Perspectives on international relations power institutions and ideas henry r. nau - The ebook is ava
Perspectives on International Relations Power Institutions and Ideas Henry R. Nau
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/perspectives-on-international-relations-power-instituti ons-and-ideas-henry-r-nau/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
International Political Economy Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth J. Lawrence Broz
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in Canada
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Nau, Henry R , 1941– author
Title: Perspectives on international relations : power, institutions, and ideas / Henry R. Nau.
Description: Sixth edition. | Los Angeles : CQ Press, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017045663 | ISBN 978-1-5063-9622-4 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: International relations. | World politics.
Classification: LCC JZ1305 .N34 2007 | DDC 327.101 dc23 LC record available at https://lccn loc gov/2017045663
This book is printed on acid-free paper
Acquisitions Editor: Scott Greenan
Development Editor: Elise Frasier
Content Development Editor: John Scappini
Editorial Assistant: Sarah Christensen
Production Editor: David C Felts
Copy Editor: Melinda Masson
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd
Proofreaders: Jeff Bryant, Sarah J Duffy
Indexer: Wendy Allex
Cover Designer: Scott Van Atta
Marketing Manager: Erica DeLuca
About the Author
Jessica Burt/The George Washington University
Henry R. Nau
has taught political science for nearly fifty years He is currently professor of political science and international affairs at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University He taught previously at Williams College and held visiting appointments at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Stanford University, and Columbia University. From 1989 to 2016, he directed the U.S.–Japan–South Korea Legislative Exchange Program, semiannual meetings among members of the U.S. Congress, the Japanese Diet, and the South Korean National Assembly In 2016, the Japanese government awarded him the Order of the Rising Sun, Neck Ribbon with Gold Rays, the highest honor for academic leaders, in recognition of his work on this Exchange.
Nau also served in government twice, once from 1975 to 1977 as special assistant to the undersecretary for economic affairs in the U.S. Department of State and again from 1981 to 1983 as a senior staff member of the National Security Council under President Reagan, responsible for international economic affairs. He was the White House aide, or Sherpa, for the annual G7 economic summits in Ottawa (1981), Versailles (1982), and Williamsburg (1983), and for the special summit with developing countries in Cancun (1982). He is a former member of the UN Committee for Development Planning and the U S Department of State’s Advisory Committee on International Investment. From 1977 to 1981, Nau served on the Board of Editors of the journal International Organization He has received research grants from, among others, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the National Science Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations, the SmithRichardson Foundation, the Century Foundation, the Japan-U S Friendship Commission, the Hoover Institution, the Rumsfeld Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation From 1963 to 1965, he served as a lieutenant in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Nau’s published books include, among others, Conservative Internationalism: Armed Diplomacy under Jefferson, Polk, Truman, and Reagan (Princeton University Press, 2013, and paperback with new preface, 2015); At Home Abroad: Identity and Power in American Foreign Policy (Cornell University Press, 2002); Trade and Security: U.S. Policies at Cross-Purposes (American Enterprise Institute, 1995); The Myth of America’s Decline: Leading the World Economy into the 1990s (Oxford University Press, 1990); and National Politics and International Technology: Peaceful Nuclear Reactor Development in Western Europe (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974). His most recent edited book is Worldviews of Aspiring Powers: Domestic Foreign Policy Debates in China, India, Iran, Japan, and Russia, coedited with Deepa M. Ollapally (Oxford University Press, 2012). Recent articles and chapters in edited books include “Trump’s Conservative Internationalism,” National Review, August 2017; “America’s International Nationalism,” American Interest, January/February 2017; “The Difference Reagan Made,” Claremont Review of Books, Winter 2016–2017; “How Restraint Leads to War: The Real Danger of the Iran Deal,” Commentary (July/August, 2015); “Ideas Have Consequences: The Cold War and Today,” International Politics 48 (July/September 2011): 460–81; “No Alternative to ‘Isms,’” International Studies Quarterly 55, no. 2 (June 2011): 487–91; “The ‘Great Expansion’: The Economic Legacy of Ronald Reagan,” in Reagan’s Legacy in a Transformed World, edited by Jeffrey L. Chidester and Paul Kengor (Harvard University Press, 2015); “Scholarship and Policy-Making: Who Speaks Truth to Whom?,” in The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (Oxford University Press, 2008); and “Iraq and Previous Transatlantic Crises: Divided by Threat, Not Institutions or Values,” in The End of the West? Crisis and Change in the Atlantic Order, edited by Jeffrey Anderson, G. John Ikenberry, and Thomas Risse (Cornell University Press, 2008).
Brief Contents
1. About the Author
2 Figures, Maps, Parallel Timelines, and Tables
3. Preface
4. Introduction. Why We Disagree about International Relations
5. 1. How to Think about International Relations: Perspectives, Levels of Analysis, and Causal Arrows
6 Part I Historical Patterns
1. 2. World War I: World on Fire
2. 3. World War II: Why Did War Happen Again?
3. 4. The Origins and End of the Cold War
7. Part II. The Contemporary International System
1 5 Realist Perspectives on Today’s World: Unipolarity, Balance of Power, and State Actors
2 6 Liberal Perspectives on Today’s World: Collective Security, Diplomacy, International Institutions, and Law
3. 7. Identity Perspectives on Today’s World: Democracy, Religion, Nationalism, and Human Rights
8. Part III. Globalization and Change
1 8 Realist and Liberal Perspectives on Globalization: Security, Domestic Economy, Trade, Investment, and Finance
2. 9. Identity Perspectives on Globalization: Development and Environment
3. 10. Critical Theory Perspectives on Globalization: Inequality, Imperialism, and Injustice
4 Conclusion Applying Perspectives and Levels of Analysis: The Case of the Democratic Peace
9. Notes
10. Glossary of Key Concepts
11. Index
Detailed Contents
About the Author
Figures, Maps, Parallel Timelines, and Tables
Preface
Introduction. Why We Disagree about International Relations
The Crisis in Syria
Some of the Facts
Sorting Out the Facts
Different Causes or Explanations
Studying International Relations
The Roles of Perspectives, Levels of Analysis, and Causal Arrows
The Role of History
Contemporary Foreign Policy Disputes: The 9/11 Attacks
Realist: Weak versus Strong at Different Levels of Analysis
Liberal: Failed Relationships at Different Levels of Analysis
Identity: Democratic Reform of Governments at Different Levels of Analysis
Critical Theory: Pervasive Violence at Different Levels of Analysis
The Role of Methods
Rationalist versus Constructivist
Sovereignty: Caused or Constituted
Correlation, Causation, and Process Tracing
Counterfactual Reasoning
Is One Perspective or Method Best?
The Role of Judgment
The Role of Ethics and Morality
Relativist Values
Universal Values
Pragmatic Values
Moral Choice
Summary
Key Concepts
Study Questions
1. How to Think about International Relations: Perspectives, Levels of Analysis, and Causal Arrows
Prisoner’s Dilemma
The Prisoner’s Dilemma from the Realist Perspective
The Prisoner’s Dilemma from the Liberal Perspective
The Prisoner’s Dilemma from the Identity Perspective
The Realist Perspective
Anarchy and Self-Help
State Actors and Sovereignty
Power
Security Dilemma
Balance of Power
Polarity and Alliances
War
The Liberal Perspective
Reciprocity and Interdependence
Technological Change and Modernization: Nongovernmental
Organizations
Diplomacy
Cooperation and Bargaining
Collective Goods
International Institutions
International Law
The Identity Perspective
Ideas and the Construction of Identities
Constructivism
Anarchy Is What States Make of It
Relative Identities
Distribution of Identities
Mapping Identities
Democratic Peace
Other Identity Approaches
Feminism
Critical Theory Perspectives
Marxism
Postmodernism
Levels of Analysis
Systemic Level of Analysis
Domestic Level of Analysis
Individual Level of Analysis
Foreign Policy Level of Analysis
Causal Arrows
Revisiting Explanations of World War I
Key Concepts
Study Questions
Part I. Historical Patterns
2 World War I: World on Fire
Europe in 1914
Realist Explanations
The Rise of German Power
Power Balancing: Triple Entente and Triple Alliance
Rigid Alliances and Preemptive War
Future Balances and Preventive War
Power Transition and Hegemonic Decline
Cartelized Domestic Politics and German Aggression
Liberal Explanations
Secret Diplomacy: Bismarck
Clumsy Diplomacy: Wilhelm II
Misperceptions and Mobilization Plans
The Last Move
Weak Domestic Institutions
Insufficient Interdependence: Trade and the Hague Conferences
Identity Explanations
Militant and Racist Nationalism
Liberal Nationalism
Socialist Nationalism
Social Darwinism
Critical Theory Explanations
Summary
Key Concepts
Study Questions
3 World War II: Why Did War Happen Again? Causes of Madness
Liberal Accounts
Collective Security, Not Balance of Power
The League of Nations
Why the League of Nations Failed
Realist Accounts
Versailles Treaty
Rapallo and Locarno
Germany Expands
Another Two-Front War
Japan and the Pacific War
Why Don’t Hegemons Stop?
Role of Misperceptions in Realist Accounts
Identity Matters
Cultural Nationalism
Liberal and Social Democracy
American Exceptionalism
Communist Nationalism
Fascist and Racist Nationalism
Ideological Constructions and Chasms
Critical Theory Perspective
Summary
Key Concepts
Study Questions
4 The Origins and End of the Cold War
The Long Telegram
Snapshot of the Cold War
Realist Explanations
How the Cold War Started
How the Cold War Expanded
How the Cold War Ended
Identity Explanations
How Ideas Started the Cold War
How Ideas Ended the Cold War
Liberal Explanations
United Nations
Truman’s Blundering Diplomacy
NATO and the European Community
Cuban Missile Crisis from a Liberal Perspective
Détente and the Helsinki Accords
The Information Revolution and the End of the Cold War
Critical Theory Perspective
Summary
Key Concepts
Study Questions
Part II. The Contemporary International System
5 Realist Perspectives on Today’s World: Unipolarity, Balance of Power, and State Actors
Unipolarity
Power Transition Realists
Power Balancing Realists
Minimal or National Realists
Hegemony versus Equilibrium
Balancing Power
Terrorism and Asymmetric Warfare
Rising Powers
Alliances
War
Iraq War, 2002–2006
Aftermath of Iraq War: 2009 to Present
Cyber Warfare
Domestic State Actors
Sovereignty
Foreign Policy Decision-Making Process
Failed States
Partition: Two-State Arab–Israeli Solution
Summary
Key Concepts
Study Questions
6. Liberal Perspectives on Today’s World: Collective Security, Diplomacy, International Institutions, and Law
Collective Security
The First Persian Gulf War
Somalia and Libya
Diplomacy
Peaceful Conflict Resolution: Oslo Accords
Legitimacy: Bosnia and Kosovo
Bargaining: 2003 Iraq War
Interdependence: China and Iran
International Institutions
United Nations
International Economic Institutions
Regional Institutions
European Union
Asian Regional Institutions
Nongovernmental Organizations
International Law
Law and Democracy
International Courts
Summary
Key Concepts
Study Questions
7. Identity Perspectives on Today’s World: Democracy, Religion, Nationalism, and Human Rights
Democracy End of History
Democracy in the Middle East
Arab Spring
Resurgence of Authoritarianism
Religion
Clash of Civilizations
Religion Trumps Democracy
Islam and the Muslim World
Whither the West and Radical Islam?
Nationalism
What Is Nationalism?
Civic Identity
Nation Building: Iraq and Afghanistan
Human Rights
Universal Human Rights
UN Human Rights Commission/Council
Convention on Women’s Rights
Convention on the Rights of the Child
European Human Rights Regime
Other Regional Human Rights Regimes
Summary
Key Concepts
Study Questions
Part III
Globalization and Change
8. Realist and Liberal Perspectives on Globalization: Security, Domestic
Economy, Trade, Investment, and Finance
Snapshot of Globalization
Security and Economics
Domestic Economic Policies
Macroeconomic Policies
Microeconomic Policies
Trade
Specialization and the Division of Labor
Comparative Advantage
Exceptions to Unrestricted Trade
Strategic Trade Theory
Trade and Jobs
Trade Negotiations
Investment
Resource-Based Foreign Investments
Manufacturing Foreign Investments
Service-Sector Foreign Investments
Multinational Corporations
Immigration Policies
Finance
Exchange Rates
Currency Markets
Balance of Payments
Debt Markets
Global Financial Crisis
Eurozone Crisis
Summary
Key Concepts
Study Questions
9. Identity Perspectives on Globalization: Development and Environment
Asia
Economic Miracle
Stable Governments/Unstable Region
Sound Economic Policies
Export-Led Development
Limits to Export-Led Growth
Asian Values
Latin America
Lost Decade
Early Decolonization/Unstable Governments
Import Substitution Policies
Opening Markets
Social Inequality
Sub-Saharan Africa
Poor and Divided Continent
Political Reforms
Economic Reforms
Human Development
Millennium Initiative and Foreign Aid
Middle East and North Africa
Political Reforms/Regional Peace Settlements
Resource (Oil) Curse
Women in Muslim Societies
Environment
Population Resources
Pollution and Global Warming
Pandemics
Summary
Key Concepts
Study Questions
10. Critical Theory Perspectives on Globalization: Inequality, Imperialism, and Injustice
Colonialism and Imperialism
Dependency
World Systems
Multinational Corporations and Exploitation of Labor
Marginalized Minorities: Global Injustice
Persisting Global Inequality
Summary
Key Concepts
Study Questions
Conclusion Applying Perspectives and Levels of Analysis: The Case of the Democratic Peace
Evidence
Explanations
Summary
Coda
Key Concepts
Study Questions
Notes
Glossary of Key Concepts
Index
Figures, Maps, Parallel Timelines, and Tables
Figures
Intro-1 What Level of Analysis Do the Causes of the Conflict with ISIS Come From? 5
Intro-2 What Perspective (Cause) Is Driving the Outcomes of the Conflict with ISIS? 6
Intro-3 The Cause of the ISIS Conflict According to the Realist Perspective, Systemic Level of Analysis 7
Intro-4 The Cause of the ISIS Conflict According to the Identity Perspective, Domestic Level of Analysis 8
Intro-5 The Cause of the ISIS Conflict According to the Realist Perspective, Individual Level of Analysis 8
Intro-6 The Cause of the ISIS Conflict According to the Liberal Perspective, Regional Level of Analysis 9
Intro-7 The Cause of the ISIS Conflict According to the Identity Perspective, Domestic Level of Analysis 9
Intro-8 Perspectives and Levels of Analysis: A Synopsis 13
Intro-9 The Causes of the 9/11 Attacks: From the Realist Perspective 17
Intro-10 The Causes of the 9/11 Attacks: From the Liberal Perspective 18
Intro-11 The Causes of the 9/11 Attacks: From the Identity Perspective 19
Intro-12 The Causes of the 9/11 Attacks: From the Critical Theory Perspective 20
Intro-13 How One Thinks about International Relations 29
1-1 Causal Arrows: The Realist View 36
1-2 Causal Arrows: The Liberal View 40
1-3 Causal Arrows: The Identity View 42
1-4 The Realist Worldview 48
1-5 The Liberal Worldview 57
1-6 The Identity Worldview 64
1-7 Causal Arrows: Realist Explanations for World War I 85
1-8 Causal Arrows: Liberal Explanations for World War I 86
1-9 Causal Arrows: Identity Explanations for World War I 87
2-1 The Causes of World War I: The Realist Perspective and Levels of Analysis 105
2-2 The Causes of World War I: The Liberal Perspective and Levels of Analysis 113
2-3 The Causes of World War I: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 118
2-4 The Causes of World War I: The Critical Theory Perspective and Levels of Analysis 119
3-1 The Causes of World War II: The Liberal Perspective and Levels of Analysis 134
3-2 The Causes of World War II: The Realist Perspective and Levels of Analysis 148
3-3 The Causes of World War II: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 156
3-4 The Causes of World War II: The Critical Theory Perspective and Levels of Analysis 158
4-1 First Page of George Kennan’s Long Telegram 163
4-2 The Causes of the Origins and Expansion of the Cold War: The Realist Perspective and Levels of Analysis 183
4-3 The Buildup of Nuclear Warheads, United States and Russia, 1945–1990 185
4-4 The Causes of the End of the Cold War: The Realist Perspective and Levels of Analysis 186
4-5 The Causes of the Origins of the Cold War: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 191
4-6 The Causes of the End of the Cold War: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 195
4-7 The Causes of the Origins of the Cold War: The Liberal Perspective and Levels of Analysis 202
4-8 The Causes of the End of the Cold War: The Liberal Perspective and Levels of Analysis 206
4-9 The Causes of the Origins and End of the Cold War: The Critical Theory Perspective and Levels of Analysis 207
5-1 Polarity: The Realist Perspective from Different Levels of Analysis 221
5-2 Global Terrorist Attacks, 1970–2016 225
5-3 Rising China 226
5-4 Balancing Power and War: The Realist Perspective from Different Levels of Analysis 240
5-5 State Actors: The Realist Perspective and Levels of Analysis 247
5-6 Domestic Power Struggles: The Realist Perspective and Levels of Analysis 252
6-1 The Growth of Liberal Institutions 258
6-2 Collective Security in Today’s World: The Liberal Perspective and Levels of Analysis 263
6-3 International Negotiations in Today’s World: The Liberal Perspective and Levels of Analysis 272
6-4 The United Nations 274
6-5 The European Union: Key Institutions 295
6-6 A Sampling of Transnational NGOs, by Field or Mission Focus 301
6-7 International and Regional Institutions in Today’s World: The Liberal Perspective and Levels of Analysis 303
6-8 Legal Institutions in Today’s World: The Liberal Perspective and Levels of Analysis 308
7-1 Freedom in Muslim-Majority Countries versus World Countries 319
7-2 Having a Democratic Political System Is . . . 320
7-3 Democracy in Today’s World: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis
324
7-4 Religion in Today’s World: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 334
7-5 Nation Building and Human Rights in Today’s World: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 351
8-1 Globalization: Go with the Flow 364
8-2 Wages of U S Trading Partners as a Share of U S Wages, Manufacturing 378
8-3 Manufacturing Wages in China on the Rise 379
8-4 Key Issues in Trade: The Realist and Liberal Perspectives and Levels of Analysis 386
8-5 Foreign Direct Investment Inflows: Global and by Group of Economies, 1984–2016 390
8-6 Key Issues in Investment: The Realist and Liberal Perspectives and Levels of Analysis 396
8-7 Instruments of International Economic Policy 408
8-8 Key Issues in Finance: The Realist and Liberal Perspectives and Levels of Analysis 409
9-1 Key Factors in Asian Development: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 427
9-2 Key Factors in Latin American Development: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 438
9-3 Key Factors in Sub-Saharan African Development: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 451
9-4 Key Factors in MENA Development: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 457
9-5 Projected Energy Consumption, 2003–2030 462
9-6 Key Factors in the Environment: The Identity Perspective and Levels of Analysis 474
10-1 Critical Theory Perspective on Globalization: Globalization as Consequence, Not Cause 481
10-2 The Causes of Globalization and Development: The Critical Theory Perspective and Levels of Analysis 499
Maps
2-1 Europe prior to German Unification in 1871 96
2-2 Europe and Germany in 1914 98
3-1 Germany before World War II, 1938 135
3-2 Germany and Occupied Territories, 1942 136
3-3 Japan and Japanese-Controlled Territories, 1942 137
3-4 Japanese and Other Territorial Holdings in the Pacific, 1939 141
4-1 The Division of Berlin 168
4-2 The Korean War, 1950–1953 173
4-3 Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam 181
5-1 China’s Nine Dash Line 227
5-2 Russia, Crimea, and Ukraine 229
5-3 Israel 251
5-4 Palestinian Territories 251
7-1 Freedom in the World 315
7-2 The Clash of Civilizations 326
8-1 Labor Patterns Worldwide 380
9-1 Global Development: Country GDP (PPP) per Capita 413
9-2 Income Distribution: Persistent Inequalities and New Opportunities 414
9-3 Asia’s Regions 418
9-4 Latin America’s Regions 429
9-5 Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Regions 440
9-6 Climate Vulnerability 470
10-1 Colonialism in the Modern World, circa 1900 483
Conclusion-1 Measures of the Democratic Peace: Democratization, Trade, and Participation in International Organizations 507
Parallel Timelines
2-1 Events Leading to World War I from Different Perspectives 95
3-1 Events Leading to World War II from Different Perspectives 125
4-1 Events Leading to the Origins and End of the Cold War 165
Tables
1-1 Prisoner’s Dilemma: A Realist Game 35
1-2 Situation of Prisoner’s Dilemma from Liberal Perspective: Repeated Communications 37
1-3 Situation of Prisoner’s Dilemma from Liberal Perspective: Change Goals (Frustrate the Warden) 38
1-4 Situation of Prisoner’s Dilemma from Liberal Perspective: Change Payoffs (Increase Costs of Defection/Conflict) 39
1-5 Situation of Prisoner’s Dilemma from Liberal Perspective: Change Payoffs (Reduce Costs of Cooperation) 40
1-6 Situation of Prisoner’s Dilemma from Identity Perspective: Change Identity 41
1-7 Relative and Shared National Identities 71
6-1 Lending and Spending: World Bank Expenditures (in US$ millions) 286
6-2 Membership in Key Regional Organizations 289
7-1 Human Rights: Key Indicators 343
8-1 Comparative Advantage 371
8-2 U.S. Balance of Payments, 2008 (in billions of dollars) 400
9-1 Comparing Development Experiences 475
Preface
Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, once said, “To learn without thinking is in vain; to think without learning is dangerous.” Learning or knowing anything requires both thought and investigation, theory and facts
I confirmed Confucius’s insight when I took a break from teaching to serve in government from 1975 to 1977 and again from 1981 to 1983. At that point, having spent a decade in the classroom, I thought I would learn at last about how policy was really made I would have access to all the facts, even the secret ones kept by intelligence agencies, and I would understand how those facts relate to policy choices My first awakening came when an officer from one of the intelligence agencies paid me a visit, not to give me the facts I so wanted, but to ask me which facts I might be interested in. Oh, I suddenly realized, “the facts” depend on what my questions are and what theory or ideas I might wish to test. Now I had to do some thinking. What did I really want to know? Well, of course, I wanted to know what was happening But I didn’t have time to learn about what was happening everywhere, so I had to focus on certain areas and issues. And I wanted to know not just facts but what caused these facts. I learned subsequently that intelligence officers often do not agree on the facts, let alone on the interpretation or the causes of those facts. There is no one theory that explains policy, no one set of facts that defines any given situation objectively There are many theories and many facts far too many for me to take them all into account.
When I left the government, I understood better than ever that the policy world is not all that different from the classroom Both require theoretical commitment You have to decide what you want to learn, what interests you. And that’s a function of your thinking or perspective and your values And both require empirical effort You assemble and investigate as many facts as you can, then you test your ideas against the facts. But, in the end, you make judgments about which questions and which answers are most important. The one big difference is that you have more time to deliberate and choose in the classroom. In government, you have to act quickly because events move quickly and you lose the opportunity to influence outcomes if you wait too long As a colleague once said to me, you consume thought in government; you accumulate it in the classroom.
The idea for this textbook began the day I left government. I wanted to demonstrate for students the relationship between perspectives and facts for understanding international relations. It was a long way from there to here, but ultimately the book emerged through happenstance and history
The happenstance part occurred when I began teaching a large introductory course in international relations a few years after leaving the government. I was eager to do this, but
it also coincided with efforts at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs to design a more coherent interdisciplinary introductory course for undergraduate majors in international affairs. My task was to come up with a course that not only shepherded students through the nuts and bolts of world politics but also taught them how to look at world problems through different disciplinary lenses. I knew a lot about economics and loved history, and I had always considered my strengths to lie more on the conceptual than the methodological side of political science, but was I ready for such a demanding task?
The history part had to do with waiting until I was fully prepared to write this book My academic research interests progressed over the years from a relatively narrow focus on the technological aspects of U S foreign policy and international affairs to broader economic aspects and finally, in the 1990s, to strategic and military aspects. As I broadened my focus, I taught the introductory course in increasingly bolder strokes, exposing students to alternative theoretical perspectives the realist, liberal, and constructivist approaches in particular as well as hefty doses of historical narrative and how economic policy mechanisms work I worried initially that the design expected too much of students But I refused to underestimate young people and worked hard to simplify and illustrate complex issues, especially the role of perspectives, levels of analysis, and causal arrows. The text is full of examples that illustrate how perspectives and levels of analysis influence both scholarly discourse and everyday debates about world politics. And because all perspectives and levels of analysis are present in any real-world situation, the causal arrows tell us which perspective and level of analysis are most important in a specific argument.
To my joy, the students really cottoned to this approach. They grasped the big ideas and applied them, often bringing me newspaper articles to illustrate the different perspectives, levels of analysis, and causal arrows. After fifteen years of teaching the introductory course and thirty years of broadening my research interests, happenstance and history came together, and I put pen to paper. Happily for me, and hopefully for students, too, this book is the fruit of that labor.
Approach of the Book
The purpose of this book is to teach students how to think critically about the subject matter of international relations To that end, I introduce readers to the principal conceptual tools used by students of politics, namely, the main theoretical perspectives of international relations, the levels of analysis from which we analyze global problems, and the crucial idea of causality. Throughout the book I apply the perspectives and levels of analysis as evenhandedly as possible, including the most recent constructivist perspectives, and I integrate the disciplines of history, economics, and political science into the presentation. Knowing that this material is both intrinsically interesting and challenging, I do my best to write in an uncomplicated and engaging style.
First, the book uses the concepts of perspectives and levels of analysis to address all aspects of international affairs. While most textbooks introduce theories in an opening chapter, they seldom apply or even mention those theories in subsequent chapters Some start with a history chapter before they introduce theory, as if there is only one objective account of history. By contrast, I start with theories but simplify them using the student-friendly concept of perspectives. Perspectives focus on certain facts and emphasize certain causes. For example, realist perspectives point toward powerful actors and emphasize the distribution of power as the primary cause of world events, liberal perspectives focus on interactions and emphasize the rules and roles of institutions as primary causes, and constructivist perspectives highlight ideas and how actors identify themselves and others as the principal causes.
Similarly, the book addresses multiple levels of analysis within each perspective. While perspectives highlight the causes of events, the levels of analysis highlight the location from which these causes come: the individual or decision-making level; the country or domestic level; and the international system as a whole or the systemic level. There are multiple levels in between, such as the foreign policy level, which links domestic and systemic levels I then use these two analytical devices of perspectives and levels of analysis to discuss and illuminate the different conclusions that scholars and students of international affairs draw concerning historical events as well as contemporary issues.
All serious study of international affairs addresses simultaneously all perspectives (power, institutions, and ideas) and all levels of analysis (individual, domestic, and systemic) The perspectives and levels of analysis constitute alternative hypotheses about the nature and direction of the causes of international events. Critical thinking demands that we apply at least two or more hypotheses to assess empirical evidence. But the point of including multiple hypotheses at the outset is to weigh the relative importance of each variable and assess the causal relationship between the variables in drawing conclusions Thus, the book gives special attention to the direction of causality among the principal variables of the
different perspectives and levels of analysis For this purpose, I use a device I call causal arrows. The realist perspective, for example, does not ignore ideas; it just concludes that power is the primary cause of ideas big powers think one way, small powers another. Liberalism does not ignore the balance of power; it just sees diplomacy and international institutions as the primary means to constrain and eventually reduce the role of the balance of power in world affairs And constructivism does not diminish institutions or material power; it just sees identities and discourse as interpreting and giving meaning to material and institutional realities. The causal arrows show which perspective (power, institutions, or ideas) and level of analysis are primary in influencing the others. A fourth perspective, critical theory, casts doubt on whether we can actually isolate the primary causes of events. It argues instead that events must be understood in the broadest historical context and are often caused by deep-seated forces that we can master only, if at all, by achieving new forms of self-consciousness, not by manipulating individual variables Critical theory is a reminder that we may not be able to slice and dice reality into separable causes as our Western positivist or rationalist methods prescribe.
Second, the book treats the principal realist, liberal, and constructivist or identity perspectives evenhandedly. I avoid organizing the topics primarily around one perspective or level of analysis. Scholars often have a preference for one perspective or level of analysis. Some textbooks, for example, treat realism primarily at the systemic level of analysis, focusing on states, and liberalism primarily at the domestic level of analysis, focusing on democracy This shortchanges realism and loads the dice in favor of liberalism Other texts start with “problems,” such as cooperation or war and peace, and assume we can know what a problem is before we have a theory or perspective of the world that tells us why it is a problem. But problems don’t just exist objectively; they are identified by perspectives. Realism sees conflict as the problem; liberalism sees cooperation as the problem; constructivism sees shared or separate identities as the problem So any approach that starts with a problem winds up hiding rather than highlighting perspectives.
Students will encounter opinions throughout their lives that differ from their own, and they need conceptual equipment to help them appreciate other opinions. One frightful piece of information from the American Institutes for Research tells us that only 38 percent of college graduates can successfully perform tasks such as comparing viewpoints in two newspaper editorials (see Thomas Toch and Kevin Carey, “Where Colleges Don’t Excel,” Washington Post, April 6, 2007, A21). Somewhere, we as instructors are dropping the ball.
Thus, this book does not start with the presumption that one perspective is best or that topics or problems can be listed without an understanding of the perspective from which these topics are considered to be important Rather, I lead the student into different worlds, looking at the same reality from different angles. This approach, I believe, is the essence of a liberal arts education, equipping students to think critically that is, by alternatives and to make their own intellectual choices. I have my own preferences, to be sure, as does any other instructor, but I believe that all perspectives have a coherent logic and are supported
by important evidence from history and contemporary world affairs Thus, I strive to present the alternative perspectives not only accurately but also sympathetically.
Third, by taking into account more recent constructivist perspectives on international relations, the book updates the field It includes the ideational or identity perspective This perspective emphasizes the causal role of ideas, belief systems, norms, values, speech acts, and social discourse in international affairs These factors affect the identities of actors and thus define their material interests as well as their behavior in interactions and institutions. The identity perspective revives the study of ideas in international affairs, which was neglected for several decades when realist and liberal perspectives were favored
Fourth, the book is genuinely interdisciplinary. It includes a good deal of history and economics. Too often in international affairs we do not sufficiently understand other disciplines, or we simply append them to our instruction in a multidisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary fashion. In this book, the student learns history and economics through the relevant political science concepts For example, the student explores the major wars of the twentieth century through the realist concept of German unification and the balance of power (World War I), the liberal concept of collective security and the League of Nations (World War II), and the identity concept of relative political ideologies communism and capitalism (the Cold War). Economics is also presented practically and historically. The student sees the underlying concepts at work in day-to-day practices of globalization for example, when an American consumer uses domestic tax cuts to purchase imports or borrows money to refinance a mortgage from capital made available by China’s purchases of U.S. Treasury securities. Policies (including fiscal and monetary) and concepts such as comparative advantage and strategic trade are explained through historical examples and disputes rather than through abstract formulas
Fifth, this book reinforces an emerging trend toward less encyclopedic, more focused texts, but it does more than that by tying the discussion together with a coherent and central theme about how the world works from the vantage points of different perspectives. The book, in short, has a pedagogical “plot”; it is not just a series of “ one-act plays” or topics. I hope that students will experience this book as an adventure, like a good novel or historical biography: inviting, evolving, and delivering insights that move the reader forward toward greater and greater understanding If that happens, the book succeeds in educating as well as instructing and becomes potentially a reference work that students retain and revisit as they encounter international issues in more advanced courses and throughout their lives.
Sixth, and to this end, I employ a direct and engaging writing style that avoids professional jargon and textbook ennui. Students are easily bored by concepts and topics presented in an obligatory fashion, much like an endless list of addresses in a telephone book. They sense the difference between professional and pedantic instruction. The prose in this book is professional yet light and, I hope, occasionally humorous. It seeks to reach a generation raised on the internet by enticing and entertaining as well as by teaching
New to the Sixth Edition
The sixth edition retains the same organization of the fifth edition but sharpens further the causal arrow feature The text now discusses each causal arrow that appears in the margins and helps the student understand the causal argument illustrated by that arrow. As a way to get students started on this approach, begin by having them identify the levels of analysis from which various events are coming. Then, after they become more proficient in that exercise, ask them to label these events by identifying the various causes or perspectives at work formation of an alliance coded as power, a diplomatic conference coded as institutions, or the Arab Spring coded as ideas. Finally, get them to exercise judgment in deciding, based on the evidence, which way or ways the causal arrows might run between the various perspectives and levels of analysis. (At some point in the semester, let them jump ahead to the Conclusion to see how this is done in the case of the democratic peace.) The sixth edition of the textbook begins with this kind of three-step exercise applied to the ISIS conflict in the Middle East.
This edition retains the deep historical coverage of World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, not only because that history is still relevant today but also because these wars provide such rich and illuminating cases of the way perspectives, levels of analysis, and causal arrows lead historians to disagree about the causes of these wars even when they look at the same facts.
The sixth edition also updates substantially the middle chapters of the book in Part II, which focuses on the contemporary international system The discussion takes into account recent developments dealing with the rise of nationalism, mounting terrorist attacks, the Islamic caliphate, Iran, North Korea, Russian aggression in Ukraine, Chinese assertiveness in the Pacific islands, cyber warfare, Great Britain’s exit from the European Union, and the use of social media in political protests around the world. In Part II, I devote a single chapter to each perspective’s view of the contemporary world from the different levels of analysis. This approach reduces the number of moving parts the student has to consider. He or she can see the world primarily from a realist perspective in Chapter 5, then jump to Chapter 6 to see it primarily from a liberal perspective, and move on to Chapter 7 to see it from an ideational perspective. By the end of this middle section, the student has a clear idea of how the perspectives differ when examining the contemporary world.
The new edition further updates the globalization section (Part III). Here I address changing events such as populist reactions to global trade, growing debt problems around the world, sluggish energy markets, slowing global growth, accelerating migrant and refugee flows, and the latest developments affecting climate change. Part III retains the separation between material aspects of development examined in Chapter 8, namely the relative and absolute gains that realist and liberal perspectives emphasize, and the normative aspects of
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
valley There, at Passyunk, lived the great chief of all the lower river Indians. Fort Nassau, the new Dutch trading post across the Delaware River, stood at the mouth of Timber Creek within the present limits of Gloucester, New Jersey.
Some soldiers and traders, together with a few of the Walloon farmers and their families who were originally to have settled a farming plantation on the lower west side of Delaware Bay, were eventually installed at Fort Nassau. There, they established trade relations with the natives. Others, it is said, with the addition of new recruits from Holland the following spring, were sent still higher up the river to build a house and operate a trading station on Verhulsten Island, near the present site of Trenton. This island, at the head of navigation just below the falls, was named for Captain May’s successor in 1625, William Verhulst, who made his headquarters on the South River. The site of the falls was an important Indian crossing from the valley of the Hudson, where the Lenni Lenape traditionally traded with other tribes.
The Lenni Lenape Indians, later called the Delaware by the English, were an Algonquin nation that inhabited all the immense valley of the Delaware. Tribal relatives occupied important villages even in the lower valley of the Hudson River. Relatively peaceful, the Lenni Lenape made their homes beside placid streams, in grassmatted huts thatched with the bark of cedar, the men fishing and hunting while their women tilled gardens of corn, beans, tobacco and squash. The men hunted fur-bearing animals whose pelts would be useful for winter body coverings. The women scraped the pelts with stone tools and dried them on wooden stretching racks, rubbing the animals’ brains and livers into the skins to help in the suppling process.
All was not quiet and peace for the Lenape however They were subject to terrifying raids by the Susquehannocks (Minquas, the Dutch called them) as well as by the Iroquoian relatives of the Susquehannocks who lived farther up the valley of the Susquehanna River. These fearsome marauders stole their women, burnt their houses and devastated their gardens. Trapping beaver and muskrat for blankets or hunting the raccoon too far away from native grounds
was a precarious venture for Lenape braves. In fact, some tribes had fled their more isolated villages for the safety of Passyunk on the Schuylkill before the white men came. Others, on the west bank of the lower river, had crossed over the Delaware to settle on the safer east bank.
So it was that at the coming of the Dutch these river Indians welcomed the Europeans’ guns. And the deliberative Hollanders bought land and made trade treaties with them while, at the same time, probing for avenues of trade with the Lenapes’ enemies, too. Although there were muskrat, mink, ordinary otter and some brown beaver on the South River, the Dutch well knew from previous dealings with the Iroquois that there were vast stores of the finer black pelts, both beaver and otter, and valuable “lion skins” cached in the “forts” of the Susquehannocks and their northern relatives. However, on the lower Delaware, it was principally muskrat that the Lenape had to offer, the market value of which was but a fraction of other pelts.
The muskrat, a bushy-furred member of the rodent family, resembles nothing so much as a big wharf rat. This was something with which the seagoing Dutchmen were only too familiar. As a matter of practice they referred to the kindred fur bearers in America simply as “rats.” Like the Englishmen they also marketed both the pelts and the musky cods, the fluids of which were useful for perfumes and as demothing agents.
Muskrats frequent tidewater marshlands and swamps. Their hind feet are oar-like, being slightly webbed and set obliquely to the legs, permitting a swivel action that propels them through the water. They steer themselves with their tails which are flattened sidewise. The Indians hunted and trapped these animals along their waterside runs very much as they did the beaver And they often dumped the skinned carcasses of the “rats” into the communal stew pot, much to the disgust of the traders who had to partake of the feast which always preceded barter.
In the early days of the Dutch occupation on the South River, as it turned out, the Hollanders were not too successful in opening up
trade with the Susquehannocks and their Iroquois relatives of the hinterland. The Susquehannocks were too busy subjugating the Lenni Lenape. By the time things settled down, after most of the lower river Indians had taken flight or been made tributary, the Susquehannocks were bartering in a more convenient market. They were selling pelts at the mouth of their own river among the English in the Chesapeake Bay.
On the other hand, the furs of the lower Delaware River Indians were not hard to come by, even when they were good. Brown beaver by the bundle, when the Lenape had it, might be taken for a white clay pipe worth a mere pittance. To an Indian who had not yet learned the true value of such a tobacco pipe, with its smoothly beautiful bowl and straight stem, it was a treasure to accompany him to his grave. And, as for the Dutchman’s iron and his colored cloth, his liquor, his firearms, and especially the clothes he wore, these all represented unbelievable wealth to the savage. Quick to learn that he could acquire such amazing riches for a few animal skins, he would risk traffic with his aboriginal enemies if necessary to get the kinds of pelts the white men wanted.
But it was entirely different when it came to the food for which the Dutch in their early occupation of the Delaware valley had to depend on their native neighbors. Although the Lenape were perfectly willing to part with their own furs, and sometimes took extraordinary risks to get more of them, it was another matter when it came to corn and beans. With the Minquas constantly raiding, no treasure could tempt a Lenape chief to give up what little corn he might have to keep his people from starving.
It was this difficulty, coupled with the squeeze put on New Netherland by greedy directors of the West India Company, that soon brought about the recall of the South River settlers to Manhattan. One small yacht, the directors contended, would adequately take care of the South River trade at much less cost than maintaining garrisons there under the conditions with which they had to contend.
Anyway, it was asserted, the need for formal occupation of this distant outpost was less necessary now that England had joined the Netherlands in the war against Spain. All ports of each country were open to merchantmen and warships of the other, and both were committed to maintain fleets that were finally to rid the world of Spanish might. Under the circumstances the English would hardly risk offending their ally by disturbing any part of the Netherlands’ province in America.
So, after the government of New Netherland was formally taken over in 1626 by Peter Minuit, who forthwith installed a “Battery” on the southern tip of Manhattan Island for protection against the Spaniards and named the place “Fort Amsterdam,” the South River was all but abandoned as a plantation. Now and then Dutch factors put ashore at Fort Nassau to occupy it temporarily as a trading post, but by 1628 all the Walloon farmers had returned to the North River.
There, at Fort Amsterdam, the company now concentrated its own colonists and centralized the control of its fur trade, while promoting another scheme for the permanent planting of the outlying districts with farmers at no expense to itself.
The no-expense colonizing scheme was not a new one among the colonial powers of Europe, except for its dressing.
Members of the West India Company who at their own expense planted the unoccupied provinces of New Netherland were to become “patroons,” that is, proprietors of little colonial principalities with feudalistic “privileges and exemptions.” By transporting and settling a specified number of colonists, black slaves qualifying as such, a rich if otherwise undistinguished merchant of Amsterdam could elevate himself to the worshipful status of a feudal lord. Of course he had first to purchase his land from the Indians in conformance with Dutch policy. A little aqua vitae and a few jackets sufficed usually to keep that a relatively minor expense however.
There was only one hitch. A patroon could not engage in the fur trade. He had freedom of trade in any merchandise “except beavers, otters, minks, and all sorts of peltry.” The commerce in pelts was to remain the company’s monopoly.
Because of this restriction the early patroonships were destined to failure. Trade in furs was needed to help root a new plantation in the soil, as had already been proved so often on the wild American coasts. Only one of the early patroonships survived, Kiliaen van Rensselaer’s colony in the Albany area. And it was the illegal pursuit of private fur trade that suckled Rensselaerwyck through its infancy.
The earliest patroonship for which land was chosen in New Netherland was patented on the “South River” in 1630. Samuel Godyn and Samuel Blommaert, leading members of the company, were original partners in this venture which later included Captain David Pieters de Vries among others. Their original manor tract, called Swanendael, lay west of Cape Henlopen in Delaware Bay, but the proprietorship was later extended to the opposite shore including Cape May. The bay, reportedly, was a favorite haunt of whales, many having been sighted there in the past. It was decided that whaling would be a profitable enterprise in lieu of fur trading to support the plantation in its infancy.
The first colonizing expedition to Swanendael arrived in the spring of 1631 and planted at Whorekill, on present-day Lewes Creek, just above Cape Henlopen. Although the whaling proved a failure that year, the ship that brought over the colonists returning to Amsterdam with no more than a sample of oil taken from a dead whale found on the beach, it was said that the settlers did seed their land and had a fine crop by July. But then, as the story goes, a piece of tin was the instrument of their undoing.
They had emblazoned a small sheet of this metal with the arms of Holland and attached it to a pillar which was erected to proclaim their possession of the land. An Indian chief, happening along, appropriated the tin, probably with the idea of converting it into a shiny tobacco pipe. That savage whim, it was claimed, set off a chain of misunderstanding that ended in his own death and the
massacre of the Dutch. Only one of the thirty-three settlers survived the carnage.
The Hollanders had built a brick house which should have served them well as a fort. They were also supposed to have surrounded the house with palisades, a requirement of the time, and to have had an Indian-fighting mastiff handy for just such an emergency. However, according to those who later argued with the company over responsibility for the failure of the Swanendael patroonship, the settlers at Whorekill were caught and butchered individually one day while laboring in the fields, unable to reach the safety of the palisades reportedly erected—while their fierce dog was unfortunately chained at the house.
If Whorekill, which may be translated as Harlots’ Creek, acquired its name as indicated, one cannot resist wondering whether playful Indian squaws, too much aqua vitae and vengeful braves might have had something to do with the demise of the Dutchmen. Certain it is that these first Europeans “left other reminders of their brief sojourn on the bay besides their skeletons,” for later Dutchmen who visited in this vicinity “with their goods where they traded with the Indians got the country dutyes, otherwise called the Pox.”
When Captain David de Vries came over as patroon in the winter of 1632-33 he built a lodging hut ashore, constructed “sloops” for whaling and set up a kettle for rendering oil. But although his harpooners killed a few whales, they were small and almost worthless for oil. The whale fishery was an economic failure.
Meanwhile, for some reason, Captain De Vries made peace with the savages who had slaughtered the original settlers on the Whorekill. There was no retaliation, surprisingly enough, for whatever happened on the creek the previous year. De Vries explained that the natives promised to provide him with food. But apparently they didn’t do so.
The Dutch patroon ascended the South River to barter for corn and beans. Twice during the winter he visited abandoned Fort Nassau where many Indians congregated on the news that he was in the river. However there was the usual difficulty about food. The
Lenape were anxious to trade skins for his merchandise, even pausing in flight from the terrible Minqua to do so, but few of them were willing to part with corn.
De Vries did buy some of their pelts, though without much enthusiasm. Under an ambiguous agreement the company had recently made with the patroons, they were permitted to barter for pelts where no company factories were maintained. However, all skins taken under this arrangement had to be delivered at Fort Amsterdam for processing and shipment by the company to Holland. Such transactions were therefore not too satisfactory from an overall profit standpoint.
With the coming of spring, the Patroon of Swanendael went down the coast to call on the neighboring English at Jamestown for enough supplies to evacuate his people. The small profit on the pelts he had taken represented the only gain from the patroonship. It wasn’t too long afterward that the continuing wrangle over fur trading privileges, and other contentions, ended in the proprietors of Swanendael selling out their interests to the company, without having made any further attempt at colonization.
At the time of De Vries’ visit to the old Dutch works at Fort Nassau, he learned much to his surprise that an English shallop with seven or eight traders from Virginia had preceded him there. All the Virginians had been killed by the Lenape. Some of the chief men among the savages were jauntily wearing their victims’ jackets when they came to call on the Dutch patroon aboard his yacht that winter.
On the subsequent visit to Jamestown, which may have been prompted as much by curiosity concerning this invasion of the South River as by the need of supplies, Captain De Vries was told by Governor Harvey that these Virginians had indeed gone on an exploring voyage in those parts. And, although Harvey said there was no reason for Virginia traders to disturb the Hollanders, he nevertheless maintained the English claim to the Delaware valley and intimated that other countrymen of his would be going there too.
Shortly after this, when De Vries stopped off at Fort Amsterdam with his furs and the alarming news about the English, the Dutch
provincial council dispatched an expedition once more to occupy Fort Nassau. A new house was built there and other improvements were made during the summer. Arendt Corssen, who went along at this time as the company’s commissioner in charge, also purchased from the Lenape a tract of land across the Delaware from Fort Nassau. There, probably on the west bank of the Schuylkill River and within the limits of present-day Philadelphia, he built a house and established a trading post.
This post of course promoted a more convenient trade with the western Minquas. It was also designed, no doubt, to serve as added evidence of the company’s maintenance of factories in the South River valley.
However, no English having appeared on the river during the summer and the Swanendael patroonship being inactive, these lonely outposts of the company were again deserted during the winter of 1633-34. A fur trader’s life in the winter wilderness, cooped up in a house surrounded by snow and unpredictable savages, must have been anything but enviable. The Hollanders on the South River could hardly be blamed for preferring their warmer and gayer quarters on Manhattan.
But then, in the summer of 1634 when no Dutch were about, an Englishman named Thomas Young sailed up the Delaware and planted the arms of his king ashore. He had come directly from England to trade in “Virginia,” under a license from the king, with special designs on the valley of the Delaware. Governor Harvey of Virginia lent all possible assistance to him when he stopped off in the Chesapeake to build trading shallops and gather information for his venture.
Captain Young traded extensively for beaver, otter and lesser furs, and he was much impressed by the abundance of elk and deer skins available in the Delaware valley. However, his ambition was to discover a northwest passage to the South Sea and he had secret instructions authorizing him to explore the Delaware, challenge any Dutch encroachment there, and plant forts to occupy the land if he wished to do so. He was stopped of course by the falls. Although he
established an English post at Eriwoneck, where his lieutenant recorded that “we sate down,” the adventure was given over after a year or two.
Young himself was later captured by the French of Canada when, in his continuing quest for the elusive passage to the Orient, he ascended the Kennebec River, portaged to headwaters of streams that took him to the St. Lawrence and found himself unexpectedly before Quebec!
The English post that Captain Young established on the Delaware at Eriwoneck was opposite present-day Philadelphia. It is frequently mentioned as having been on Pennsauken Creek. However, since the Eriwoneck tribe appears to have been living close by if not at the site of Fort Nassau, it is more likely that the English captain simply “sate down” in the deserted Dutch fort. In view of his mission any other course would appear to have been inexpedient.
Captain Young discreetly makes no mention of Dutch works on the river, probably to avoid any perplexity over the Elizabethan theory about occupation proving right of possession. But his report admits of two contacts with Dutch traders. First he ran into a trading vessel from Manhattan which he accosted and chased from the river. Then a fresh expedition from Fort Amsterdam, which he reported had been sent to “plant and trade heere” by the Hollanders, was similarly forced to retire by the English captain.
Although the Dutch traders didn’t put up any fight in the face of Thomas Young’s well-gunned ship that summer, it was a different matter the next year when an English deserter brought word overland to Fort Amsterdam that a party of Virginia traders was occupying Fort Nassau.
An armed bark was immediately dispatched to the South River. It recaptured the fort and made prisoners of the Englishmen, about fifteen altogether including their leader, George Holmes. These captives, after being transported first to Fort Amsterdam where no one could decide what to do with them, were finally returned to Kecoughtan in Virginia. The New Netherlanders then installed and maintained a permanent garrison of traders at Fort Nassau under the
management of Jan Jansen with Peter May as his assistant. All of which so discouraged other Virginians, who at the time were planning to follow in Holmes’ track, that they abandoned the project.
However, across the ocean, venturers of still another nationality were preparing to invade New Netherland’s South River. The Swedish people, aroused to territorial expansion by their late King Gustavus Adolphus, wanted a bridgehead in America. Profit-minded merchants, with the fur trade uppermost in their minds, were moving eagerly to accommodate them.
XIV
Swedish Interlude On the Delaware
PETER Minuit, erstwhile governor and chief fur trader of New Netherland, was a man of energy and special talent for colonial administration. Although he had been discharged from his post in Dutch America after a disagreement with his employers, the directors of the West India Company, his administration there had been virile and efficient. It was therefore quite natural that he should be a bit vindictive toward the people who had treated him so unfairly. And, because of his driving energy, it would have been quite as unnatural for him to remain idle for long.
So it was that he sought out Samuel Blommaert who, embittered by the failure of his Swanendael patroonship, also felt he had reason for complaint against his former associates in the West India Company. According to Blommaert, it was their parsimonious policies on such matters as the fur trade and military protection for new plantations that had caused the fiasco at Whorekill. Anxious now to show up the stupidity of their management, he was attempting to form a Dutch-Swedish opposition company under Swedish protection for operations in the “West Indies.”
When Minuit came on the scene, with his firsthand knowledge of New Netherland, things began to happen fast. Blommaert’s project quickly crystallized into a fur trading company with the specific intent of colonizing the valley of the South River where the patroon himself had formerly adventured. It remained only for Minuit to offer his expert services as leader of such an expedition to the Swedish crown, and royal sanction and assistance were forthcoming for the venture.
“Pierre” Minuit, for that is what the Hollanders often called him when he was their governor in New Netherland, had been born a
French Huguenot in the German city of Wessel. It is not strange that his nationalism was therefore elastic enough to meet almost any demands of his ambition and ability. About the only point at which Minuit might have hesitated in those bigoted times would have been an association with Catholics. Certainly, to serve under the banner of Sweden, a protestant nation allied in the crusade against Spain, required a minimum degree of adaptability, especially as Sweden’s official excuse for a colony in America was that it would provide a base for attacking the common enemy at his weakest spot.
Half the subscriptions for the venture in “New Sweden” were raised in Sweden and half in Holland, with Samuel Blommaert the largest single subscriber. Although the Swedish government furnished two well-armed ships, Kalmar Nyckel and Gripen, as well as all other weapons and ammunition, the cost of the expedition to the company ran to 33,000 florins by the time it sailed from Gothenburg in the closing days of 1637.
If Minuit was lucky however, a single Spanish prize would be enough to cancel out this unexpectedly high debt. Otherwise the New Sweden Company looked to the Indian fur trade to pay it off in a season or two.
Almost half of the invested capital was for cargo that consisted mainly of the merchandise needed for the Indian trade. Axes, hatchets, adzes, knives, tobacco pipes, looking-glasses, cheap trinkets, duffels and other cloth weaved in Holland were purchased by Blommaert and shipped to Sweden where they were loaded aboard the two ships. So were a few tools for farming, as well as some spirituous liquors and wines to be traded either in Virginia or the West Indies for tobacco. The tobacco was to be brought into Sweden where people had lately developed a taste for it. But the furs would be sold in Holland, a better market for foreign skins.
No act of fate guided Peter Minuit to the site he chose for the Swedish beachhead in America. It was on Minquas Kill, a little stream from the west emptying into the estuary of the Delaware River. The Indians from whom the stream acquired its name had often used its course in their raids against the Lenape. Minuit
doubtless knew all about Minquas Kill from reports he had received from Dutch traders when he was Governor of New Netherland. He knew it was navigable by small boats almost to the borders of the Minqua country, where a trade might be joined for the rich pelts then finding their way to the English on Chesapeake Bay. Also, he well knew that the site he selected on this stream was a protected though strategic one from which, once fortified and garrisoned properly, further encroachment on the Dutch West India Company’s South River preserves might be safely launched.
For a kettle and other trifles Minuit bought enough land from a local sachem to erect a couple of houses, emplace some cannon and palisade “Fort Christina”—which was named in honor of the Queen of Sweden and which was the beginning of Wilmington, Delaware. Then, he managed to attract a few other Lenape chieftains from up and down the Delaware who were perfectly willing to cede all the land that he wanted for New Sweden in return for the colorful merchandise he offered.
There was some argument later about these “deeds,” that is, after they were “lost.” Not only was their geographical extent challenged, which the Swedes claimed to be the west side of the Delaware from Duck Creek up to the Schuylkill; but other purchasers, in particular the Dutch to whom the Lenape were equally accommodating, laid claim to identical grants from the Indians. The English did too, in at least one case.
Of course the Hollanders came down the river from Fort Nassau, shortly after the Swedes arrived, to find out what was going on. But Minuit, experienced in handling them, gave it out that he was only stopping in Minquas Kill for wood and water on his way to the West Indies. In this he was telling the truth, strictly speaking, for he and both of his ships were moving on to that part of the new world to exchange their liquor for tobacco and to try for Spanish prizes before returning to Europe. What he neglected to say was that he was building a fort to be left garrisoned with 24 men, collecting return cargoes of furs and leaving a sloop on the river to collect more.
Peter May, at the time in charge of Fort Nassau during Jan Jansen’s absence at Fort Amsterdam, learned the truth when Minuit’s little trading boat tried to slip past the Dutch outpost to barter for pelts. May wouldn’t let the sloop ascend the river, and he sped Indian runners overland to Manhattan with news of the Swedish invasion. Whereupon newly-arrived Governor Kieft dispatched Commissary Jansen back to his South River headquarters with many loud protests and threats against the Swedes, but not much in the way of force to back up his fulminations.
The New Netherland governor even issued a menacing proclamation. In view of the close political and economic ties between Sweden and his country, he couldn’t believe that the Swedish queen had authorized Minuit to build forts “or to trade in peltries on the South River,” but in any event, he proclaimed, the Dutch West India Company would defend its rights by bloodshed if the Swedes did not withdraw.
Peter Minuit was undeterred by all of this however. He went about finishing his fort and collecting his peltries, and there wasn’t really anything the Dutch could do about it. They claimed that he “drew all the skins to him by his liberal gifts,” and that as a result of his “underselling” their losses ran to 30,000 guilders.
While Minuit was still on the Delaware that spring of 1638 he sent the Grip down to Jamestown to try to barter liquor for tobacco. However the Governor of Virginia, Sir Francis Wyatt, who probably looked askance at the usurpation of English claims on the Delaware, diplomatically found excuses for not trading with the Swedes. He said he would refer the matter to his king, and that ended it. The Grip returned to Minquas Kill, transferred the liquor to the Kalmar Nyckel and set out in search of a fat Spanish galleon.
Soon thereafter, the Kalmar Nyckel also took aboard 710 beaver, otter and bear pelts, which had been collected from the Indians, and laid a course for the West Indies to trade the liquor for tobacco. Peter Minuit sailed in this ship. He left Mans Kling in command of Fort Christina, with Hendrick Huygen as commissary in charge of the provisions, merchandise and Indian trade. Huygen maintained
excellent relations with the Indians and would appear to have opened up trade with the Minquas. He bartered for food as well as furs, and the first permanent white settlement in the present State of Delaware was able to sustain itself for two years before any further relief came from Sweden.
In the meantime, New Sweden’s founder had lost his life in the West Indies. While the Kalmar Nyckel was in harbor at St. Christopher’s Island, Minuit went aboard a ship out of Rotterdam as the guest of its skipper. A hurricane came up suddenly and drove this ship out to sea. It was never heard of again.
Peter Minuit’s untimely death was an irreparable loss to the Swedes. He would have made a capable governor for their colony in America, which might have turned out quite differently had he remained in charge.
After a fruitless year on the track of the silver fleet the Grip returned to New Sweden in the spring of 1639, took on a miscellaneous lot of over 1,500 fur skins and sailed for Sweden. All the skins were reshipped to Holland for merchandising, where the Kalmar Nyckel had already unloaded its cargo of pelts. Altogether, these first furs from New Sweden brought 15,426:13:8 florins into the coffers of the company according to Dr Amandus Johnson, the American-Swedish historian.
The Dutch West India Company, at last awakening to the perils facing New Netherland from foreign encroachment, now took more positive steps to encourage immigration. The directors promised land and free trade in the colony to private persons and made their promise firm by an official proclamation. It was announced that anyone could henceforth trade in pelts, as well as other merchandise, upon payment of fifteen per cent tax and freight charges on all exports.
This lure to promote individual enterprise under the flag of Holland quickly brought Dutchmen from the Netherlands as well as “strangers” from Virginia and New England into the colony. After being on the verge of economic collapse because of the company’s mismanagement, New Netherland began to prosper again,
especially those parts about the North River The newly liberalized policy was too late, however, to have any effect in offsetting the invasion of the South River under the Swedish flag.
Swedish reinforcements, men and women, began arriving in 1640. Even some Hollanders came over and took up land near Fort Christina, their leader being paid a salary by the Swedish government as the commandant of his people. Among contingents of new settlers from Sweden itself were some who came unwillingly. Such were the Finns, those hearty, pioneering outlaws who had been roving Sweden, poaching game and destroying forests, and rudely mocking all efforts to curb their depredations. Many of them were rounded up and “persuaded” to emigrate, along with some native “criminals” whose most serious offenses appear to have been unpaid debts, adultery, and draft-dodging.
But these unwilling emigrants quickly adapted themselves after they arrived in the new country. They rendered good service clearing the land, hewing trees and building houses. Back of Fort Christina typical Scandinavian houses went up, the first “log cabins” ever seen in America, with the timbers notched so that the carefully tailored logs lay flat and close at the joints. These primitive but highly efficient cabins soon became the symbol of the American pioneer— the fur trader as well as the farmer.
The trading limits of New Sweden were extended to the Falls of the Delaware on the north and to Cape Henlopen on the south by new purchases from the Indians. Traffic in pelts, always the chief business of the colony, was prosecuted with real vigor. With the arrival in 1643 of a vigorous new governor, Johan Printz, the Swedes began establishing trading posts and forts up and down the river in their expanded territory. And there just weren’t enough Hollanders under the flag of the Dutch West India Company at Fort Nassau to stop them, no more in fact than twenty at any time.
The Swedes went out even to the Minqua country in the valley of the Susquehanna, competing with the Dutch for the luxuriant pelts from the northern lake country. Traders with Hendrick Huygen penetrated the northwestern hinterland over 200 miles. Most often
however the Minquas, or Susquehannocks, who no longer went to the Marylanders in Chesapeake Bay, came with great bundles of their fine pelts to trade at Fort Christina, for they found that the Swedes were more liberal than either the Dutch or the English, not only with trade goods but with sewan, or wampum.
Always the Swedes gave the Minquas generous measures of shell strings in exchange for beaver. Whether it was common white roanoke made from the cockle shells found in quantity along some local beaches, valuable peake strung with purple conch shell, or a variety of the even more highly prized Long Island wampum, measurements were uniformly generous. And since fathoms, ells and yards were roughly estimated by using the length of one’s arm, the giant Susquehannocks did very well for themselves.
Resourceful as usual, the Dutch began manufacturing false wampum to meet the competition. But the savages were quick to detect the counterfeit and wouldn’t accept it.
Meanwhile, some English traders from the New Haven Colony, which was being hemmed in and cut off from the Indian trade of New England, had come down to test out the prospects on the Delaware River and were very much impressed. George Lamberton, Nathaniel Turner and others decided to form a company to purchase land about the Schuylkill River as well as the unoccupied country stretching northward from Cape May. As usual the natives obliged them, regardless of prior deeds, and the New Englanders soon had a colony at Varkens Kill, now Salem Creek in New Jersey.
Everything might have been all right if the Englishmen had remained on the land they bought on the east side of the river. But this was not destined to be. Although there were some twenty families who cleared land and planted crops in 1641 at Varkens Kill, these people were primarily fur traders. They discovered that the east side of the river was too far from the trading grounds of the Indians. The next year they established a fort, building dwellings and
a truck house, on the west side of the river at the mouth of the Schuylkill.
This trading post, located on Province Island in present Philadelphia, was on land claimed by both the Swedes and the Dutch. Actually it must have incorporated whatever was left of the abandoned Dutch installation built there originally by Arendt Corssen in 1633. In any case the men from New Haven, after starting a lively Indian trade, made it clear that they would countenance no competition within their newly acquired precincts.
The Swedes and the Dutch, who had been operating under a kind of armed truce in this area, united promptly in the face of this threat to their common interest. Two armed sloops were sent out by the Council of New Netherland, and Jan Jansen with the cooperation of the Swedes attacked and burned out the interlopers. George Lamberton managed to escape in his pinnace with a few of his people. But most of the New Englanders were captured and shipped off to Manhattan as prisoners.
Lamberton, however, like most English traders, was a man of tenacity and courage. Certainly he was persistent when he thought he saw a good thing. The very next year he was back in the river again. This time, unfortunately for him, the atmosphere was even more hostile. That hot-tempered, national-minded Governor of New Sweden, Johan Printz, had arrived in the meantime—all four hundred imperious pounds of him!
“Big Belly” Printz, as the Indians called him, came with the fire of patriotism in his eye. He was not one to stand for any nonsense from foreigners. As a good diplomat he maintained a neighborly friendship with the Dutch, as he had been instructed to do, that is, so long as they were no military threat to New Sweden and so long as they could be outwitted in the Indian trade. But the English—those aggressive and stubbornly nationalistic colonizers—were another matter
So, in 1643, when George Lamberton once more sailed up the Delaware in his pinnace, he was to find himself in real trouble.
Intercepting some Minquas en route to Fort Christina with their furs, Lamberton induced them to trade with him. Whereupon the Swedish governor invited him to dinner in order to arrest him, the charge being that of having bribed the Minquas with cloth and wampum to massacre the Swedes and Dutch. For a while it looked as if the Englishman might have a short life.
But, although “Big Belly” set himself up as inquisitor, prosecutor and judge, he couldn’t make his accusation stick before a mixed court of English, Dutch and Swedish commissioners in the face of 400 beaver skins Lamberton produced as evidence of his peaceful barter. In the end Printz could only fine the New Englander double duty on the beaver skins he had taken in trade and let him go. As a parting threat however, he told Lamberton that his pinnace would be confiscated if ever he traded again in New Sweden without authorization.
Then the corpulent but vigorous governor turned his full attention to tightening Swedish control of the river, with a view toward gaining a monopoly of the fur trade for his company.
On the east side of the Delaware, where he pretended to the same land claimed by the New Englanders, he constructed a stronghold which he named Fort Elfsborg. It was an imposing earthwork, emplaced with 8 twelve-pound guns and a mortar. Located on waterside just below Varkens Kill and garrisoned by thirteen men, Fort Elfsborg not only asserted Printz’s authority over a sickly remnant of the New Haven Englishmen still there, but gave him military control of the river. Even Dutch vessels on their way up to Fort Nassau were compelled to lower their flags before the guns of the Swedish fort, their skippers no doubt muttering curses against “Big Belly” who now “held the river locked for himself.”
On the west side of the river the governor strengthened Fort Christina, the fur emporium of New Sweden where the general storehouses were maintained. He moved his own headquarters however to a much grander manor setting farther upstream at Tinicum Island.
There, on this water-bound river bank, over which sleek airliners now wing low, in and out of close by Philadelphia Airport, he built a riverside fort of hemlock logs “laid one upon another” and a princely “hall” for himself. Fort New Gothenborg, he named this new capital, which was little more than half a dozen miles from Dutch Fort Nassau across the river. To Fort New Gothenborg the Swedish governor hoped to attract most of the Indian traffic that he now shared grudgingly with the New Netherland traders.
For a while the strategy proved highly successful, especially after Printz established a trading post on the near-by Schuylkill to control that important artery of traffic from the hinterland. There, on Province Island, from which the English had so recently been ousted, he built a blockhouse of his own and mounted “stone cannon” on it. These were the vicious little “murderers” of the time, whose broad iron mouths could be jammed with stones or anything else lethal that might be handy to spray attackers at close range. Other buildings too were later erected at Province Island, but in the spring of 1644 the blockhouse served for stores, and also as quarters for Lieutenant Mans Kling and the traders stationed there.
The Dutch traders under Jan Jansen at Fort Nassau, frustrated by lack of numbers as well as by restraining orders from Fort Amsterdam, now could only stand by watching and biting their nails, while taking whatever crumbs of the Indian trade their Swedish neighbors deigned to share with them.
This same year of 1644 some merchants of Boston, with the backing of Winthrop and the Court of Massachusetts, formed a company to discover the great Lake of the Iroquois by ascending the Delaware River. Some dozen years earlier, Captain Walter Neale of the Laconia Company had failed in his efforts to reach the lake via the rivers of Maine. At least the Delaware ran in the right direction, toward that “inexhaustible” supply of beaver, something it was now conceded no Maine or Massachusetts rivers did.
A well-equipped pinnace was actually sent out to the Delaware. However, just what happened on the river is vague. Certainly neither the Swedes nor the Dutch wanted English traders on their
