Traditionally the U.S. foreign policy elite has faced only occasional pressure from mass public opinion. Is the role of television changing this relationship? If you were a top U.S. foreign policy maker, what steps could you take to keep TV news from shaping the foreign policy agenda before you could define your own goals and directions?

Television is ever changing the relationship of public opinion since the public—and an especially attentive public—counts and does pay attention to what is on TV. As per example, Somalia, when a U.S. soldier was being dragged through the streets. The public opinion changed the U.S. foreign policy toward that country and the troops withdrew. The TV or mass media with programs such as the McNeil Lleher News Hour, Sunday Morning Interview, and the cable network, CNN, since the 1990's, define the terms of political debate for information. Since mass media is an important wing of the attentive public, of which their greater numbers is the foreign policy elite, and journalists which serve as the gate keepers of information passing from the foreign policy elites to the public and from opinion polls, the media collects information from the public and passes it to the elite born (mass media). TV and foreign policy elite depend on each other in receiving the information that keeps them alive. Mass media is a powerful tool that can change the public opinion if no certain steps are making such. One step could be to manipulate the media, keeping them informed as much as possible, because they depend on government for information. Also by leaking of secret information to the press, in order to support their own point of view and win bureaucratic battles. Over all, TV does shape the public opinion, and the foreign policy elite does respect what the public thinks, even though the public is more concerned about domestic than foreign policy. But the foreign policy elite doesn't want to find itself on the negative side of public opinion since this can change foreign policy, as in Somalia. The mass media must be kept from shaping foreign policy by manipulation, or making the media feel that they are kept informed. ÒKeep in touch so I can keep in touch."

Because television has connected and shortened the distances and time lapses between actual events and the news of such events being delivered to the waiting public, the relationship between public opinion and the foreign policy elite has changed drastically. While many perceive the media as the fourth estate, it is the media, as liberal as it may be, that makes the public aware of the effects of our foreign policy throughout the world. It is because we live in a democracy and because our leaders must ultimately answer to their constituents and electors, that a keen eye must be kept on the trends in public opinion. Through the very Òindiscriminate" and unforgiving camera lens and through the pictures that are beamed to our television sets, there isn't much room for interpretation. I contend that as a means of control, to reach a more favorable public perception, U.S. foreign policy makers must propagandize their objectives. They must use TV as a tool, through charismatic leaders and orators and stir up feelings of patriotism and nationalism. The television media must be objective, but as a member of the government we are allowed the freedom to be subjective, give the public Òour" side of the story, show them why we think the way we do, and why Òour" actions are the correct and necessary ones to take. Finally, to be successful in this venture, secrecy is the most important thing, or rather discretion. Keep your goals on a need-to-know basis, let the media and in turn the public know as little as is possible and ease your ideas onto them. The government cannot get into a debate with the media, it must preferably have them as an ally, in order to shape public opinion.

Most of the great powers are reconfiguring their military forces in the post—Cold War era. What kinds of capabilities do you think your own country needs in this period? Why?

Since the post-cold war, the great powers are having problems achieving peace dividends and must make decisions toward their military base in military economy by having other states increase the burden sharing, and trying to increase economic conversion. In the U.S., these and other causes must be taken into consideration since the role of the U.S. is not yet defined, as politicians generally agree that U.S. leadership in world affairs requires having the world's most capable military force and also different missions, requiring different forces, maintain global reach. All these can be obtained as long as the conventional forces and evolving technologies can be combined in a non-offensive defense theory. The conventional forces are needed; like the army, to control territory and supply lines, the navies for projection of power, and the air force for early warning capabilities. But the number of personnel should decrease, and by increasing evolving technologies will have a better equipped military force that will do more with less and be more cost effective. This will allow the U.S. to keep their global commitment in the new alliances. In the nuclear, chemical and biological theater we should conserve, increasing the education that second strike capabilities can cause mutually assured destruction, making these weapons obsolete. We should endeavor to make more treaties such as the 1992 Chemical Weapon Convention, 1968 Non Proliferation Treaty, 1991 Start I and the 1992 Start II, so the world can someday be free of these mass destruction weapons. So, I believe the U.S. should decrease the amount of personnel, but increase the new evolving technologies such as electronic warfare, all smaller but more powerful ____weapons to maintain our means of leverage if we were to be called—which we always are.

The use of war as a means to an end of conflict is greatly decreasing in utility and effectiveness. It is because of this very reason that our military capabilities must now turn toward a more defensive purpose, rather than offensive. It is obvious that we already have the capability of decimating human life as we know it, and we also have the capability of surgical strikes and actually pinpointing targets, therefore how much more offensive capacity is actually needed. Our technology is far more advanced than that of any other nation, so it is my feeling that defense is our greatest objective in this period. Anti-missile weaponry and a greater system of detection should be our next order of business. Security through the maintenance of our territory and our ally's security is what most will benefit us in the long term. While I am stressing defense, a very watchful eye must be kept on our potential threats throughout the world, to assure that our offensive capabilities do not begin to lag. But through a continued investment in our air and naval forces; both in my opinion the most important mainstays of our armed forces and the power we project, I feel we can maintain our role as hegemon and help keep the peace around the globe.

Chapter 12
Critical Thinking Questions

When critics of the capitalist world system refer to the core and periphery, what do they mean and what is the essence of their argument? The global system of regional class divisions has been characterized as a world-system or a capitalist world-economy, in origin, a Marxist point of view. According to Marxists, class divisions are regionalized, between third-world regions and industrialized regions. Third-world regions usually extract raw materials, work that uses much labor and little capital and doesn't pay very well either. These regions are referred to as the periphery. Industrialized regions usually manufacture goods, work that uses more skilled labor—less physically exhausting—more capital and pays a lot better. These regions are referred to as the core. The essence of this view's argument is to indicate what the most important class-struggle is in today's world, and why. But it is not as black and white as it seems. Within the periphery, there are cores and peripheries, as well as peripheries and cores within the core. The concentration of capital and wages each form a continuum, not a clear division into two regions. In this world system, between the core and the periphery, there is another regional classification—the semiperiphery. This is an area where some manufacturing occurs, and where some capital concentration takes place. This could be considered a buffer zone between the core and periphery. Examples of the semiperiphery would be the Eastern European countries and the C.I.S. states, and the Òfour tigers," newly industrialized Asian states. These three categories can interchange somewhat over time, but the global system of class relations remains. Today's trading patterns actually confirm this type of world view. The core exports $275 billion more than it imports in machinery, chemicals and other heavy manufactured goods. This indicates more capital, more skilled labor and higher wages, as well as capital accumulation. The semiperiphery exports $92 billion more than it imports in light manufactured goods such as textile, indicating that some manufacturing occurs and that some capital is accumulated. The periphery exports $76 billion (Middle East) and $38 billion (Africa) in oil, which is a typical extraction role, hard labor, and low pay. The periphery also exports $38 billion in food and agricultural products, which is also typical for this category. In conclusion, critics of the capitalist world system refer to the core, semiperiphery and periphery to show that this system is the way the world trading system works.

Chapter 13
Critical Thinking Questions

What is the difference between import substitution and export-led growth as strategies for development? States in the third world are trying to accumulate capital through international trade. Through the creation of a trade surplus, poor states can accumulate hard currency and build infrastructure and industry, since autarky is an extremely slow way of accumulating capital. States can create a trade surplus through import substitution, another way is export-led growth. Import substitution refers to the development of local industries to produce items that a particular state had been previously importing. The government of such a state might give subsidies or tariff protection to such starting industries. This might seem like a good policy, if you look at the state's reducing dependency from, for instance, a former colonizer, while the trade deficit reduces and a trade surplus is built. But since this is against comparative advantage principle it has not been effective in most cases. Another way of creating a trade surplus is through export-led growth, a strategy that the newly industrialized countries have been using. This strategy looks for creating a comparative advantage in a specific product that not many other states are producing. The industries that are manufacturing that specific product might receive tax breaks, subsidies and protected access to local markets. Exports of these products are very beneficial, for exports from these industries generate hard currency and create a favorable trade balance. With part of this money, states can import products that are expensive to produce in their own state from other states that have a comparative advantage in producing that particular good, and thus sell it relatively cheap. Export-led growth, however, is not without risk since specialization can leave poor countries vulnerable to unexpected price fluctuations for their export product. Therefore, an export strategy based on raw materials is affected by the overall relationship between prices of exported and imported goods. This relationship is better known as terms of trade. If the price of a raw material drops drastically on the world market, a third-world state trying to create benefits by exporting such raw materials would have to export more in order to import the same manufactured goods, which is a major obstacle to accumulation. Both terms of trade and price fluctuations have caused states to look to exporting manufactured goods rather than raw materials. But this is not easy for third-world countries; there is a lot of competition out there, especially from industrialized countries with better technology, more capital, and more educated workers. Third-world countries need to be extremely careful and selective in developing export strategies for manufactured goods. You cannot just subsidize an industry continuously, it has to be able to operate by itself one day. For development strategies, export-led growth seems to be more favorable than import substitution. International trade and specialization in products in which a state has a comparative advantage seems to be the best way to accumulate capital in today's world. Nevertheless, third-world countries need to be careful and educated about this policy. Then, little by little, each state can create its own comparative advantage and accumulate capital through exporting these goods. That way, maybe one day, the world's wealth would be more equally distributed.