations. |
|
International Terrorism and Non-State Actors
Since the UN's founding in 1946, there have been almost no major conflicts between industrialized nations; however, a new host of threats now occupy the international security agenda. September 11, 2001 highlighted, perhaps more than any other event since 1989, the power of transnational groups. Organized without the open support of any nation, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 killed nearly 3,000 people, contributed to a worldwide economic downturn, and radically altered political landscapes in the US and abroad.
Though terrorist groups such as Al'Qaeda and acts like 9/11 are not new - Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and others have dealt with modern terrorism for decades - they are now getting more attention. Securing ports, airports, and borders is a major concern (and issue of debate) in many countries, particularly those that participated in the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Canada included. Non-state actors in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Asia vying either to control the state or disrupt it have displaced communities and led to the deaths of thousands, beginning as early as the 1950s. Canada's current mission in southern Afghanistan, where Canadian Armed Forces are locked in a struggle with Taliban forces and other insurgents for control of the area, faces this reality.
9/11 has also highlighted the vulnerability of states and their limited ability to respond to non-state-based threats. The "War on Terror," as it has been called by the US, is one such response. At home, it has meant stricter border security, tighter immigration policies, and increased domestic policing.
Abroad it has meant wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and international coalitions aimed at disabling terrorist groups by freezing their financial assets, arresting terrorism suspects, and monitoring the movement of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. So called "rogue states" such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and
Syria have also been put under increased scrutiny by the international community, primarily over their nuclear programmes and arms trafficking.
International institutions have also been challenged by new threats. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, begun by a "Coalition of the Willing" without official authorization from the United Nations Security Council, is one such challenge. Instead of relying primarily on the UN, the US and its allies have assembled new ad-hoc multilateral initiatives in their response to terrorism, including the Proliferation Security Initiative, the Iraq coalition, and new bilateral security partnerships with Pakistan, India, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and others. These responses are viewed both positively and negatively. Some argue that these new arrangements allow countries under threat (e.g., the US after 9/11) to act swiftly and decisively. Critics have pointed to their ineffectiveness in terms of combating terrorism and the negative effects of their implementation, especially on civilian populations.
The United States has come under particular international scrutiny for a range of actions that undermine international law - its treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, its use of CIA interrogation bases abroad, its transfer of prisoners (like Mike Arar) to countries like Syria that practice torture, and its use of landmines in countries like Afghanistan. The US administration has responded to criticism by arguing that its actions are essential to homeland security and winning the global "war on terror."
Though terrorist groups such as Al'Qaeda and acts like 9/11 are not new - Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and others have dealt with modern terrorism for decades - they are now getting more attention. Securing ports, airports, and borders is a major concern (and issue of debate) in many countries, particularly those that participated in the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Canada included. Non-state actors in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Asia vying either to control the state or disrupt it have displaced communities and led to the deaths of thousands, beginning as early as the 1950s. Canada's current mission in southern Afghanistan, where Canadian Armed Forces are locked in a struggle with Taliban forces and other insurgents for control of the area, faces this reality.
9/11 has also highlighted the vulnerability of states and their limited ability to respond to non-state-based threats. The "War on Terror," as it has been called by the US, is one such response. At home, it has meant stricter border security, tighter immigration policies, and increased domestic policing.
Abroad it has meant wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and international coalitions aimed at disabling terrorist groups by freezing their financial assets, arresting terrorism suspects, and monitoring the movement of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. So called "rogue states" such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and
Syria have also been put under increased scrutiny by the international community, primarily over their nuclear programmes and arms trafficking.
International institutions have also been challenged by new threats. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, begun by a "Coalition of the Willing" without official authorization from the United Nations Security Council, is one such challenge. Instead of relying primarily on the UN, the US and its allies have assembled new ad-hoc multilateral initiatives in their response to terrorism, including the Proliferation Security Initiative, the Iraq coalition, and new bilateral security partnerships with Pakistan, India, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and others. These responses are viewed both positively and negatively. Some argue that these new arrangements allow countries under threat (e.g., the US after 9/11) to act swiftly and decisively. Critics have pointed to their ineffectiveness in terms of combating terrorism and the negative effects of their implementation, especially on civilian populations.
The United States has come under particular international scrutiny for a range of actions that undermine international law - its treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, its use of CIA interrogation bases abroad, its transfer of prisoners (like Mike Arar) to countries like Syria that practice torture, and its use of landmines in countries like Afghanistan. The US administration has responded to criticism by arguing that its actions are essential to homeland security and winning the global "war on terror."
Changing Nature of Conflict
Threats to peace and security are shifting and become less predictable. Terrorism is on the rise and disturbing trends - some new, some old - are contributing to a challenging security environment. These include:
- The possibility that non-state actors could secure and use nuclear and or biological weapons against targets in Canada and abroad;
- The difficulty of keeping Canada's borders, long undefended, closed to terrorists but open to trade;
- The challenge Canada's military faces as it is called upon to not only keep the peace between clearly defined opponents, but also to battle insurgents who are difficult to tell apart from civilians;
- The lack of international will and capacity to deal effectively with genocide; and
- The melting of the ice cap and the consequent challenges to Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.
- How should Canada respond to these threats?
- What do Canadians need to do, domestically and internationally, position Canada so that it can best address the changing nature of conflict?
EXAM REVIEW
|
AP Multiple Choice Review Questions
|