Mary Kaldor, "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races, and Arms Control"

Quesions for Making Connections Within the Reading:

1. What does Charles Tilly mean when he writes, "States made war and war made the state"? Is it true that war is primarily what defines us as Americans today? How about in the past? In what ways have wars played a decisive role in shaping our national identity?

2. What forces are responsible for the idea of "casualty-free war"? Is the expectation on the part of Americans that war should be casualty-free, or as close to this goal as possible, simply a consequence of technological innovations, or are there other causes as well? What kinds of wars do you feel that most Americans are prepared to support? What kinds might they object to?

3. Why doesn't Kaldor use the term terrorism to cover all forms of non-state sponsored violence? In what ways does her alternative term, new war, complicate our thinking about "unofficial" conflicts? Would you say that her terminology runs the risk of legitimizing terrorism? Alternately, does it free us from the arbitrariness that some might see in the use of that term?

Questions for Writing:

1. Is there a contradiction between "the new American militarism" and Kaldor's view that "the most hopeful approach to the contemporary problem of controlling war. . . is not through arms control but through the extension and application of international humanitarian law. . . and human rights law"? Does our country's "new militarism" contribute to, or detract from, the advancement of human rights and international order?

2. What is the difference between viewing the events of September 11 as an act of "terrorism" or "moral evil" and viewing them instead as "a political act"? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach to the event? Why, do you think, has a political interpretation of the events of September 11 received so little attention from the popular press? To say that readers and viewers "want something else" is not really an answer. Please consider the culture of the popular press: Does it rely on a nationalist perspective or globalist one?

Questions for Making Connections Between Readings:

1. In "A World on the Edge," Amy Chua argues that "market-dominant minorities are the Achilles' heel of free-market democracy" because their success inspires resentment that leads to instability and violence. In such a context, is it advisable for First World countries like the United States to move "beyond militarism," as Kaldor recommends? If the U.S. began to support a greater degree of international cooperation, would this approach to political unrest also help to defuse the tensions created by economic inequality, or might it actually worsen those tensions by making America's wealth and power even more frustratingly obvious? Would Chua agree with Kaldor's proposals for responding to netforce threats?

2. Is Kaldor's view of human rights consistent with Martha Nussbaum's? If the United States were to adopt Nussbaum's ethical program as the basis of its foreign policy, would the result be a higher level of integration between states, or an increased degree of international tension? In what ways might disagreements over basic moral issues stand in the way of global mechanisms for conflict resolution? Would the Taliban, for example, have bowed voluntarily to world pressure to improve the status of Afghan women? If globalization is inevitable, are wars over basic values inevitable as well, given the world's cultural diversity?

More Kaldor assignments . . . .