Griffin Smith

Blog Post #4

                             

                         THE DARK SIDE OF EMBEDDED LIBERALISM

     Using Ruggie’s article on embedded liberalism as a jumping-off point, I would like to tack in the opposite direction of some of my previous posts and instead paint the picture that perhaps liberalism isn’t the saving new world order that many understand it to be and that it is perhaps simply a new rendition of an age-old monster.  This monster is the tedious game of international relations among states motivated by power and, perhaps more relevant in today’s context, the almighty dollar.

     Ruggie points out very early on that since World War II, world politics have been centered on efforts of cooperation through international organizations, specifically the United Nations.  We describe these institutions as bastions of fairness and cooperation, often subconsciously asserting the commendability of their actions and projects with descriptions such as “open” and “liberal”. But is this truly the case?  As Ruggie accurately points out, through these multinational endeavors not only does a global power hegemon emerge, but also an economic hegemon.  With the rise of globalization, national economies are now playing by the rules of a worldwide market where everything is defined by the measuring stick of the economic hegemon, which is often the seat of global power as well.  In turn, the system that is supposed to be promoting fairness and global development may in fact be keeping developing countries down.  This viewpoint is often overlooked, probably because it is easy to perceive something as fair when you essentially own the game.  Living in the United States, the virtual head of the world order and economy, I think we can sometimes be tricked into thinking the world is far simpler, and fairer, than it truly is.  However, I do not believe this situation to be directly the fault of countries like the United States or organizations like the U.N.  It is instead the result of factors in the current world economy that these powers fail to control.

    The first of these problems is one extremely common in third world or developing nations, which I will refer to as colonial mindset.  Colonial mindset is damage left over from colonial powers reorganizing and controlling these nations, and from the colonizers planting the idea in the heads of the indigenous population that their nation/race/system is inferior.  The result is visible today.  If you visit many third world nations (I visited the Solomon Islands), you’ll see that much of the indigenous population is complacent.  People often squat on sidewalks and street corners, doing next to no work and simply watching the day go by.  I believe this to be caused by one of two possible scenarios: (1) The people are so used to having themselves and their country exploited by higher powers that they believe work to be futile and of no benefit to themselves (they think their labor will be without reward) or (2) that they are conscious of foreign investment and infrastructure in their nation because of lucrative resources, and therefore know that the higher powers will always do just enough to keep the country from slipping over the brink into destruction.  In many remote parts of the world, it is common to be driving through the jungle only to come to a new bridge with an inscription of something similar to “a gift from the People’s Republic of China”.  As long as this exacerbated foreign involvement, whether good or bad, persists and countries are not allowed, or forced, to stand on their own, these “developing nations” will not develop.

     The second and perhaps most dangerous new factor of today’s world is the rise of the market state as the new medium of the nation-state.  With globalization, giant corporations now hold a huge share of power.  I have often heard said that the world of the future will not be dominated by an entity like the U.N., but rather by corporations.  This poses some serious risks and problems, especially for developing countries, because these corporations do not follow the same rules as states, nor are they constrained within national boundaries.  If the disproportionate power of these mega-corporations is not effectively reigned in, it could lead to havoc in the world economy.

Global Recession and The Lost Generation

Devin Savaskan                                                                                                                                               

11/11/13             

 

                In 2008, the world watched in horror as Lehman Brothers, one of the largest most important lending institutions in the modern era, filed for bankruptcy and shut its doors. Five years later, the globe is slowly beginning to pull itself out of a rut. However, the social impacts of the global recession maybe the most long lasting impact. The destruction of opportunity in the past couple years has already greatly affected the youth of many regions. It has left them incapable of facing the challenges of the modern economy and frustrated in their inability to do so. The global recession has led to a lost generation that can greatly lead to the polarization of future politics.

            Economic policies to combat recession in Europe have truly reflected the mindset of 1980s conservative re-birth. The global recession has turned Europe into a powder keg of youth unemployment. Greece and Spain alone see youth unemployment above fifty percent, with the whole continent reaching levels just below twenty-five. Europe, stuck in the German dominated union that it is in, must decide between government programs and austerity. Austerity is the policy of cutting government finances in hopes of balancing a budget. While in the long run it could lead to true growth, in the short term it can only prolong pain within an economy. The economy of France, Spain, Greece and many other struggling nations continues to shrink. Welfare programs are continuously depleted, and industries continue to cut workers as a means of improving profits in hard times. This along with previously mentioned youth complacency, are the building blocks of radicalism. Greece and Spain have been ground zero, for the rebirth of European fascism. The Golden Dawn party, a recently instituted government party in the Greek Parliament has been increasingly reported of having extremely racist, and revolutionary members. On the other hand, France has seen a resurgence of socialism even electing a socialist leaning prime minister. These extremes were created by the hopelessness surrounding the youth in hard times.  For Europe, the policies of austerity, while potentially beneficial in the long run, have the short run possibility of pushing a whole generation into extremism and unemployment.

            The global recession has also hit a more troubled region of the globe, the Middle East. Countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria, have for years been run by tyrannical secular dictators with no regard for the people they govern. However, most of those dictators for years have gotten by with atrocious policies with little angst from their civilians. That all changed in late 2009 with the emergence of the Arab Spring. The revolutionary movements which have taken hold of the Middle East stem from the unrest caused by the global recession. Much like in Europe, the youth of Arab countries have lost their way. As job prospects shriveled up so did the patience of the people of these countries. And what began as mass protests turned into rallies and army’s. Also much like Europe, the Middle East has seen its share of radicals, such as Al-Qaeda influencing the youth during this period of Economic stand still.

            And what is to become of the same generation in the United States. The expectation of a college education in America is one not completely shared by foreign counterparts, however it may only be working to delay the inevitable. A continues number of students graduate only to discover their degrees maybe worthless in finding them employment. And while the movement of the ninety-nine percent movement lacked centralized leadership, the emergence of the Tea Party, the continued polarization of political parties, along with the major demographic shift taking place is enough to radicalize the youth in the United States as well. The longest lasting impact of the global recession, could be the complete radicalization, and polarization of an entire generations political views.

Blog 4: Globalization by Mark Russell

Mark Russell

GVPT 200

Prof. Shirk

November 10, 2013

Blog 4: Globalization and the Thought of Corporate Governance

            Globalization has always been a topic of interest to me as someone who likes addressing the bigger picture and world politics as a whole. From the lecture and the slides, I would like to address whether or not the idea of Globalization has come about recently or not. In my mind, globalization is the spread of goods, cultures, and ideas, which has been present since the beginning of time but I think the origins start with the Roman Era, and the Silk Road and are truly shown with the expansion of the British Empire.

Globalization is defined as, “the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets,” by Merriam-Webster, with its first use recorded in 1951. However, we can’t believe that in 1951 globalization was originated.

The first example that came to mind was that of the Roman Empire. Now while I don’t believe that this is true globalization, I do believe that it contains many of the fundamental aspects needed. The Roman Empire was the first civilization to rapidly expand while carrying their culture, religion, and form of government and spread it to the territory that they inhabited. Now while they did not connect the entire globe, the Romans had the most powerful empire in the world for centuries while exploring and mapping the known world.

Although it was not a civilization, I believe the Silk Road could also be looked at as a basic form of globalization. Once again there was a free flow of capital throughout the Middle East and China. This trade route is the epitome of free trade and the development of new ideas. However, this did not touch on a global scale, as implied in the name of globalization. So far these two examples have provided solid examples of parts of globalization, however I believe that neither had the full sense of interconnectedness needed to be considered global.

With all that being said, I believe the first true example comes with England. To establish the key point that the other two examples lacked, it was said that the sun never set on the British Empire, establishing that it covered a vast amount of territory from Africa to India and the United States. This empire was like nothing before them, controlling the most territory through a dominant navy and a prolific army. With this empire there was constant trade of goods from all over the globe while ideas and culture also spread. Additionally, They were constantly exploiting free or cheap labor through these colonies which is similar to what the Roman’s had done throughout history.

However, I believe that this can be seen because of Britain’s rise to be a unipolar power. In my mind there was no other nation quite like them in the global system that allowed for them to take power and control it for so long.

In the 1950’s this unipolarity order arose again this time by the United States, with the development of modern technology. However, I d strongly believe that this has been demonstrated well prior to this point, while sometimes not in full. Although it was mentioned within the slides, I believe that there was more to touch on and discuss within this essay.

Thomas Shelton Blog 3

Thomas Shelton

            Even though China has amassed a significant amount of international political influence as well as economic strength, I do not believe that China will ever replace the western order. By proposing the League of Nations after the First World War America had established its interests and dominance in a western centered international council.  With America being designated the international peace keeper because of its many military and humanitarian interventions it has created a large influence and political ties to multiple nations. The lack of these characteristics by the Chinese government will halt any chances of eastern order because economic influences alone no matter how large will never overturn the current order.

            China will never replace the western order because along with being able to set the standard and rules for international relations they also must take over the responsibilities of being leading nation.

When America became the leading world power it was also given the responsibility to protect other nations from governmental regimes and terrorist groups. America has intervened in countless nations in an effort to stabilize the country, some examples of the countries would be Vietnam, Korea, Lebanon, Thailand, the Congo, and Cambodia along with numerous other nations. By intervening in this countries the U.S has established a connection with them as well as fulfilling its responsibilities to protect others. Chinas foreign policy on the other hand is built off the idea that nonintervention is the best way to remain a peaceful and successful nations. By adopting this idea china has effectively denied its responsibility as a super power to help maintain the stability and order in smaller nations. Even when it comes to humanitarian aid America has provided aid to nations such as Haiti, India, Ethiopia, North Korea, and Indonesia after devastating famines, tsunamis, locust plagues, etc. (PBS). China has absolutely no interest in aiding these countries and as China’s power grows they will become subject to exponentially more criticism for their stance on this topic which will cause other nations to favor keeping the western oriented order.

            While China undoubtedly has one of the strongest economies in the world because so many nations America included rely on Chinese manufacturing and resources however, China lacks the military strength that America has. With a rising nation such as china war is always on the list of options even though it maybe the very last choice it must still be considered. China may have the largest population long with nearly double the active military of America but, what America lacks in soldiers it makes up for in armaments and defense spending. The U.S spends on average seven hundred billion dollars a year on its military while china only spends a sixth as much. America also has the largest naval and air forces in the world, a brief example of this is the amount of aircraft carriers in services for both nations; America has ten supercarriers currently in service with three more in the making while china only has four decommission soviet carriers and two of their own in the making. Even though a war between the world’s greatest super powers would most likely be the end of the human race, military might must still be considered if the western order is to be overturned peacefully.

            Even though China is quickly approaching America’s position as the leading super power I do not think that it will ever be capable of replacing the set of standards and rules that the west has created. Economic strength and population will not be enough to overturn an order that has been in control for over sixty years because China lacks the humanitarian and military influence that the U.S has accumulated.

"Timeline: United States Foreign Aid." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/famine/>

Daniella Portal

Daniella Portal

GVPT200

Mark Shirk

10/24/13

Humanitarian intervention may sound good in theory, but given its subsequent consequences may not be the best approach. In this case human intervention refers to one with military force. People who object humanitarian intervention believe that it almost always correlates with war.  Those who support such interventions make their case in terms of the moral responsibility of the US under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Although humanitarian intervention has undoubtedly saved lives, the US has seriously under appreciated the price involved, and must eliminate war as a solution.

            To begin, a major consequence of such a military intervention is the inherit loss of civilian life. If a state is acting with humanitarian intentions, it is quite contradictory to instill those values using force. Even if the ends of such actions could be humanitarian, means don’t always turn out that way. The people who support such intervention believe that the bombing of people is the best way to protect human and civil rights, disregarding the deaths of many innocent civilians. If true humanitarian intervention is the end goal, military force is not the answer.

            Humanitarian interventions can also result in even more political instability than already present. People tend to forget the cost of maintaining military control. It involves money, time, and manpower, some of which are hard to find. Take for example Iraq: even though the US was able to dismantle the Hussein regime, it causes civil conflicts, in this case, conflicts between the Shiites and Sunnis. After such chaos occurred, the US was in no position to leave, and had to remain in order to build up a stable government. Ten years later, the US is still there, there is still no stability, and our soldiers are still not home.

In cases where there is a rebel and a dominant group, intervention is also the wrong approach, because it causes the state in charge to support one group, when both groups are acting immorally. The country intervening is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Often times the outside power, or a third party, will support the rebels, thus reinforcing that what they are doing is allowed. So essentially the role of a third party explains why minority groups have the courage to begin a rebellion in the first place.

Another of the central obstacles to greater U.S. participation in humanitarian intervention has been the domestic political cost. The Black Hawk Down incident in 1993 exemplifies this idea being that the American public does not have any concern for suffering casualties unless they are directly connected to the US. The 18 soldiers that fell in Somalia are far more recognized than the 500 Somalis that the US killed that day. In addition to causing more harm than good, the US also displayed their indifference to the casualties, thus showing that their original goal was provoke by humanitarian reasons.

Often proponents of humanitarian intervention neglect US interests. However, this does not mean that the United States should stop trying to promote its values abroad—it just needs a different strategy. Instead of starting more wars of intervention, Washington should shift its focus to true humanitarian policies revolving saving lives, aiding victims, and assisting refugees. Abandoning military humanitarian intervention in would not mean leaving victims of genocide and repression to their fate. It would mean that instead of combating war with war, there must be a more liberal strategy involved. Although such a strategy is unknown, if we continue the way we are going, we will just be the perpetrators of more death and conflict.

China Power & Trade

 

Devin Savaskan

 

                China has all the makings of the next world power. It has an expanding economy, a growing middle class and the world’s largest population. Through understanding power, we know that these are the pieces a country needs to assemble their own dominant military. The possibility of China becoming a truly dominant regional hegemon is not one that escapes policy makers in the United States. History indicates that at some point, China will want more power on the international stage, the question becomes what is to be done about it. John Mearsheimer, a realist, argues that it is up to the United States to become military foes with China now before it is too late. Ikenberry argues that the United States can control China’s rise in a favorable way. Through understanding the importance of trade, we can see that Ikenberry has the best approach to the rise of Chinese power.

            To assess what should be done about the growing influence of China we must first determine how it will act as it grows in prominence on the world stage. When a country is on the rise and capable of changing the order of global politics, policy makers tend to classify them into four possible categories. They either want to accept risk or not, and they either want to revolutionize the current order or leave it mostly intact. Most historians compare modern day China to the rise of Germany before World War 1. While they are seemingly ever expanding and will risk a lot for power, the fact of the matter is they just want their deserved piece of the international pie. Mearsheimer argues a war between China and the United States is inevitable, however China is in the category it’s in due to the peaceful policy of trade implemented by the United States. This is exactly the idea of Ikenberry. We have the capability to incorporate China into the so called Western Order. Through trade, we have been able to stall China’s ambitions, since their continued economic wealth can only remain if the current political order remains intact. A hostile strike, a buck-passing to Japan, or constant trade wars as suggested by Measheimer has the capability of turning China into the global power we fear.

            There is however another significant advantage to trade. Most American’s see our trade deficit along with our loans and figure we will be forever in debt with the Chinese government. However, when examined more closely, one can completely turn this idea on its head. The fact is while we rely on Chinese manufacturing, they rely on us as customer even more. People fear China will weaken the United States, by calling on its debt. The reason this would never happen is because it would cause the United States to default, which would throw the US into recession, which in a chain reaction, would cause a recession in China. China relies on United States trade. Not only to continue to grow on the international stage, but to also keep domestic order. A recession, has different impacts on different countries. While here it forces people to have animosity toward the government, in China, it could start a revolution .With the growing middle class the Chinese people could use hard economic times as fuel to a revolutionary fire. They could quickly turn on their, free speech controlling, communist government, and could completely change the goals of China on the world stage. When examined closely we see that trade allows us to control China domestically giving the United States the upper hand.

            The United States has enjoyed a unipolar system since the end of the Cold War. However all things come to an end and this case is no exception. China will almost inevitably turn global politics back into a bipolar system. Until they fully achieve hegemony, the United States has the capability to dictate the path China takes along with its goals on world power. Through the use of trade and globalization, the United States can simply assimilate China into the Western Order and continue to reign supreme on the world stage.

 

CITATIONS

·         Mearsheimer: Tragedy of Great Power Politics

·         Ikenberry: Rise of China and the Future of the West

·         Lecture 11:21^st Century Power Politics.

 

Mark Russell Blog 3:Failed Nations

Mark Russell

GOVT 200

22 October 2013

Mark Shirk

Somalia: A Nation or Not?

            Within this blog post I would like to examine Somalia in regards to it being a nation or a state on the international level.  In my mind Somalia has fallen to a state of turmoil that is so desperate that the government can no longer function outside the capital city of Mogadishu. From the lecture, we know of a failed state as one that has not been able to have legitimate structure or a failure to provide basic services to their citizens. In the minds of many, Somalia has not had a structured or central government since their Civil War in 1991.

            At this point, I believe Somalia may be considered to be a failed state that should not be recognized by the outside world as a government until them have successfully eliminated Al-Shabaab, a cell of al-Qaeda. In addition, this terror cell has over 14,000 operatives performing regular acts of destruction and violence, preventing much action by the government. Additionally, the Somali people are notorious for their modern day acts of piracy that have terrorized trade in the Indian Ocean. As a last piece of background information, Somalia has been ranked number one on the failed state index for the last five years in a row due to its lack of government and horrid living conditions.

            At this time, I couldn’t foresee the global community recognizing Somalia as a practical nation on the international circuit. It cannot contribute to the international system outside of a slight trade industry, which is interrupted by pirates regardless. With a country a terrorist cell runs that and pirates with no traditional government structure, I couldn’t see any other international power looking to Somalia for assistance in any sort of matter.

            This brings me to my point on the failure of the Somalian state. They are failing to protect their citizens from the violence that Al-Shabaab has brought with them, while having one of the lowest literacy rates in the world. Additionally, with little government structure, the people of Somalia are struggling to survive and are considered to be one of the most disease-ridden countries in the world, with epidemics in AIDS, HIV, and malaria. While I do believe they should receive a substantial amount of aid, I don’t believe the government should regulate it, seeing as they have virtually no control.

            What can be done to incorporate Somalia into the national system? I believe that there needs to be a dismantling of the terrorist organizations before global aid organization, like UNICEF or the Red Cross can move in and provide humanitarian aid. This operation must occur without international I also believe that the government could then prosper and begin to rebuild the shattered infrastructure.

            I do believe that although Somalia is in a fractured state with no true government in place, I don’t think that it has fallen into a state of disrepair. I think that currently, Somalia and its government cannot be recognized on an international level, but could eventually rise to that standing through the help of foreign countries.