OPEC and the dollar

According to CNN's world business page, Iran has stopped accepting US dollars for oil trades and is pressuring other OPEC members to do the same. Iran has completely switched over to euros and yens for its oil exports.

This choice could demonstrate the continued salience of cultural conflict and the fragmentation effects of globalization. Rather than uniting Iran and the US, Iran's oil exports have been made into a tool to coerce the US into changing its policy regarding Iran's nuclear development and support for terrorist organizations. This sort of soft balancing could be the result of strategic interests or conflicting ideologies. In either case, the effects of globalization could have led to an increased awareness of the other nation's "outsider" status and cultural differences, causing boundary activation and an attempt to exclude the other's culture.

The dominance of economic interests over traditional political balancing could also be implied by the change of currency. If Saudia Arabia and other OPEC member nations who are US allies or neutral also choose to make the switch, it will be clear that they are reacting to a changing economy and protecting their economic interests rather than protecting their security interests by maintaining an alliance with the US.

The switch from dollars to euros and yens also demonstrates America's decline as a hegemonic power, at least in an economic sense. As the European Union's market grows and the United States' growth rate declines (especially with the onset of another recession), America will become a less vital actor in world trade and will lose influence that can be exploited by economically stronger entities through embargoes, exclusive trade deals, or foreign aid.

Fate of Our Peoples

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/07/ww.lifeoutsourcing/index.html?iref=newssearch

Nothing says globalization more than outsourcing. We talked in class about the two main possibilities that globalization brings about: Hybridization, where cultures mix and the citizens living within those cultures take what they like about each, and Homogenization, where identities converge and cultures become a nearly unrecognizable mix. Outsourcing takes this type of thinking to an entire different level. Not only are cultures coming together and mixing though the sharing of ideas and products, but, as the article states, Westerners are relying on Asia to be personal assistants, in charge of making their schedule, performing their searches, and even teaching their children. All ideas, whether they pertain to work, home life, or one’s hobbies, are first viewed and criticized by an assistant thousands of miles away. There is no better example of globalization than instant feedback and advice from a mind raised and currently active in an entirely different to one’s own. This travels far beyond Hybridization or even Homogenization. All decisions made by certain people in this rapidly Homogenizing culture are first even further mixed by being viewed through the filter of the one culture which may be becoming more of a thoroughly mixed combination of East and West than our own. While with certain decisions, such as the example of outsourcing the buying of shoes, may not seem too severe, one must realize that having someone else perform your searches for you or make your itinerary takes away a lot of the decision making process that one’s culture conditions them to have. Results which one culture would simply toss aside as irrelevant are suddenly brought to the forefront by another. While this may cause for some inconvenience, it does naturally lead to the broadening of ideas though the further mixing of cultures. However, this broadening is the same everywhere, and soon one could conceive the possibility of a global hive-mind, where everyone reacts the same to a certain situation and culture matters for nothing because all peoples from all regions think the same.

A few years ago I read “The World is Flat” by Thomas Friedman. Among other issues, this book dealt with the increasingly “flattening” of the world due to technologies that mixed cultures to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. At the pace we’re going, I believe we’re not too far from a world where culture matters little, if at all, and soon ideas stemming from all places around the world will be uniform, from fashion to food preparation to the way business is conducted.

Why it is No Myth that I Am Lebanese and Always Will Be

Rachael M.’s blog post titled “How ‘Nationalist Myth-Making’ Made Me an Israeli” ended with these inquiries: “If religion was not an important part of this struggle, why would Jews who have never been near Israel care so deeply about holding on to that territory? In fact, why would Jews in other lands come to identify themselves specifically with Israel in the first place?”

If I were to ask a Lebanese patriot these questions, s/he would literally laugh in my face. My family and I are very politically inclined and politically active, both in Lebanon and in the Dominican Republic. When I read those questions I literally saw my Lebanese political life flash before my eyes—I remembered sitting as a little girl in my grandparents’ house and listening to my dad, aunts and uncles, and cousins discussing and arguing about politics; I remembered the night-long talks I had with my friends about our different political party inclinations; I remembered all the rallies we went to and those we condemned; I remembered how angry I was when Michel Aoun was given a king’s welcome as he returned from his supposed “exile” in Paris; I remembered how my heart broke every time a bomb exploded and another compatriot died; I remembered the hatred, anger, and determination that filled my heart when I was caught in Lebanon in the middle of a war that should have never lasted as long as it did. I am Lebanese and I love my country, but sadly, my country’s people are sometimes blinded by their bias and trauma.

So how would one of my friends from Lebanon answer those questions? In their ever-paranoid and ever-traumatized minds, they would answer that Jews want to identify themselves specifically with Israel because Israel is the United States’ baby, and they want to reap the benefits of being allied to the United States. They would also answer that Jews and Israelis hold on to the territory so dearly because of its [geostrategic] location, because of the benefits of resources to come, and to ultimately steal Lebanon away. The last statement may sound funny to most people, but not to the Lebanese; most believe this.

So how can you try and bring democratic order and neighborly friendliness in an area where such ideas and animosity have been inculcated in people’s minds since birth? This is one reason why I believe that democracy in the Middle East as the West sees it may not be possible. Sure, democracy is not impossible, but it may not be the same as that in the US. Trying to impose your ideology on someone who has always believed something completely foreign is not easy and is not always useful. The US has an idea of which nations like it and which do not in the Middle East, but what it is not aware of is what every-day people on the streets think about it and its ideologies. Huntington is correct in believing that the world’s future conflicts will be based on a “clash of civilizations”—they will be based on cultural and ideological disparity instead of being based on fighting over location and colonial territories. In trying to make its wars about democracy and freedom, the US has made the Middle East perceive them as wars of Islam versus the West (and with good reason). After all, an Islamic caliphate would definitely disturb the precious power balance in place now and the US would no longer be sole hegemon.

So how does all this have to do with the quotes and how my Lebanese friends might perceive them? It is exactly that… Certain people with certain cultures and certain histories will always hold on to their beliefs and ideologies and no matter what anyone does, nothing will change them (regardless of whether the beliefs are right or wrong). Perhaps that is why so many people hold such a pessimistic view of the future of world order. It is one thing to try and get along and another thing to force people to get along—obviously the first one, which is much harder and which does not always work, is the best. Yes, there are powers in the Middle East that if left unchecked are likely to wreak havoc, but these powers will also be most likely to wreak even more havoc if they feel threatened. The best thing to do? I am not in the position to really answer that correctly and without bias. I can however say this—you cannot expect to treat a different nation as you would your own and get the same outcomes and cooperation. Sometimes the best intention can yield the worst results.

The Status of Taiwan

In light of the paper we did a few weeks ago, I’ve been thinking a lot about Realist Theory and sub-state actors. In my paper, I talked about the Taliban and Hezbollah and how the power possessed by these non-state groups can be reconciled with Realist Theory. Now, a few weeks later, I’ve been thinking about Taiwan, and how they would fit into such a worldview. On one hand, we have an actor, if I can even call them such, who has claimed their own independence, made strong international allies, and continues to operate as though their free from the bonds that tie them to China. On the other, China continues to claim that Taiwan is a part of them. Their One China policy states that no other counties can deal with them unless they agree that Taiwan is still under their jurisdiction, and they’ve claimed that anyone who deploys on or attempts to aid Taiwan against the Chinese Government’s wishes is committing an act of war against them. So can Taiwan be considered a major actor with respect to Realist Theory? In my paper, I argued that Hezbollah and the Taliban needed some kind of recognition because of the power they garner with their respective countries and the fact that their presence has totally changed the way their own governments operate. While China may not have changed at all because of Taiwan’s defection, other actors, namely the United States, have altered their foreign policy to give recognition and alliance to them. Personally, I don’t think this is nearly enough to garner Taiwan a place as an actor in Realist Theory, but with China on the rise and tensions between them and the United States growing, their role in the world may drastically change should China decide that the Taiwanese people have become too vocal to be allowed to continue their protests, or the United States decide to make good on their promises of deploying protection within China’s borders. Then, Taiwan will not only become a full fledged actor, but also an example which proves the rule that states exist in anarchy and that power struggles are inevitable because of it.

Cambodian Food Depravation

Due to a shortage in funding the World Food Program, part of the UN, has recently announce it will be no longer able to feed 450,000 Cambodian children with their daily breakfast. This will lead many of these children unable to continue to attend school as many students attend school to receive their breakfast. It is however unlikely they will starve. Some believe this to be a global food crisis which will significantly cripple the poor Cambodian children.

The failure of this program ends its eight year long success in Cambodia. The program has now started a worldwide effort to raise 500 million dollars. In a time where the United States is investing massive amounts of money on a war many feel is unnecessary it seems investing in this program could be beneficial to the reputation of US Foreign Policy and would not risk upsetting many other states. The criticism is what if any benefits will America receive and the answer is none. Cambodia's rice production is limited and not nearly enough for impoverished people to afford. 

In January of 2007 the program stopped for about a month and school attendance dropped 10 percent, according to the New York Times. Considering the norms and ideals of American Society it would seem that aiding for Cambodians should be increased, as education is stressed. Now this global crisis is in the spotlight due to this recent announcement. With the depletion of rice supplies in Cambodia the population of those unable to afford food will continue to increase potentially causing more starvation. 

For 2007 the US Foreign Policy budget was around 449 billion dollars alone on on our defense department. It seems that we should have the funding to aid these poor children in Cambodia. The UN has announced they will set up a task force to address this global food crisis and do plan that it will be resolved but still this is of large concern to many. The daunting reality that people are starving in other parts of the world has again hit international news and will surely cause more social unrest with the face of the articles being children.  The goal to restart the feeding program is believed to restart in October 2008 which again seems absurd considering the comparatively small amount they are asking. One can only wonder how far the social unrest with these terrible situation and if the school feeding process will be restarted in October. 

Cyber Warfare and Estonia

In the New Times Greg Bruno reports of the use of cyber warfare in Estonia. Estonia has a high-tech computerized government that was attacked in spring of 2007. Bruno reports, "A flood of bogus requests for information from computers around the world conspired to cripple the websites of Estonian banks, media outlets, and ministries for days. Estonia denounced the attacks as an unprovoked act of aggression from a regional foe (though experts still disagree on who perpetrated it--Moscow has denied any knowledge. Experts in cybersecurity went one step further: They called it the future of warfare." 

Has our dependence on technology made this a form of "warfare"? I could never have imagined this age of technology could have come to this, but in reality several countries have been accused of aggressive cyber "attacks" including the United States. Washington has accused China of hacking into US departments of State , Commerce, and DEfense and is believed to be the most active country in cyber warfare. Interestingly Bruno reveals the Office of the Secretary of Defense was hacked and briefly shut down. Who knows what was released or opened when this occurred but if hacking the Office of the Secretary of Defense is possible then hacking Secretary  into the Pentagon doesn't seem far fetched. If our security systems we hacked we could be exposed to all enemies.   

According to the article the United States has been able to successfully breach our enemies technology, jamming networks and disabling communication systems. They have also been able to create false intel for other countries which they perceive as real and credible. 

The use of this type of warfare seems almost cowardly and wrong. Using technology to breakdown another countries capabilities of defending itself could be crippling. Also with cyber warfare the country under attack rarely is able to trace the attacker. With China's continuing growth as a competing hegemon and the most active country in cyber warfare tensions between with the US may soar. For this US military institutions have made large efforts to protect itself from cyber attacks investing upwards of 6 billion dollars. Now cyber attacks are taken more seriously following the events that nearly shut down the Estonian government. Just for one last scare, Bruno says in 2007 alone there were 37,00 attempted breaches on the Department of Homeland Security and over 80,000 attempts on the Pentagon systems. 

They Deserve to Live, but I Know I Am Going to Die

The Rwandan GENOCIDE should have been a wake-up call to the world, but instead it became one of its biggest embarrassments. “The Ghosts of Rwanda” was as raw as it was emotional and it really pulled at my heartstrings. I had studied a bit about the Rwandan genocide in school (it was not touched upon too much) and of course watched “Hotel Rwanda.” Watching a real documentary, however, was different and it affected me at an even deeper level.

It was hard to stop myself from pointing at nations, non-state actors, and institutions, and placing the blame for the GENOCIDE on them. Yes, GENOCIDE. I know the whole point of not using the word “genocide” to describe the “Rwandan conflict” was to not let the world see that nations had the moral obligation to get involved, but it was stupid to have tried to classify the incident as anything less. In “Ghosts of Rwanda,” all the speakers were blaming the United States, Europe, and the United Nations for not being more involved. It was not in their interests to get involved militarily and start trouble for themselves as well.

When is it right to judge a nation or an institution for not aiding people who are in desperation? Is it ever right? Is it politically correct? Who are we to judge anyway? It is so sad that we actually have to ask ourselves those types of questions. True, Rwanda is its own country and perhaps other nations expected it to sort out its own problems from the get-go, but the issue was that Rwanda was not able to. The Hutus had abducted the governmental power and were mercilessly slaughtering the Tutsis. How the world could look away and not do anything about it completely baffles me (how they can still do that regarding Darfur baffles me even more). I guess some people were really ignorant and others chose to pretend to be.

But should rich and powerful nations always be expected to fix the problems of others? No, not exactly. As Uncle Ben tells Peter in “Spider Man,” “With great power comes great responsibility,” those advanced and blessed nations should help those who have fallen get up. But they cannot always be there and should not be expected to be there either. For instance, if a European country is having electoral issues, the United States should not get involved. Such issues can be short-lived and can be sorted out by the nation. But unhindered massacres like that in Rwanda taking place should be stopped at all costs. I know that UN troops were there for peacekeeping and peaceguarding or whatever they want to call it, but they should have been making peace—they should have been enforcing peace and avoiding so many hundreds and thousands of assassinations.

No matter what anyone says, politics has everything to do with morality; and morally, the world should have done something about Rwanda. The worry of audience costs should not only be related to threats and violence, but also to ignorance and pretense. After World War II, everyone said they would never let the Holocaust happen again. Why then did one of the world’s bloodiest GENOCIDES take place in Rwanda? We are not living in a good world when someone can say and truly believe, “They deserve to live, but I do not—I know I am going to die.” No one has the right to determine whether an innocent person has the right to live or die or how s/he will die, for that matter.

It is with issues like this one that I wonder whether the study of International Relations is really useful all the time. Can Realists or Liberals or Constructivists really explain what went on? Can they explain why the world just let that disaster happen? No, not really, not well enough to give anyone even the most minimal sense of understanding or slight comfort. So what is the point? What is the point about talking about ethnic conflict and causes of war and the correlation of economics and politics if it will not help make the world a better place most of the time—if it will not stop almost a million people from being assassinated? It maddens me—and I am not the only person who is furious at events like the Rwandan GENOCIDE.

Hopefully, however, we will be able to make the world a better place (as cliché and as overused as that phrase sounds). We need to stop the carnage taking place in Darfur now and prevent anything even remotely similar from happening again. Instead of wasting time disagreeing about IR theories and arguing about which one is better, we should all put our differences aside, stand together, and fight for life and peace and justice. 

 

The Global Warming Swindle

I recently had a brief discussions with a few of my friends about Global warming and whether they believed it to be a myth or a reality. Personally when I think about Global warming I see it as a threat to the future and as I learn more I see results of Global warming impacted the lives of my children. For this reason I decided to check out this brief video on the arguments that Global warming is a myth. 

The Global Warming Swindle theory suggest Global Warming is a form of propaganda and is a lie. They argue that climate change due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to increase in heat and as a result the polar caps will melt. They believe this to be a lie and the theory doesn't make sense. Citing some climate scientists they argue the historically the excess CO2 has and will never affect climate. 

They claim the IPCC is a UN body driven by politics as it is a political body. In looking at the biographies of IPCC employees are not actually the world's top scientist. They believe Climate Scientist are making this up in order to increase funding. They believe this is just a common shared political ideology and Global Warming has become a great industry in itself. If this theory were to collapse it would leave tens of thousands of people unemployed. They argue it is practically impossible to argue against Global Warming because it is such an accepted ideology that climate scientists refuse to examine the possibility that may indeed not be the case. 

The Global Warming Swindle theory argues the warming trend has lasted the last 200 years. They also believe that the changes in climate over the last hundred years has occurred without human influence. Through examinations of historical climate changes they break down the arguments of Global Warming, noting the warmer climates during the Medieval times, to before 200 years ago the harsh cold climate sometimes called the "small ice age."

Although I don't believe in this theory it is interesting to hear the argument. Also when thinking about Global Warming as an international industry with large funding struck me. This is true, in the Wall Street Journal says US funding is near 1.7 billion dollars. Global Warming also can be viewed as a political system. These are all simply theories though, but the evidence on both sides seem to be level. IS global warming a myth or made up ideology, this video may make you think it is a possibility. 

www.youtube.com/watch?tv=xzSzltt6h-s

Jus in Politico

According to Ron Claiborne, “GOP presidential hopeful John McCain on Wednesday cast America's commitment to Iraq as a "moral responsibility" to avert a genocidal civil war that could ensue if U.S. troops are withdrawn too soon” (McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War).

Senator McCain has asserted that a continued US presence, in the very long term, is necessary in Iraq. McCain has cited the lack of infrastructure and the inability for self-governance has primary reasons for the US to remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future. McCain believes US occupation may be necessary for many decades, despite massive and increasing costs in both blood and treasure. Without such a continued presence, McCain claims the country will fall into uncontrollable and disastrous civil war, between the two opposing factions of Muslims who inhabit the country and the various ethnic groups. Because those who follow Shia Islam are a small minority in Iraq, McCain asserts that this will lead to a genocidal reign on the part of Sunni Muslims leading to many deaths and the possible extermination of the Shia Muslims.

Regardless of the accuracy of these beliefs, or the justness of any of the political claims behind them, Senator McCain has raised an issue of jus in bello and jus post bellum. McCain claims that since the US is already engaged in conflict in the Middle East, it is our duty as just practitioners of war (disregard the oxymoron) to continue our operations in Iraq to the point that without a US presence, the people of Iraq could once again rebuild and lead a normal existence free of US law and order. It is interesting to note such a high profile policy-maker citing the justness of war. One must wonder if this offers merit to the theory, or simply highlights the injustice of war; if McCain is using this as a simple political ploy to make concessions for failed Bush policy, then he has truly shown the hypocrisy of just war theory. If not, then he will certainly bring into the American dialogue and potent and polemic sense of justice when approaching war, especially this one.

Tension with Russia

http:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7375736.stm

When reading this article I realized the many issues of concern surrounding Russia's relationship with Georgia. Russia has continued to increase its military presence in Abkhazia. Russia has also threaten Georgia with a form of coercive diplomacy, compelling Georgia to stand down or they will take "retaliatory measures." Georgia continues to argue the allegations of their potential attacks on Russia are false. Still the military build up has become another form of tension between Russia and the West. Both Nato and the European Union, as well as the UNited States National security Council have expressed their concern. The question to how much of a threat Russia will be to the West and how European countries will react remains at large.

Tensions between Russia and Georgia of late have increased significantly. The author makes specific references to a Georgian spy plane shot down by a Russian plane and Georgia's attempts to block Russian entry into the World Trade Organization. Although Russia has claimed to have "hard evidence" rebel Abkhazians shot down Georgia's spy plane, Georgia remains skeptical. Russia may see this as an act of aggression considering Russia lifted its economic sanction against Russia earlier this month. If both of these tensions continue to persist, international engagement will be necessary. NATO and the European Union's words against Russia's actions are all for now but may be followed with increased troops. Russia's grievances toward the West is an issue of concern and could make this intervention messy. 

Interestingly US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has said the dispute between the two countries should be "worked out state-to-state," yet has openly announced "Our commitment to Georgia and to its territorial integrity is firm." It seems the United States has shown interest in the conflict, believing Russian annexation of Abkhazia would be unacceptable. If Russia continues to increase its military presence and attempts the annexation i believe US involvement will be a certainty. US is known to be extremely militaristic, with war being an appealing solution to many of its conflicts. IT will be interesting to see how the presidential candidates address this issue while campaigning for the upcoming elections. If war is an outcome to this security dilemma, US would have more support than the Iraq war as other countries from Europe have expressed extreme concern, specifically Britain, France, and Germany 

US Energy Policy Woes

The US future in energy seems uncertain. As a nation, we deplore the loss of cheap fuel, and the ability to drive certain vehicles in a certain way, which comes along with ample fuel. Yet, as a nation, we seem unable to put two and two together and incentive new research and development into new means of producing cheap, clean energy. Surely, the current characterization of clean energy, as a tree-hungers only, almost anti-American institution has stymied US political good-will towards research into the field. Why must Americans berate and self-flagellate ourselves towards new energy. Why can’t new energy be the new American way? Surely, the US ought to be an example to the world in terms of energy policy and environmental responsibility. As a world hegemon, we seem to disseminate the views of capitalism over environment, and we must now reap the cost: developing nations doing their damndest to emulate our disregard and to consume as much as possible in the pursuit of the American dream.

Yet two of the three possible nominees for President seem totally oblivious to this new way of thinking. Both Clinton and McCain find a holiday gas tax more appealing to US voters than a call for US leadership in the world energy market. When our leaders can’t trust us to choose them without doling out candy and favors to us like children, what does this say about Americans? Whatever it may say about that, it certainly says, in Thomas Friedman’s words, this about the tax break: “This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.” (“Dumb as We Wanna Be http://www.nytime s.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?em&ex=1209700800&en=5e50edff9f212b25&ei=5087%0A). We seem intent to build our nation upon social irresponsibility and fiscal and policy stupidity. At least China will be able to call in our debt to clean up any future environmental disasters… perhaps we can rest easy after all.

Export Bans Highlight Global Problem

With today’s food crisis reaching alarming levels (food prices have tripled in the case of some staples), the ability of the global market to adequately provide food and other resources for the world has come into question. The logistical aspects of the global market see food products grown on one continent, shipped to another for processing, and returned for consumption; people now enjoy, and even demand, out of season food year round, food which must be shipped across oceans and hemispheres. Our global economy has accomplished all of this, but has been unable to supply an adequate amount of flour and rice in developing nations and places without the political power to ensure imports, or without the ability to produce enough of a certain good. The countries responsible for much of the world’s rice production have banned exports, focusing on the domestic issue and ignoring and exacerbating the world-wide problem, subject to no oversight or constraint. Indeed, the problem is endemic of the entire system. Countries grow accustomed to food imports, and grow complacent in the face of a system that seems so infallible.

Complex interdependence alone doesn’t seem a strong enough force to ensure that the weakest members of the international system can maintain their existence in a world of increasing demand and uncertain supply, and in a world where oil, used to create and ship nearly everything of scale, is growing even too expensive for the great all-consuming US. It seems it will be up to institutions to insure future cooperation amongst nations. The system truly does seem anarchical; while it may provide it times of plenty, the true test of our global world is its ability to provide in times of hunger.

Habermas Answers Democratic Peace Theory and Globalization

The last two posts ended with the questions:

1. How do you achieve an undistorted democracy?
2. How do you answer Globalization?

 

To deal with both questions, Habermas believes that there exists one answer that remedies both. However, he first writes off several solutions proposed by both scholars and politicians:

 

First, the claim that Globalization should just be accepted openly fails to answer the first question as it completely destroys democracy by implying that the people and their elected governments can in no way affect globalization.

 

Second, governments should reject any forms of isolationism (i.e. tariffs, corporate protectionism, etc.) as these represent attempts to undo the colonization of The System, an effort that is impossible. Other nations would respond by cutting off trade and the people would end up receiving a worse off lot.

 

Third, the “Third Way” proposed by new left governments (i.e. Clinton, Blair, etc.) fails to answer the first question as it states that governments can lessen the impact of Globalization by simply retraining people and lessening the blow of economic change. While this represents a good start, it undermines democratic government by failing to effectively represent the will of the populous.

 

Habermas poses that the answer to Globalization can be found in the creation of a Public Sphere where persons can enter into debate free from preexisting social distortions that could affect argument. In this sphere, lower bodies such as town halls, cafes, and the Internet, act to filter out the best ideas through rational discussion. In this manner, the public sphere offers the best way of providing the answer to the first question as the ideas from lower bodies filter up to legislatures and the like. The effective undistorted democracy provides the best means of dealing with globalization (elimination of farming subsidies, effective social programs, etc.) and also restores The Life World’s status by protecting its individual nature and allowing people to get voice their opinion in the world’s workings from a distinct background and culture.

 

Obviously, all of this information is not a complete representation of Habermas, but I encourage all students to read and see where you like his works or not.

Tourism and Global Warming

In an article published by Yahoo! News today the effect that global warming could have on the tourism industry was analyzed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080429/bs_afp/asiatourismenvironmentwarming;_ylt=AiKM9jKh6rWz3eSLdOqMktRpl88F

For me, this article was of particular interest because it looks at a different aspect of global warming. As discussed in lecture global warming can have an impact on water and food resources, as well as on the spread of disease. But the tourism industry isn’t anything that I’ve previously considered to be greatly impacted by environmental erosion.

The problem of global warming hits the tourist sector in several ways. Firstly, it has an impact on desirable travel destinations. What would a cruise to Alaska be without hundreds of glaciers to see and take pictures of? And what would a trip to one of the many Caribbean islands which feature activities in the rainforests they posses be if these rainforests did not exist to zip –line through? Or even taking it a step further, should the sea-levels continue to rise at the rate they are, what happens when these islands start to disappear?

The article states that “The tourism industry accounted for about five percent of global emissions in 2007, according to the UN World Tourism Organization. Growth in the tourism industry could increase emissions by as much as 150 percent in 30 years”. If the tourism industry continues to grow at this rate over a few centuries, it will have a devastating impact on the environment.

The issue is, and it’s addressed by a CEO of a travel agency interviewed for the article, that while many tourism companies acknowledge the issue of global warming, and lobby for change, little action is actually taken. It’s mentioned that both Virgin Airlines and Marriot International are attempting to “go green” whether it be through biofuel or recyclable pens, but in reality, more needs to be done if this problem is going to be lessened, let alone stopped.

There are two ways in which I can see this happening, although there probably are more solutions out there. Firstly, the tourists themselves need to raise their voices. If the market for tourist industries decreases because the people demanding services refuse to spend money on companies which are not environmentally friendly, then perhaps this industry would get the message. Already this is one of the key factors spurring on companies such as Virgin Atlantic and Marriot to make pro-environment changes. But the more people who raise their voices against these policies, the more impact they will have.

Secondly, I think a combination of taxation and regulation would have a beneficial impact on the tourist industry’s emissions. If each company was given a specific amount of emissions that they were allowed for a given year, and then were forced to pay exorbitant taxes on any emissions above that designated number, then I think emissions may decrease. And if they don’t decrease on their own, the overall amount of emissions could be lessened and then distributed amongst the industry, to be divided among the companies. While this may not be the perfect answer, it definitely would be a step in the right direction.

Ultimately, the issue of Global Warming is a huge problem for our generation, and unless act quickly; the effects of it will be devastating.

Habermas and Globalization

Jurgen Habermas, the previously mentioned political philosopher, writes extensively on the topics of globalization and I believe that the majority of what he has written accurately describes the problem found within Globalization. With his accurate description, I believe that he provides a possible response.

 

In order to understand this part of the problem, the world must be divided into two different parts, The System and The Life World.

 

The System includes all that is of purely a functional nature, that is the market, bureaucracy, money, power politics, and the like.

 

The Life-World includes our customs, traditions, history, reason, and culture (including most importantly languages and means communication).

 

While these two systems must both exist, they must do so harmoniously. In today’s globalized world, The System is “colonizing” The Life World in Habermas’ opinion. What this results in, is the degradation of society and lack of social cohesion and integration. For example, if we look at the job market, the globalized market makes it appear to an individual worker that they are losing their job not because of how capable or unable they are at performing their job, but rather, that market forces took their job away from them. So rather than losing their job, a worker perceives the world as not having a place for him or her. The result creates a very cold and reserved society that cannot exist. To compound with the latter, the former workers will probably see products that are “Made in China” and feel resentment. The example of the breakdown in The Life World can be seen across all aspects of society and leads to general social breakdown as people become disoriented and no longer have sure identities as said identities are distorted and destroyed by The System. As I previously mentioned, distortion proves harmful to the deliberative democratic system. The System’s distortion only exacerbates the vulnerability of democracy to distortion through attempts to desperately reverse globalization and find an identity.

 

            This search for an identity manifests itself possibly in the concept of fragmentation. In essence fragmentation and the creation of civilization sectors merely delays complete colonization of The Life World by the System. It represents an insufficient means of actually dealing with globalization. If this answer is insufficient, then what is the final answer to globalization?

Habermas and Democratic Peace Theory

The Democratic Peace Theory often comes under fire when nations such as our own undertake unilateral policies bent on the conquest of the world… Now, that may have been over the line, but it’s true that the concept that democratic nations go to war less often seems false when the world’s first modern republic seems to be fighting more so than some autocratic regimes. In order to defend this theory, the answer seems obvious; America is no longer a Democracy, or at least an effective one.

 

            The great political philosopher Jurgen Habermas grew up during and after the Nazi regime in Germany and he came to the realization, as many other Germans did, that their nation had been responsible for one of the largest atrocities in all human history. While Germany represented a European cultural center, producing major advances literature, music, art and the like, Habermas points to the fact that Germans lacked critical discussion prior to Hitler’s take over; it was not a question of civilization values and the like. The only party to vote against the enabling act was the Democratic Socialist party (being one, I had to include that in there), while all other parties voted to enable dictatorship. But why was there a lack of critical discussion? The answer is distortion. Habermas believes that distortion comes in many forms (i.e. race, religion, class, sex, etc.), this distortion diminishes the ability of a nation to implement true deliberative democracy.

 

            In the current American democracy, fear represents the greatest distortion. Unlike the successful presidencies of presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt, where we had, “nothing to fear but fear itself”, politicians now regularly use fear to distort the political process of deliberative democracy. This distortion does not represent anything new in the world of politics however, as Herman Goering said,

 

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

 

As he says, “Naturally the common people don’t want war”, it is clear that democratic systems work when they are undistorted. The question is how do we achieve an undistorted democratic forum especially in the age of globalization?

Polar Bears

So climate change and oil drilling up in the Arctic have been affecting the polar bear population, and the US government has been given a May 16 deadline to decide whether they should be considered an endangered species or not. If they are, then this means that US oil exploration would be severely limited in the Arctic.

This article, I think, highlights some of the issues of politics and the environment, and also the influence that non-state actors, such as conservation groups, have on the decisions that governments must make. The polar bear-issue is a problem that the government does not want to deal with, as evidenced by their continuous stalling, and I can understand why. No government in their right mind would give up resources willingly, especially since there is such a demand for energy resources, but at the same time they can't say, "Oh, no, the polar bears aren't in danger," and risk future consequences of failing to deal with the crisis when all the polar bears are dead.

(I, personally, would be very angry if this happened, because I love polar bears. But I also like having a car, and this is the paradox that most people are dealing with.)

There will always be huge trade-offs involving environmental issues, and this reminds me of how I heard that companies are beginning to use bananas to make ethanol, and how this could contribute to the worldwide food shortage. When do we determine that the losses in one aspect of life are worth the gains in the other? I would say that yes, we need to save the polar bear, but I'm not a government trying to take care of the needs of a nation. I don't think it's really a question of whether the polar bear is endangered, or threatened, or whatever other label, because that can be determined objectively by charts and numbers. The problem is what the government is going to do after that label is given, and it's a tough choice to make.

Pessimism About a Solution for Identity Based Conflicts

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a perfect example of an identity-based conflict where numerous ethnic rival groups come into conflict with one another. First I will flush out the details of the most recent events of the DRC’s ongoing civil war before I evaluate how identity plays an important role and what the proposed solutions could be.

There are nearly 200 separate ethnic groups that comprise the Congolese population al speaking various different languages. The DRC witnessed the spillover effects from the Rwandan Genocide, as Hutu rebels formed refugee camps on the DRC’s border. These militiamen have remained in the DRC for fear of Tutsi revenge back in Rwanda, and subsequently attack villages for food and money. 1n 1998, President Kabila attempted to expel the Hutus which only amplified the conflict. In 2004, the already fragile government and army factions collided and intense violence ensued. Numerous rival groups backed by Uganda and Rwanda formed and destabilized the region combating both the Hutu refugees and other rival groups. Close to four million people have died due to the detrimental effects of an ongoing war based in both ethnic and identity politics.

The war in the DRC clearly represents many of the criteria for an identity-based war. The outside influences, the Hutu rebels, have not only activated the boundaries within the country but they have infiltrated the state itself. Additionally, the DRC has struggled over the past decades to establish political boundaries between the various ethnic groups and has a very unstable and weak economy. Lastly, part of the reason the Hutus are attacking villages is because they need food and other resources to survive—thus representing a resource shortage.

In terms of possible solutions, partition does not seem to be viable. The country has already been divided into four separate regions and this has done nothing to halt the violence. Moreover, the state and the internationally recognized president Kabila cannot retain his power without the assistance of other states, specifically Zimbabwe, Angola, and Namibia. The DRC could in theory benefit from establishing democratic systems and institutions, but there already is an elected president who only retains control of a portion of the country and he requires international assistance. Finally, peacekeeping is the third possible solution to the conflict. Unfortunately, the presence of UN peacekeepers has not helped alleviate the conflict much at all, and according to a recent BBC News article, there appears to be a certain degree of corruption within the peacekeeping forces. Indian and Pakistani peacekeepers are said to be involved with illegal gold, ivory, and drug-trading and arms-selling to rebel groups. See article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7365283.stm

As an undergraduate student I still feel quite small and helpless in being able to come up with a solution to a problem like the one in the DRC. Unfortunately, the current actions be taken are having little positive effects and clearly a change needs to be made. It seems as though there is no foolproof solution to identity and ethnic based conflicts…a sad fact for countries like the DRC.

Iran and Barbie Dolls

This article from the BBC is a clear illustration of some of the issues mentioned in class about globlization.

It is rather silly--Iran refusing to allow the importation of Barbie dolls because they destroy traditional values--but it relates directly to theories that globlization can cause cultural defragmentation. The Iranian government refuses to allow the Barbie dolls in because, among other issues, they violate Islamic values such as the conservative dress of women. And, of course, there is also the larger fear of westernization through other mediums, such as books and video games.

Even if the country in question is Iran, this is understandable. It is natural instinct, I think, for countries to protect their way of life and thought. I have my own concerns about cultural assimilation--western culture is fine and good, but there are all sorts of wonderful, beautiful cultures out there that really don't need a huge coca-cola billboard poking out from the middle of them.

But that's just my opinion, and that's the problem. Peoples and governments are always going to have differing views, each arguably valid, and the clashes will likely continue with no concretely "just" winner in the end. This particular situation can be viewed in a variety of ways. First, that the people are being kept from getting what they want by an evil government practicing censorship. But it can also be viewed as the government trying to protect a culture that the people don't care enough to protect. I think that as "westerners," it's difficult for us to judge the effects that westernization is having on the rest of the world. Of course we see the Iranian government as oppressive and corrupted, and of course we think that the people should have free choice in what they choose to buy.

Still, though, what if the Iranian people weren't clambering for "western" products? The mentality of the "civilized" west versus the "barbarians" of the rest of the world is a dangerous way of thinking. I'm not saying that I believe this is a common belief, but there is a tendency, I think, to welcome other nations embracing the "American" way of life and then not being able to even understand when something else is chosen. And when people start to think like that, there's a problem.

The Clash of Civilizations

I found Huntington’s article in the “Clash of Civilizations” very intriguing. When we think about the way the world is divided today, we often point to economic differences or current alliances between states. But ultimately, what these differences amount to is fundamentally cultural. It is no coincidence that the United States and Europe and major allies and not the United States and Brazil. It is because the cultural similarities and differences ultimately determine alliances.
I also found Huntington’s argument for why there would be a clash between the civilizations convincing. If we look back through history, it is evident that the major clashes have occurred between various civilizations. Civilizations will continue to rise and fall as they have in the past. Huntington raises a good point when he says that political and economic differences can be overcome and changed by time. However, one cannot change who they are. Fundamental differences of culture, religion, language, and history cannot be easily changed. History has proven that cultural clashes have always been the most bloody and devastating. There are definitely critical factors that have arisen as the result of increased globalization. Civilizations interact with one another more frequently and therefore become of the differences that exist between them. Forces such as multinational corporations, supranational organizations, and transnational movement have all contributed to the decline nation state. Another important consequence of multilateralism is economic regionalism. This has also led to a rediscovery of cultural ties. I think it will be interesting to see how this theory plays out in the future.

Final Exam Review Sessions

The TAs will be holding two separate review sessions for the final:

Tuesday 29 April, 5.30-7.30 pm, ICC 108 (David and Alex)
Wednesday 30 April, 5.30-7.30pm, ICC 108 (Peter and Beth)

As was the case for the midterm review, we will simply be holding a Q+ A session, with no set format for the session, so please bring any questions you might have.

Good luck studying, and we hope to see you all next week at the review sessions.

Globalization & the Olympics

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/world/asia/24china.html?em&ex=1209182400&en=559659f38dd76e6a&ei=5087%0A

As Professor Nexon described in class today, the Olympics are yet another example of Globalization. The Olympics has been around since Roman times, but have taken a different toll in light of modernization. In one respect, it creates world unity because it brings all of the nations together. It is a time during which it doesn't matter if you're black, white, tall or small- you admire all Olympians because they have mastered a skill so admirably. Representatives from the world come into the same arena and compete as equals.
But some one has to win, and though we are all part of one world, each state is competing, causing fractionalization, even though we're all working towards the same goals. Though it's admirable that the Romanians beat out the US rowing team in 2004 by being stronger and faster, it doesn't mean that we weren't still upset that US didn't win the gold. Though the Olympics bring us together, they also bring out our differences and rivalries.
What's more, events like the Olympics demonstrate the presence of Westernization. In this article, it is described how they are putting in new restaurants, and making everything English friendly. Though it's great that Olympians won't be missing their events because they are lost, we lose a bit of China. Part of what's great about this country is that it's not afraid to be different, and at times its unique techniques actually work better. By creating a world identity, we are making it expected that they should be like us. We should instead accept the cultural differences and embrace our diversity, for their society is just as developed as ours, if not more, but just in a different way.
With the torch controversy, it is especially evident that the world reacts to actions, especially political. Even though half of the countries are guilty of colonization, either now or in the past, the Chinese are seen as the "bad guy." However the Tibetans are being oppressed, just like the Americans were years ago, but now protests are the most effective way of being heard by the world, instead of by dumping tea.

The End of Free Trade

Free Trade and the US Election

When I read this article from the BBC last year, I didn't find it interesting because of the implications for the 2008 election. At the time, election season was still early, candidates hadn't been chosen, and policy visions hadn't been wholly thought out and cemented. What caught me was one statistic: 60% of republican voters think that free trade is bad for America. The republican party, traditionally supporters of opening markets, and almost wholly turning away from liberal go-to arguments about sweatshops and foreign labor rights, have turned away from free trade as a core policy value.

The article was written in the context of Bush attempting to push multiple bilateral free trade deals, with Peru, Korea, Columbia, and Panama, through Senate. The Doha round of WTO negotiations was beginning to become a clear failure, and congress had failed to renew bush's fast track authority, which allowed the president to bring free trade deals to a vote on the senate floor without any amendments. These failures already indicated that the democratic congress may have brought a slow stop to the free trade movement evident with groundbreaking negotiations with the WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA. While Bush was able to successfully lobby the senate to approve his free trade agreement with Peru, it was negotiated to include labor restrictions and rights amendments not traditionally a part of the conservative trend of opening markets. In fact, such actions by the democratic senate have forced the president to re-negotiate each of these bilateral free trade deals with the allies who signed them. Further deals may be in jeopardy with the lame duck president and his already ambitious foreign policy in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

I believe that this trend will only continue at a faster rate in the next year. The economic malaise in the United States means that the most popular argument to turn moderate middle and lower class voters against free trade, "they're taking our jobs!", will be a powerful political tool. Add to this the polling data that show the lack of even republican support for free trade, and the issue will either become irrelevant or a universally opposed concept. For proponants of free trade, this could be an issue--it's the bicycle theory of free trade, if you don't keep riding, you fall over. 2008 may be the year when the United States stops riding.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Brown Urges Global Push to Solve Global Problems

The articles above seems to tie in with a lot of what we have been discussing in class concerning security communities, terrorism, occupations, and even environmental issues.

First, Brown calls for the U.S. and Europe to forge even stronger ties to combat issues of "terrorism, the environment, hunger and poverty." According to him, the only way to stop terrorism is to make it "isolated and abandoned" through means such as freezing assets. But he also says that both countries should make efforts to stabilize unstable nations, as "instability in one country will affect stability in all countries."

I personally don't see how the above could work out, as to some extent terrorism seems to be bred through unwanted western involvement in states. I agree with his statement about instability breeding further instability, but as Iraq shows, western powers should be very careful about how they proceed in "fixing" nations, as the results may prove more damaging than the initial situation. But the whole situation does suggest a strengthening of the security community, if that can be applied to two states, between the U.S. and Britain. That it has been founded on a whole number of factors (similarities in government, language, ideology, etc.) suggests that the stronger the collective identity between states, the more effective of a security community they form, and that the collective identity can lead to other factors--economic or what not--that only serve to further strengthen the relationship.

He also proposes the creation of a global peace corps with the goal of rebuilding nations. I'm not entirely certain if this idea will ever become reality. For one thing, unlike the U.S. peace corps, this organization would be subject to the whims conflicting international interests. What would be the difference between these peace corps and UN troops? History has proven that UN troops, while good in theory, tend not to be particularly effective.

Interestingly, Brown also calls for a global effort to combat climate change. As Professor Nexon mentioned in his lecture, the issue of climate change is an extremely difficult case to deal with. I'm not entirely certain if, of all institutions, the World Bank is most fit to deal with this issue, since the responsibility of dealing with the issues lies with states choosing to take actions themselves. And most states simply want nothing to do with it, especially since whether there will be consequences in the future or not remains too uncertain to risk a commitment.

Democratic Peace in a World of Hungry Bellies?

Professor Nexon briefly mentioned in his lecture that the spiraling food prices, especially to those crops that are the staple food for many around the world, are threatening global peace and ushering an onslaught of riots and violence that can only be solved with lowering prices and more aid.

The food shortages that are now spanning across the globe and hitting either particularly weak or rising states such as Haiti, Nigeria, South Africa, India, and China reflect an almost doomsday, Thomas Malthusian view about what the world may look like with such a shortage of crucial resources. Could it be that Western countries (especially the U.S.) were too busy concentrating on biofuels and ethanol instead creating some alternate form of green technology, thus driving up prices and threatening the stability of states that eventually have to contend with the soaring prices of wheat, corn, and rice? Where were the institutions that were supposed to stop this? Or is this crisis simply a reaction to the inevitable dog-eats-dog structure that allows weaker states to collapse and stronger states to survive? After all, the countries in which food price have skyrocketed but population remaining relatively unaffected are in no hurry to start protests or overthrow their government. However, these countries with the least problems are the ones who are almost always the perpetrators regarding the cause of the rising prices.

The recent New York Times article about food riots notes that nervous governments are already cash-strapped with their food subsidies and increasingly angry people. UN peacekeeping forces have been called to Haiti because demonstrators are angry, even if the government has tried to slash food prices at 15%. While constructivists may say that the solution to these problems has to do with the norms that must be overturned in order to progress, this issue is particularly hard to solve because, well, the need for feeding oneself is literally a universal need that can't be broken down between any sort of boundaries. Policy changes could happen, such as governments limiting the amount of food that people can buy to reduce hoarding, but the real changes must come from some sort of policy aspect that allows countries to invest and increase their domestic resources.

Personally, it seems that liberals' theories are right when it comes to this issue. The complex interdependence was what allowed food shortages to start in the beginning; the rising prices in Burkina Faso should have triggered an alarm to North American countries. Globalization has truly affected all states in the sense that no one can be impervious to another's woes; no one can hide from the rippling that occurs when one state's crises spills over to its neighbors. There are just too many ties that bind all states together, and to say that states are still in an anarchical battle over power and sovereignty is to ignore the implications of these ties and the fact that if one tie is threatened, all other ends will become loose. Interstate competition just can't "win out" in something that's crucial as feeding a population. Collective action must be taken to ensure that one state's problems do not tip the balance of world powers in chaos.

"Foreign Policy: 2 Camps Seek McCain's Ear"

Last week, The New York Times published an article concerning the potential foreign policy of presidential candidate John McCain. In the past, McCain was considered one of the so-called pragmatists, a part of the Republican party who considered the Iraq war a mistake and with whom McCain has had close relationships. We would most likely refer to them as Realists. These “pragmatists” are expressing concern, however, that McCain is leaning more towards neo-conservatism these days. His list of potential foreign policy advisors includes Robert Kagan, who wrote a recent speech for him in which he referred to himself as a “realistic idealist.” Much of this struggle stems from the division in the party, which has led to neoconservatives unhappy about McCain’s candidacy to try to persuade him to continue neoconservatist foreign policy. McCain defended himself by insisting that he takes advice from a wide variety of people. In fact, in the past, McCain has often supported neoconsertive actions. Some say he “bridges the difference.” The article states that realists are concerned that McCain hasn’t done the work involved in formulating a strong foreign policy and does not really know as much as his campaign advisors imply- as evidence by the incidents in which he accused Iran of having ties with Al Qaeda. Overall, since McCain has yet to settle himself in one camp, the realists are worried.
This article demonstrates how relevant the debates between realists and neoconservatists really are. Whichever camp McCain decides to lean towards will decide many of his actions as president. Especially now, when a neoconservative administration has brought the nation to war and when realist fears of overextension are being played out, the foreign policy stance of presidential candidates is extremely important. The fears that realists express are understandable, even if they are exaggerated. Neoconservatives overextend, in their view, so a third consecutive presidential administration acting from neoconservative views would be ruinous for the nation. What I find most interesting about this article is the apparent refusal of McCain to take a specific stance on the issue. Foreign policy is a divisive issue within the Republican Party, as the attempts of realists and neoconservatives to vie for influence within it show. After an unpopular Republican president, McCain is probably following a smart political strategy. He is probably trying to bridge the gap by incorporating both legs of the party.
Additionally, at times, he seems to demonstrate liberal institutionalist tendencies as well. He is known to support multilateralism more strongly than most neoconservatives. He also has been a strong advocate for international environmental issues. Basically, he is covering all the bases. Multiple camps can interpret his overall stance as in compliance with their own camps. They can also, however, interpret it as in compliance totally with another camp which may hurt him in the end and lose all his support.
I wrote a little while ago about a McCain article in Foreign Affairs. He put a lot of emphasis on a league of democracies. I was not surprised to learn, therefore, that he has been receiving advice from Robert Kagan. What we have read by Kagan echoes almost exactly these ideas. It’s especially interesting to look at this emphasis in light of recent readings concern democratic peace theory and the imposition of democracy. Democracies in countries without pro-American sentiment will not necessarily ally with us, as Kagan seems to suggest, or be willing to support us. Spreading democracy has yet to make a stable, manageable Iraq. It is interesting, then, how much McCain seems to emphasize it. Let’s hope that, if elected, the recent concessions McCain has made to the neoconservative camp develop into a strong bond that trumps the wiser, in my opinion, theories of foreign policy. After eight years of unsuccessful neoconservativism, I don’t even quite understand why this is a question.

Will War Someday be Wholly Obsolete?

The discussion of Security Communities, and the various theories on what countries or qualities of certain countries create such communities, made me wonder if the international trend is a growing number of states which will not go to war with each other. Will processes like democratization, globalization, and proliferation of non-conventional weapons and information technology continue to progress to the point where no two nations have any incentive to go to war with each other?

The debate seems to have begun with the relative peace between great powers since World War II. In his debate with John Mearsheimer over the issue, Michael Mandelbaum offered a few reasons that great powers now consider war with each other unthinkable. Nuclear weapons, economic ties, and advanced technology for conventional weaponry have made war more costly, and the lack of global power struggle lessen its potential benefits. International norms of democracy and a general consensus that wars must be waged for a just reason, make waging war an out of fashion trend in international politics.

Two processes, democratization and globalization of economic ties, seem to be progressing steadily. While it may be argued that democratization may have not only slowed down, but reversed in recent decades, there is no apparant blowback in the growth of economic ties. These two processes are noted as the basis for security communities like the EU, the Transatlantic alliance, and ASEAN. Therefore, if they continue to progress, these trends will intertwine each state into a global security community.

Two things seem able to shatter this fragile balance; ideology and struggles over natural resource issues. The potential global hotspots today are ideological conflicts waiting to erupt. India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, the Koreas, Israel and just about every one of its neighbors etc. Each is willing to initiate a war which could potentially escalate to include major allied powers because of ideolgical inclinations and their massive domestic political support.

Ideology can eventually fade, however, as generations pass. Competition over natural resources like oil, water, metals, and land, will not. As time passes, resources can only become more scarce. Economic relationships won't matter if the resources that fuel such trade aren't availiable. International norms, practices, and appreciation for democracies will assuredly fall by the wayside to physical needs for food, water, and material wealth. The recipe for persistent stability, therefore, mandates not only the normalization of relations and ties between countries, but addressing their natural needs as population grows.

Zimbabwe and the UN

I remember being appalled the first time I saw Hotel Rwanda with my high school’s human rights club my sophomore year. I was amazed by the level of violence and inhumanity displayed by the film. (Granted, much of it was off camera, but the director did a very good job of getting the message across.) I figured that most of the violence was grossly exaggerated and dramatized for the “entertainment value” but the showing of the video was followed by a talk from a local journalist who was there through some of what happened. One of the points he kept touching on was how what was going to happen was so obvious and it just seemed like everyone was turning a blind eye.

Now, a week after watching the documentary in class, I find this on CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/04/15/zimbabwe.election/index.html?iref=newssearch

Though I consider myself a Ron Paul Republican and think the US Government should stay far away from such crises, something needs to be done about this! Almost all of the same warning signs are showing, and one of the leaders of the opposition not only hinted that “the party could not control the hungry and frustrated people of Zimbabwe” but outright said that there will be “Rwanda-esque” genocide should the international community stay quiet. Perhaps I’m far off here, but this would be a great opportunity for the United Nations to saddle up and prove that maybe they aren’t the inefficient, ineffectual body that they’ve been pegged as in the past couple years and take a stand on this matter. The United Nation needs to use the sway and manpower it has to get election votes counted, stop the striking, raise literacy and employment rates, and foster talks between the two volatile groups. These are the types of tasks which it was designed for, humanitarian and social aid, easily carried out by a multi-national team of trained individuals with no bloodshed and no further loss or damage. As much as I may disagree with the liberal worldview, I believe that this is the perfect situation for a body created with regards to this theory to thrive, and I’d love to see it do just that, rather than again turn a blind eye and allow tragedy to occur.

Gaza Fighting Continues

On Yahoo! News today, I came across an article discussing the newly stirred violence on the Gaza strip. This seemed to be directly applicable to the Identity-Based Conflicts lecture.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians;_ylt=AjIujC58ocW9c0euFreN_gZvaA8F

Firstly I think it is important to note that this was the heaviest surge of violence in the area in the past month. Regrettably this attack undid mediation attempts by Egypt, and broke the informal truce that Hamas and Israel seemingly had. This fresh attack, amid the controversy surrounding the meeting between Hamas officials and former President Jimmy Carter, again begs the question; will peace ever be attained in the Middle East?

When analyzing the reasons for why there is such an issue with finding a peaceful solution to this conflict, ethnic identity concerns can be seen to be at the root of the problem. The intermixing of culture and religion in the area is a direct cause of these security problems. The fact that the region is so divided, Palestinian against Israeli, makes it difficult for either side to commit to a treaty. Even if through negotiations a peaceful end could be reached, the fact is that neither Hamas nor the Israeli government would trust each other enough to completely stand down. Then there is the issue that would arise concerning intra-ethnic policing – simply that neither side has the power or influence over their own groups to prevent them from committing violence even after a peace treaty was signed. This appears to be more of an issue on the Palestinian side, but in the end any extremists may not feel as though peace was the correct path to choose. These people would be likely to continue terrorist activities, which would cause the attacked side to take defensive action, leading to more conflict.

When looking at the proposed solutions to identity based conflict that were discussed in lecture it becomes clear that some have the potential to be more successful than others. Clearly a decisive victory by either side would be the most effective way of ending this conflict, but both sides are fairly well matched; terrorism for nuclear weapons, support of the Arab world for that of the United States. Thus they end up balancing each other out. Instead separation strategies probably have the most potential for ending the conflict. Partitioning would create a self-protecting environment for each ethnic group, in which security dilemmas would not be as big of an issue since each group would be living with its own people. The biggest problem with this solution is that Hamas refuses to give up its position on the Gaza strip, and Israel refuses to carry out a peace agreement until the Gaza returns to Abbas’ possession. Until a compromise can be reached between the Palestinian and Israeli stands, separation strategies will not be able to be implemented.
(all information taken from lecture notes)

Shaky Logic for Democratic Peace

Democratic Peace theory is an interesting one to me. While the theory is supported by evidence that in the past decades democracies had not gone to war with one another, none of the claims as to why this is true are strong enough to support the argument alone. One argument is that any states that have similar social structures would be more likely to cooperate. However, this argument is challenged by feudal warfare. Hegemony has also been used to explain this phenomenon; however, hegemonic theories are not sufficient enough because there are not enough examples to support them. Another argument is that there are no deep conflicts between democratic states, but this statement seems too general to me. It has been suggested by liberal theorists that democratic states are less likely to go to war because the people bear the costs of war and are therefore less likely. But this argument does nothing to satisfy the fact that democratic states often go to war with other authoritarian regimes and democratic states are just as war prone. One of the strongest arguments in my opinion is the commerce and free trade argument. In my opinion, trade relations would seem to be one of the major reasons why states would be less likely to go to war. But this doesn’t necessarily apply to relations between democratic states. The US and China are an example of how war between states with different types of governments will be less likely to engage in major military battles because of trade agreements. While used together, these theories may help explain the peace that exists between democratic states. However, I think that these theories are still inefficient and more research needs to be done. (all information from Doyle “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.”)

To Us, China's Getting in the Way. To them...?

Sunday's edition of The New York Times had an unusually large number of articles about China. Well, not so unusual when one considers the tumultuous events of this "sleeping giant." In one of my previous posts, I said something about how the younger Chinese generation will eventually learn to embrace and protest for democracy, something that they've been conspicuously absent at doing during this century. I still stand by what I say, but I'd like to extend the "eventual" timeline to another 100 years.

China's Loyal Youth portrays young Chinese individuals as materialistic, politically inactive, and dead loyal to China's bureaucracy and government. Through my personal observations, China's youth seems to be indoctrinated in Chinese nationalism ideology, so much that their parents are loathe to complain because, well, their kids are making enough money and getting good-enough jobs that there's no reason to complain about the lack of human rights, free press, and other civil rights. Therefore, the idea that they would sympathize with Tibet and the Dalai Lama seems almost laughable.

What does their apathy mean in terms of international relations? Yes, they are probably going to make up a huge sect of consumers as companies eventually realize that they can make just as much money targeting these Eastern hipsters. No, they're not going to come to some kind of liberal epiphany and start marching the streets of Beijing (unless their economy completely tanks due to an inefficient government and much, much corruption).

Actually, things (that is, society, everyday life...) will remain the same. Headlines such as these will continue to dominate international headlines, and China will gain an economic stronghold. It's easy, right? Of course, my predictions would only be accurate if China is a status quo state. And I think it is--nowhere in Chinese foreign policy does it dictate that China wants to acquire new territory, go into other countries and topple their government, or any of the things that once characterized empires.

Of course, for China to say that the Tibetan issue is only an issue of sovereignty is like saying that the Civil War was only about slavery. The indications that China conveys about Tibet are plentiful and multi-layered: It's about dealing with China's ascension into world power; it's about showing other states that they can assert power and be successful; it's about old-school ideology; it's about their way of ensuring an outdated foreign policy; it's about saving face before China's "coming out" party, one of the most pivotal events for them in the last century...

It will be fascinating to see what kind of dialogue the new U.S. President will hold with China. There's a chance that Pelosi, a staunch supporter for ending conflict in Darfur and one of the most outspoken politicians about China in Washington, will pressure the potential Democratic president to sever many economic ties with China, lest China gets its human rights activism together. There's a less likely chance that Pelosi's supposed urges will succeed with a Republican president. Let the battle begin ?

Whatever the U.S. or China may say about Tibet, the Olympics are bound to be an interesting event. And I'm not just referring to the athletics.

Call me Jacques Derrida...

Because I'm writing another post about the use of language regarding another loaded term; genocide. Watching the documentary on the Rwanda genocide, the moments that struck me as most absurd were watching the woman from the Clinton administration dodge every question regarding whether or not the situtation had deteriorated to the point where it could be called genocide. In the second instance, she was explicitly asked whether she was ordered not to use "genocide" without it being prefaced with "acts of" or other mitigating phrases. It raises the question of the political ramifications of this term's use. The administration did not want to be percieved as "complicit in genocide." If the vast public opinion is opposed to inaction in the face of genocide, however, why would the administration not simply deploy the term to describe the situation in Rwanda, and then have domestic political support for intervention. Assuming that this wasn't just an option no one in the Clinton administration was smart enough to think of, their inaction demonstrates that the international norm in favor of stopping "genocide" isn't as strong as we would like to think. Constructivists would like to point to genocide, weapons of mass destruction use, and torture as the "big three" in terms of taboos in international relations. Excluding weapons of mass destruction, however, it is rare that this categorical condemnation of torture and genocide actually translates into action. Unlike the use of nuclear weapons, human rights violations don't directly threaten the existence or interests of major powers like the United States. Without this threat, intervening to prevent genocide is a no-win proposition. Best case scenario, nothing happens. Worst case scenario, either the genocide happens, or the intervening actor loses the lives of its soldiers and exhausts some amount of financial and military resources, possibly leaving the nation vulnerable to attack in another area. The Clinton Administration never intended to intervene in Rwanda, regardless of if people called it a genocide or a birthday party. This tendency to default to self interest proves to be evidence against a constructivist and domestic liberal theories for evaluating international relations, and supports the realist interpretation thats states will act in their own self interest regardless of domestic public opinion or international norms promoting human rights.

Genocide

My senior year in high school I took a course entitled Facing History and Ourselves, in which we learned about all of the injustices that have plagued the history of the world. At the time, I was much more of an optimist, and still believed that politics and diplomacy could fix everything. I've now realized just how much it takes to get anything done, and how careful of a line politicians must walk. Though it is horrifying that there is still a genocide going on in Darfur, no one is doing anything. If America is to take the role of world hegemon when it comes to WMD or countries that we have economic or political interest in, it is not surprising that the world expects us to come to the rescue of others. But if America were to stretch itself even more thinly, we would not have anything left for domestic problems, and someone would always be complaining about something. And so, even though I am a member of STAND and a national organization against genocide, I find myself understanding where the politicians are coming from when they just sit behind their offices and do nothing. If we fix every problem in the world, there will be nothing left for us.

April Fools

Just in case you had been fooled, the paper is NOT in fact doubled in length--it's still, thankfully, 2000-2500 words.

Don't you wish you had gotten to hear the lecture on Just War and 90s sitcoms?

How "nationalist myth-making" made me an Israeli

It never occurred to us in my first grade Hebrew School class that the Palestinians were actually people. They had become to us more of an idea that could be equated with evil. No complexity accompanied our view of the Palestinians and the struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians seemed to us a struggle of good versus evil, black and white. The thing is, though, none of us had ever actually been to Israel. In fact, I doubt any of us were actually descendents of Israelis. As a descendent of Russian and German Jews, I have no familial ties to Israel. Somehow, however, I became Israeli and, though I have since changed my viewpoint, I came to believe the typifications that accompany this identity.
My early childhood demonstrates the power of constructing identity. The collective identity of Jews as Israelis tied together groups of people previously only loosely connected. Jews from different geographic origins had very different traditions, yet somehow they become part of a single entity with the rise of Zionism- if not to themselves, then to those who worked for the creation of a Jewish state. The Jewish identity creates a unique situation in which a religious group is referred to as an ethnicity by many and is equated with a state- Israel. Kaufmann discusses how constructivists believe that identity is fluid and can be created and destroyed, as well as manipulated. The creation of the Jewish and Israeli identity (a single identity as they have been tied together) is a case in point. Ethnicity implies something you are born with as part of some kind of line, but applying this label to a group that incorporates such a variety of people has gained legitimacy to many. To many, Jews are not simply connected by religious ties; they are an ethnic group. Rarely do we refer to Catholics as an ethnic group, yet somehow, in this situation, we’ve equated religion with ethnicity.
What does this kind of identity mean for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Tilly touched on the importance of foreigners in supporting internal ethnic conflicts. The Tamils in Sri Lanka, for example, receive support from ethnic Tamils all over the world in their struggle for independence, which poses challenges to the Sinhalese government. If a good portion of the Jewish population as a whole believes itself to be ethnically connected to the Israeli population, a large and lasting support base is created. It is likely, then, that Israeli claims will be supported and echoed by people all over the world who seem to have little in common, and their demands will remain important for a long time. In addition, because this “ethnic group” is far from contained and has members in every continent, it will be almost impossible for a third power to intervene without either historical biases or local populations playing a biased role.
Another interesting implication of this creation of ethnicity relates to what Kaufmann says about the inclusion of people who otherwise would be indifferent to conflict. Opposing groups can often impose identity on others; thus, a single identity can be imposed by the enemies of Israel on the Jewish population as a whole. Additionally, and equally importantly, ethnic groups can impose identity on those they consider part of an in-group even if these people do not consider themselves part of this identity. That is why I am often considered in the same ethnic group as Israeli Jews even though I feel little connection to them and am aware that, in my own definition of ethnicity, even the population of Israeli Jews contains diverse ethnic groups.
And of course, as the anecdote with which I began demonstrates, the creation of this identity causes widespread dehumanizing of opposing groups among those who do not have the capacity to think for themselves before it is too late. Jewish children all over the world come to see the Palestinians as the opposite of good even though they are, in my view, mostly outsiders to the conflict. Such strong views based on constructed identity will impede progress as an outside support groups for either party in the conflict remains strong and as children, rather than being educated on the issue, are only taught the situation in terms of what is “right” and what is “wrong.”
Kaufmann at varying points also refers to the Israeli-Arab conflict to support his ideas; however, this particular conflict shows that his solution of separating ethnic groups (if we assume both are ethnic groups) is too simplistic. In this case, it is not intolerance of another group that is the only issue at hand. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis at this point will be happy with just any territory, even if it is sufficient to support them. Kaufmann does not consider religious significance and the power it has over such conflicts. He seems to disregard the fact that territory can hold as much significance to an ethnic group as the ethnic group itself. Religious, historical and traditional considerations concerning land are not factored into his analysis of ethnic conflict. If religion was not an important part of this struggle, why would Jews who have never been near Israel care so deeply about holding on to that territory? In fact, why would Jews in other lands come to identify themselves specifically with Israel in the first place?

The "Civil War" Taboo

The inability to form blanket hypotheses on the causes of "civil wars" or uniform solutions to conflicts tagged with this distinction calls into question the efficacy of a term laden more with political baggage than analytical utility. The debate over "civil war" in the most apparent conflict today, Iraq, is not presented as a matter of finding a cause or solution, but instead, the term is deployed as a political weapon in the wider debate over Iraq. This rose to the surface in late 2006, with an ironic explosion of media coverage over the media itself when NBC announced that it would, against the orders of the Bush administration, begin using the term "civil war" in its stories covering Iraq. It was soon followed by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other predominantly liberal news media corporations making similar announcements. Instead of becoming an argument over descriptive accuracy, the move was widely accepted as move against the Bush administration intended to shore up public opposition to the war. Why should the American public support its soldiers and tax dollars being wasted on the internal conflict of another country? As James Steinberg, dean of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas wrote, “If Iraq is a democracy struggling against insurgents and you describe it that way, people might still support you. If it is a civil war, it is indisputably the case that Americans will say, 'What are we doing in the middle of a civil war?” Even those who support the move can’t deny its political motivation. Nothing happened in November of 2006 to prompt a sudden collapse of Iraq into civil war. The symbolic nature of the ordeal was clear as Matt Lauer broke from news coverage on the Today show not to announce a certain deterioration in the Iraq conflict, but NBC’s new formal policy of using the term “civil war.”

The term “civil war” now has less analytical use than political use. The New York Times made this apparent when they pledged not to overuse the term for “dramatic effect” noting that the conflict also contained elements of “an insurgency, an occupation, a battle against terrorism and a scene of criminal gangsterism.” These clearly informal terms illustrate the general preference for media exceptionalism over any alignment with military strategy or international relations theory. Even more striking is that the pentagon was the first to use the tool for similarly political purposes; with General John Abizaid threatening that Iraq may “collapse into civil war” if more troop deployments weren’t authorized. Passed using the same rhetoric for a political purpose, the General’s comments indicate his assumption that the civil war is something that can be identified, avoided and cured. Even the man who at the time was the highest ranking US commander in the Middle East assumed a general category of civil war. This generalization avoids any analysis of the specific causes of what may or may not be rightfully determined a civil war in Iraq, and thus negates any possibility for considering the most correct solution. This term, loaded with hundreds of years of political and historical symbolism, is an example of political rhetoric crowding out analytical efficiency.