Will America Fall?

The questions are not if our great nation will fall the question is when it will fall. Not to be a pessimist but if you look at history, every great nation has fallen at least once in its inception. Greece, Germany, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc. Some would say they have fallen because of war, others would say the economy, others would say it is the education system. All very great theories, however ,I challenge anyone who is considering a career in the realm of international relations  to delve beyond the surface of the "iceberg" go deeper with the analyzing the common factors and the root cause of failure. With history repeating itself, it was not very hard to see the connections between the political institutions of each country that was created to protect and serve the people, ended up destroying them.  Greed, systemic poverty, inequality, the lack of opportunities and innovation that impacts all (not just the elite) all play a part in the great "fall".  I call this the human factor theory, which is different from unlike the chicken or the egg theory that many quickly gravitated to during our discussion.  The human factor is the world we create and how we function in the world we live in ultimately comes down to us. Who controls the economy?  We do! Who controls the educational systems? We do! Who can address the inequalities we see? We can! Our political institutions has the control to evade the fall... as a country, we need to decide who we are and how our political leaders and institutions should behave I the name of all citizens.

How America Could Fall

Our final debate focused much on internal issues. Maybe this is due to the way the presidential primaries are turning out now. With Trump advocating policies that are war crimes and military leader publicly stating such orders would be ignored, with Cruz advocating carpet bombing ISIS (news flash, carpet bombing is not a good tactic against insurgents. More importantly, it's a tactic not a strategy), and with Clinton claiming foreign policy mastery after she voted for the Iraq invasion and advocated for the Libyan intervention, which didn't turn out all that good for anyone, no wonder we are concerned with internal issues.

However, I don't feel that such issues raised, such as education, infrastructure investment, healthcare, etc. will have the impact people seemed to think it will. These are all connected with economic development, true, however the US has been surprisingly able to adapt to economic shocks before. Lets not forget that unemployment is around 5.5%, which is not great but also not such a concerning average. Our educational institutions still attract the highly capable students from overseas. Our internal issues can be overcome.

A quick glance at the classic hard power issues like military capabilities and economic strength shows there are no short term realistic challengers. Russia, while it has been flexing its strength recently, is much more of a regional bully than an international threat. And with oil prices as low as they are Russia is limited in it's economic ability to continue expeditionary deployments. China, while more of a rising concern, is so economically tied to the US that a military conflict in the short term is almost unthinkable. Their economy is slowing down, they have a lot of overcapacity, and it is still an open question as to if China can maintain enough economic growth to keep the population satisfied. 

Climate change was offered as a threat, but I don't believe it ranks that highly. Rising sea levels coupled with dramatic shifts in rain patterns will have huge effects for sure. However, given the technological sophistication of our agriculture as well as the wealth in the economy, I believe we would be able to adapt. Not to mention Russia and China will be experiencing the same issues.

More importantly, we never defined what the basis of American power in the world is. I would argue that it's not just our ability to expeditionarily employ an advanced conventional military, nor is it just our advanced economy, even with all of its internal flaws. I would argue that historically it has been the soft power we can wield that is the true source of strength. How to make friends and influence people should be a guiding philosophy for our international relations. There are no existential threats to our security, but not playing by the rules we demand of others in fear of overblown threats will further damage our reputation and therefore our power. That is our most likely path to downfall.

US Power and the Hydra of Issues

Considering the debate last night, it seems to me that team 2 had a stronger argument. While both teams addressed domestic issues, team 2’s argument covered them more comprehensively and many of the economic issues face by the United States can be seen as a result of some of the other issues like demagogues and policies resulting in poor international standing raised by team one. Team one also pointed out that political division within the country can lead to larger structural issues like the government shutdown. Additionally, education was another important point brought up by team 2. Education is important for a countries ability to provide a competitive workforce.

Environmental issues were also brought up as a threat to the United States during the class session. I think this was also a valid point. If some of the most daunting prediction made by experts are correct, there will be huge issues of scarcity in the near future. Greater scarcity tends to lead to more conflict. With the existence of nuclear arms, a large scale war is unlikely. However, it is conceivable that we would see an increase in proxy wars and the exploitation of more vulnerable nations. There was also a point made in class about the potential loss of cities and even entire countries. This would no doubt change the distribution of political-economic power within the international environment. The US would need to be able to adjust to such a drastically shifting environment to maintain its place and security in the international arena.

             I think there is no simple answer or threat one can point at. I believe the United States faces a hydra of issues that will have to be dealt with comprehensively. As other countries gain more military and economic power the United States will have to consider how it approaches the rest of the actors in the international environment. I suspect soft power and strategic alliances will become more crucial going forward.  The effects of technology and climate change will also no doubt play a role in future threats to US power and also present a lot of unknowns that the US will have to adapt to promptly when the time comes. The answers to some of these questions likely lie within the scientific community. Unfortunately, due to political division and widespread misinformation campaigns, it may be too late by the time the answers are understood by the people that are able and willing to act on them. 

This lesson brought an end to the course. Having the opportunity to learn about and engage in all the different facets of IR was fascinating. For example, the concept of social constructivism as opposed to  the more realist way of thinking definitely gave me a lot more avenue to explore and consider in both analyzing the issues facing the US and the international community as well as all the possible ways to address those issues. 

What does the future hold?

I really enjoyed this weeks debate and did find it interesting that both teams believe that the biggest threats to the US today are internal.  We're not looking at the possibility of some other country attacking us, we're more concerned with the recent political division in our country, an educational system that isn't pushing our citizens to innovate and create, as well as the economy.  The internal problems facing the US are unique in that the federal government has only so much power to make policies regarding education.  It seems to me that in this particular case, the federal government needs to give more educational-policy making decisions to the individual states.  Consequently, I think the government needs to do the same with universal healthcare.  Politicians in Washington DC are ill equipped to understand the healthcare issues facing people living in the middle of nowhere out in Wyoming.

At the end of class, we again brought up the prevalence of social media and its influence on the population of a country.  Specifically one person brought up the teenagers who are growing up online.  She mentioned that one of the problems of children being constantly "plugged in" is that they don't learn how to relate to people in the real world.  They become complacent with hiding behind a screen and don't have the face-to-face interpersonal skills that they will eventually need.  This generation is our future leaders and the people who will eventually take care of me in a nursing home.  I can't lie, this does make me rather nervous.  I don't have much direct contact with people who are younger than me, but what contact I do have makes me wonder about the direction they will steer the country in.  Like me at that age, many seem to be apathetic to the actual running of the country - when kids are used to their parents taking care of everything, it's hard to instill in them that they're going to have to take it all over eventually.  Perhaps some day we'll all realize that living in the real world is preferable to any online life we create... or at least be able to differentiate between what is "real" online and what is really real. 

Of course, there's always the possibility that the polar ice caps will melt, causing anarchy all over the place or aliens will make contact and it won't go well for us, or someone will push one of the big red "only push if you REALLY mean it" buttons and cause a nuclear war.  Forecasting the future is an exercise in futility... but it's a fun mental exercise as well! 

Anyway, it's been a great class, I feel at the same time more informed and more ignorant than when I started, so... yeah... there's that.  :)

Does History Really Repeat Itself? Or Reinvent Itself?

The rise and fall of the great powers...we have all seen this played out in our lifetime! Rome,Greece, Persia, and Germany at one point has all gone through the cycle of rising to a point then falling drastically.  In the Comments on Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers  article, I felt that some comments were frankly put critical and not offering anything new to the table.  History like it or not, will repeat itself no matter how you try to theorize it. So the question to ask is if a great power will fall, the questions is when will it fall.  For example, if you analyze the rise and fall of the great empires  you will ultimately see a pattern, growth in economy=power. Power results into the "we need to protect our newly found wealth" mode which leads to establishing armies. Armies increase power which leads to  more influences. More influences= more enemies . More enemies=more money=more power. This cycle continues until the leader and it's people loses site as to why they are a country,what they stand fo,r and why they are united in the first place. When a country and or leaders loses sight of itself, then and only then you will see it fall. The important issue to remember in all of this is if given the opportunity, will the country repeat it's own history or will it reinvent it?

Considering the Claim of Thucydides. Will his work last forever?

One thing that I found to be one of the most intriguing aspects of Thucydides work was his quote: “My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of an immediate public, but was done to last for ever.” The idea, that he is writing objectively and possibly touching on general truths about the nature of power that is still relevant today is a very tantalizing proposition for anyone interested in the study of IR. Following this, I was interesting in seeing to what degree we can find examples of the themes brought up by Thucydides in current events.

Thucydides asserts that the Peloponnesian Wars were inevitable due to the rising power of Athens at the expense of Sparta and that all other reasons for the war are really just branches of that root issue of a power struggle. This seems to mirror much of the interests vs. values debate still existent today in which actors may find “moral” or “ideological” reasons to go into conflict but there are also the ever present interests of those same actors. Furthermore, Thucydides described the various countries caught between the two powers. The Melian Dialogue served as an excellent example of a country being forced to take a side due to its geographic relation to the two superpowers. This very much mirrors the cold war in which many countries were pulled into the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. Even today we see examples of this like those countries caught between the EU and Russia. Ukraine quickly comes to mind here. 

Of course there is a significant point to be made about the relative rising power of some states which are seen as non-threatening by the United States. Although if one considers the idea of hegemonic institutions. One might consider the possibility that in order for a nation to be viewed as non-threatening it must abide by certain values and share certain interests with the hegemony. This might to some be seen as a sort of soft coercion. Interestingly, one might be able to see these alliances as security assemblages on the one hand, or on the other hand, as weaker states having to conform to a stronger state.

Another point brought up by Thucydides was the important of naval dominance. He wrote that the issue of pirating had to be addressed before any of the cities could develop into the powers they would eventually become. He also described Athens as having many advantages due to it superiority in the sea. This still seems very relevant today as many nations continue to race to catch up with the United States’ maritime dominance. Travel by sea is still important for trade, commerce, tactical military advantages, and natural resources. The significance of these issues underlies much of the current tension in the South China Sea. This will probably continue to be the case until technology provided us with new ways to acquire resources. (According to a BBC article by Jonathon Amos Luxembourg is supporting the proposition of mining in space: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35482427)          

                All in all, it seems like Thucydides analysis of the power dynamics that came into play during the Peloponnesian Wars are still relevant today but may need to be somewhat refined to fit today's world and the possibilities of the future. 

The Hegemon

The readings for this module have raised some great points, and I dare say one could structure an entire course around this module. In particular I want to explore the Ikenberry piece about the nature of American power.

I truly appreciate the three ways in which America interacts with the world. Empire, hegemony and security community are good baselines to work from in looking at the current state of affairs. The idea of a security community is a good lens to view America's relationships with Europe. With the expansion of the EU and NATO to include many former Soviet states the community accounts for almost half of the global GDP and one seventh of global population. Of course there are disagreements within this bloc, and much has been made recently about if the EU can survive the recent issues it has had. Regardless, this is a robust political, economic, and military bloc that will almost certainly settle differences without force or outright coercion in the foreseeable future. This recent resurgence of Russia makes the community seem more robust.

Not much has been made in the articles about America acting as an imperial power in relations with South America, Africa and the Middle East. This is a topic that I am in general unfamiliar with, with the exception of America's efforts in the Middle East. An issue that wasn't addressed was China's rising influence in these parts of the globe. A contrast between American and Chinese interactions would be quite interesting.

Now for the pivot to the Pacific. Beeson's piece makes an interesting point about China's rise, at least as of 2009. The use of soft power and diplomacy to provide a counter point to American assertiveness in the region may have been the strategy in the past, but it appears this may not continue. The island building projects in the South China Sea are creating a lot of anxiety in the region, even leading to a statement by ASEAN saying member states are 'seriously concerned' about recent developments. Is this a sign that China is starting to act more as a Great Power that can do what it has the power to do, as Athens saw itself? Will this lead to more cooperation in the Pacific? The rise of security community aimed at protecting itself from China?

I love the Greeks

Really, I do.  Their history, mythology, philosophy, government - I find it all fascinating.  I have to admit, when I saw that one of our readings for this module was Thucydides, I got pretty excited.  Even more so when he mentions that Homer, being a poet, likely exaggerated events (something I've long suspected - wink).  After reading the intro, I laughed out loud when I came to "Most people, in fact, will not take trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear."  Not going to lie, I think this proves that human nature doesn't change much.  Aristotle wrote something about the youth being entitled, lazy and no good - geez, doesn't that sound like what the media says about 'millennials?'

The dialouge between the Athenians and the Melians struck a chord as well.  I kept going back to the interests vs ideas module during this reading.  The Athenians arguing that it is in the interests of both them and the Melians if the Melians just surrender and become slaves of their own accord while the Melians try to convince the Athenians that it's actually in both of their interests for Melia to remain neutral - neither an ally of the Athenians nor the Spartans.  In the end, Melia falls to the Athenians, all males of a certain age are slaughtered and their wives and daughters are sold into slavery.  So what the Athenians argued turns out to be true - "in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept."

So how does this relate to our current module about the rise and fall of the great powers?  Page 49 summed it up perfectly - "What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta."  As one city was becoming more powerful, the current most powerful state took notice and then took steps to ensure that they would remain the most powerful state.  Is this something that the world is doomed to continue?  Sparta and Athens were pretty close in proximity, does geographical location and a sharing of borders have to do with this?  Is it all based upon military might?  What role does economics play?  If human nature itself doesn't change much based on Thucydides and Aristotle's observations, what does that say about states and global politics? 

I am very much looking forward to the next live session when we can start getting into some discussions of this and the other readings, too - but I will admit, this one was my favorite.

So... is there a Global Public Sphere?

The answer we arrived at was a solid... ish.  Does the creation of organizations such as the EU, African Union and NGO's affect state sovereignty?  Yes, a bit.  Is the EU going to remain united?  Maybe.  These are questions that are really interesting and as a side note, I now totally understand why this class opened with Hobbes.  I keep imagining global politics as a kind of recess playground.  Alliances are formed, secrets are found out or kept, those we're friendly with this week are totally different than the ones we were friends with last week, we have to help out a friend in a bind and then it's expected all over... I could go on, but I think you get the gist.  The biggest difference is that global politics do not have a "recess lady" or anyone overseeing the field.  Now a class member would say something in favor of Global Government, and I'm sure there would be a reference to the Star Trek Federation.  The problem is, I'm not totally convinced that would be desirable or feasible.  It seems like the question that we generally run into is - who watches the watchmen?  Where would the checks and balances be?  How could a global system of government ensure that each state can still act on their own in some ways?  It's never a good idea for a bureaucracy to get too big because then nothing ever gets done.

I think that the EU has been a grand experiment in finding out just how much sovereignty a country is willing to give up, how much a country is willing to help other member countries and how tired of each other such an organization can get.  Looking at the possibility of Britain leaving the EU, there are things that they'll want to consider, but personally I think that the national identity of being "British" before being "European" will win out.  Just a theory, but I'll be watching what is happening with popcorn and a kind of fascination that is usually reserved for films.

I found the spiral model in the readings to be a very good example of how a country can come to change their policies toward something like human rights due to pressure from their own citizens, NGO's, and other countries.  Mapping changes in societies is obviously something that I find quite interesting and I thought that illustration was on point.

Considering the dynamics between the Public Sphere, Social Structures, and Power

            I found the ideas of social facts and brute facts brought up in the article on the EU particularly intriguing in that they seemed to illustrate how there might be a dynamic between a possible global public sphere and the current international environment.  Particularly with social facts, this concept brought the focus back to the more constructivist argument like that of Wendt. Viewing the public sphere from this perspective would lead to it taking on the appearance of having considerably more influence.

            The article describes a social fact as something that is socially constructed as opposed to a brute fact which exists independently from the understanding of any individual or group. More importantly, social facts like the existence of a nation or state are kept intact by “banal” activities. The article used hanging a national flag in the background as an example of this. Furthermore, the article goes into detail about how things such as the ease one can get through customs can change a person’s concept of time and space relative to that of nation states. This leads to some interesting possible dynamics when paired with the latter phase of “socializing human rights norms into domestic practices” covered in the article by Risse and Sikkink in which behaviors and action at first serving state interests are later internalized essentially becoming a new kind of social fact.

            If one is willing to accept the constructivist premise, then one can see that the public sphere can have a huge impact on shaping many of the social facts that exist today. This was particularly brought to light for me during my research for last week’s activity when I came across an article in The National Interest by Mark G. Brennan titled NGO: The New Missionaries. The article argues that in some ways NGO’s have taken on the role held more by missionaries in the past. It does seem that region and philosophy has been an integral part in the development and spread of values. Following this thinking, perhaps the public sphere has always existed in one form or another and has played a significant if subtle role in shaping the world as we understand it. On the other hand, considering how the cultures of dominant powers throughout history seem to have spread more one has to concede that there is a limit to what the public sphere can achieve on its own with the assistance of brute force. Either way there does seem to be some sort of dynamic present.       

Public Authority and Identity

One of the more interesting articles from my perspective was the McNamara piece  “Constructing Authority in the European Union". The idea of constructing an identity is crucial to understanding bigger issues of sovereignty and authority in the current world environment.

One of the related issues we have discussed is the idea of how technology is challenging the traditional sovereignty of the nation state. This is not a new phenomenon. Martin Luther's 95 Theses were a challenge to the Catholic Church's authority in the pre-Westphalian system. A more modern example can be found with the spreading of communist ideology in Imperial Russia prior to the 1917 Revolution. In these cases ideology that challenged state authority were spread through written materials made possible by printing. In our current era one only needs a cell phone to be able to create, spread, or read a wide range of ideologies with few if any limits put on veracity.

The spread of ISIS is a great example of how creating an identity can be used to take sovereignty and public authority. By having a flag and an ideology they are able to maintain the identity of a nation state. Granted, this was only possible in the power vacuum of revolutionary Syria, but it provides a non-state example of identity formation and sovereignty in action. This is similar in form to the theory that McNamara postulated about a European Identity, although for very different aims.

This is important because in the future there may be competing notions of identity that may have an impact on state sovereignty. Will established nation states be able to maintain a national identity in the face of competing ideologies in the future?

Hail to the Chief...I mean celebrity!

Celebrities... they are a major part of the American culture we live for movies, TV shows,action hero's, etc. As a nation, we support an industry by simply paying and actor or actress money to see his or her talent. If we really like them then we pay more money! So when an actor tries to do good and tries to bring an awareness  to important global issues, the claws come out! Just like it did during last weeks discussion. As I sat and listened to everyones view point, I though what if the celebrities did absolutely nothing, what if they weren't role models and was ok with getting rich off of us? Would be still be so critical for them doing absolutely nothing? In Beyond Hollywood and the Boardroom Cooper, A. (2007). Beyond Hollywood and the Boardroom. Politics and Diplomacy, 125-127 Cooper brings up an interesting point he states that because of the growing opportunities celebrities have to actually have access global leaders(opportunities other may not have) that leaders in the international community has been left  befuddled and if not down right critical of this phenomenon.  So what is the root to this uproar? Is it a trust issue? Sometimes when someone comes onto the scene and in the experts mind has not earned their stripes (so to speak) can stir up conflict and worries on whetherr they are going to cause a global melt down because they do not know what they are doing. However, besides the Rodman incident in North Korea we really have not seen a harmful impact by these celebrities getting involved. Now if you want to go on what if''s you can but it is unfounded and will not hold out at best. So who are they really hurting? Are we that closed minded that we are not willing to work with celebrities in solving the problems of the world? I mean they do have resources that others do not have. Can we not use that to our advantage?

Celebrity, Charisma, and the Global Public Sphere

Last week’s class focused a great deal on the readings which analyzed the role of celebrities in international issues and what it suggested for a possible global public sphere. This issue does seem to signify that there is to some extent such a sphere and it can be problematic at times if it steers events in the wrong direction. Some of the concerning trends touched on in the articles seem to illustrate this.

            Of the celebrities pointed out in the Dieter and Kumar article, Bono stands out with his relationship to Sachs. According to the article, Sachs’ economic solutions have proven to be ineffective in the past. Even worse than that his economic prescriptions sometimes exacerbate the problems faced by developing countries. This has been seen within the USSR. If the celebrity/economist duo are successful, it will be seen within Africa as well. The fact that a celebrity like Bono can push his will based solely on his notoriety indicates that there is some strength in having popular support from the multitudes.

            On the other side of the coin this dynamic can also illustrate some promising features. It illustrates that a celebrity can use their social status to push through the agenda of an organization or even academic like Sachs. If Sachs’ economic solutions were fruitful, such a pair could be very significant in addressing extreme global poverty. Unfortunately, this depends on there being no ulterior agendas by either party other than helping the poor and an organization with real effective solutions. While such groups and individuals are conceivable, not all people who stand up to arouse the crowd will have these characteristic. Those that can stir populations and even states into action can have tremendously positive effects but those same kinds of people can also have dire consequences. We’ve seen more than once that the public and even governments can be lead astray.        

Foreign Aid

The topic of foreign aid is one that could easily consume an entire career, much less a portion of an online class. Although my focus area is not International Development, it is an important topic to consider regardless. 

Aid is obviously a controversial topic, and not just in how it is implemented. The basic assumption behind foreign aid, that states and NGOs have the right to dictate to other states how to handle their internal affairs, can be problematic. Instead of looking at these valid critiques of foreign aid, I'd like to examine the idea of utilizing foreign aid for desired strategic affects.

The first example that comes to mind is the Marshall Plan, or the European Recovery Plan. This massive economic assistance plan was designed to enable development in Europe post World War II, which was seen as critical to establish Western Europe as a capable partner in the Cold War. The plan itself committed 10% of the national budget at the time to foreign aid. It was a huge investment, and I suggest it was well spent, given the trade and military relationships between the US and Western Europe.

Another, more modern example of foreign aid for strategic goals can be seen in our relations with both Israel and Egypt. The two nations take the lions share of our 'foreign aid' in the form of military assistance. In 1979, our aid to Egypt was critical in the peace process between the two nations, which have not fought each other since, and in fact work together to an extent in the security realm today. Although this aid is military in nature, it helps to achieve strategic goals.

So what are some potential areas for utilizing aid in a more strategic manner? I think a prime example is infectious disease control. It's easy to ignore problems when they do not seem to have a direct affect on your own soil, but swine flu, bird flu, ebola and now zika have all shown that diseases know no borders. A comprehensive assistance plan that involves all parts of the government, from aid for medical center construction, education for medical professionals, and utilizing the military for assistance during pandemics could achieve much for both the populations directly at risk as well as ensuring the health of all nations. If run correctly, this can also generate soft power for the US.

The EU - First step on the road to the Federation (a la Star Trek)

So there's a lot of interesting concepts discussed in the lecture and literature of this module but what is most striking to me and what most intrigues me is the EU.  For the longest time, I thought that the EU was just trade agreements, free movement across borders and common money.  I gave no thought to how it emerged, where it's authority comes from or what individual countries may think of it.  With the "Brexit" in the news and knowing a couple of Brits and their views, I now see the EU as a massive social experiment that, if successful, could move the world toward the kind of international federation of science fiction.

Consider - the identity of the EU is a social construct.  People who once thought of themselves as only German or Swedish or Greek now also have to think of themselves as members of the EU.  As Europeans as well as German, Swedish or Greek.  As was pointed out in the McNamara piece, some of them also identify themselves by their region, so they are Bavarian, German and European all at once (for example).  I understand that one because every American that I know sees themselves as from (insert state here) perhaps residing in (insert state here) and American.  For example, I am from Wyoming, I reside in Texas and I am an American.  That's how I identify myself.  But what if I also saw myself as and concerned myself with Europe?  What would I be then?  Wyomingite, American, Western Hemispherian?  And remember, these identities may only seem strange for one generation.  Children growing up in European EU states may find it normal to consider themselves by their nationality and their continent, whereas their grandparents may not have understood that.  And if the EU works out, who is to say that there may not be (perhaps far, far in the future) a conglomerate of Asian countries?  Or a united Africa?  As each region becomes united under a social construct that then exerts its will over the member countries, then globalization may be just a few generations away.  Perhaps the stuff of science fiction could become reality (like the Motorola flip phone before it was taken over by the iphone).  I find it funny that before this class, I would not have thought such things possible, but as we've had more and more discussions, I can see how it could happen.  All it would take is time - time for the radical to become normal.  If it can be considered normal to open a device and connect to an informational network spanning the globe and use it to watch funny videos of cats, then there is nothing on this Earth can can not be "normalized" by humanity.

Perhaps the United States was the first major social experiment, now the EU emerges and gets to deal with its own growing pains and hiccups (as the US struggles with the rise of the Trump and the perceptions our international friends now have of the majority of Americans).  Perhaps, if successful, other regions will take note.  I maintain that no one really wants to use their nuclear weapons or start WW3, so perhaps after years we'll see cooperation as a better alternative.  Or we'll be taken over by alien warlords, you know, whatev's. 

All kidding aside, it's fascinating to see how social constructs evolve and eventually are taken for granted.  I had no idea the passport system emerged after WWI.  It's so normal to need one to travel abroad that I had never given it another thought when applying for one.  I only found it weird when one was required for travel to Canada. 

When considering the public sphere, deliberation and how states define themselves, the possibilities for study are endless.  I especially found it an interesting point to ponder when the professor reminded us that not everyone has access to the internet (what cat-less lives they must lead) and so when we think of the citizens of the world, who are we really thinking of?  Internet users?  The vast amounts of poor and underprivilaged of the world or just those who have enough money to be heard?  What could actually make a difference in world politics (I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Twitter hashtags really don't do much outside of the internet)?  Do the people have any actions that would impact a state?  Or are we simply at the mercy of the elite?  

Final thoughts on Global Business and Private Actors

The rise of powerful private actors with capacities that sometimes are greater than that of state capacities has been a key development in the international community. The significant observed significance of this development is due to many of the questions it seems to bring about regarding sovereignty, authority, and capacity. Questions such as how corporations can be held accountable with these things in mind may have great impact on the future structure of the international environment. The type of methods that might be devised to achieve this and how successful these methods are may be definitive the continued development of the international community. These issues also seem to be indicative of motives of value vs. motives of interest.

                The Cutler article framed a difference between authority and cooperation as being based on whether an actor acts out of their own interest or out of obligation. Given recent developments such as Apple refusing the FBI, and Youtube refusing requests by governments by public actors to remove videos help to illustrate that companies that have grown to international levels are often willing to refuse government requests which shows a lack of obligation. Of course, laws can become a sticky thing once a company gains an international presence. Practices that are illegal in one country may be carried out in another country with more suitable laws for the MNC.  Due to the increasing capacity some companies seem to carry, the laws that they are supposed to be subject to seem less pressing than market and economic pressure. I spoke previously about the possibility of governments colluding in order to capitalize on corporate dependence on the market and using whatever influence they had on the economy (IE taxation and labor laws) to try and alter the behavior of private actors however this type of collusion between international public actors seems unlikely for reasons I stated previously.

                These issues bring attention to the striking difference between idealized authority and actual authority based on capacity or the right to act vs the ability to act. Many of the trends we have seen seem to indicate that the ability to act along with interests to do so are far more compelling than whether or not an actor has the right to act based on values to do so. Even acting through obligation might simply be indicative of the state’s ability to enforce its own right to make and enforce laws. Whatever the case, as these private actors and the economy continue to develop and as the public sphere develops in relation to them we are likely to see the continued emergence of a world where questions of authority and sovereignty are increasingly ambiguous.     

It all Began with Christopher Columbus!!

Christopher Columbus primary goal when he sailed the blue seas was to prove to everyone that the world was not flat and that it was round. If you go back to 1400 (1492-1800), you will see the beginnings of globalization with Columbus's discovery of the new world. Although fueled by religious conquest's this was the beginning of how far an industrial country could reach, produce and take from another country. In Globalization 2.0(1800-2000), you begin to see the introduction of European mercantilism, the expansion of railroads and sea transportation, the development of stock companies, new market development, cheap labor, and raw materials. Beginning in the year 2000, we enter globalization 3.0 in which we see more advances in global electronic interconnectivity and communication. Globalization 3.0 lets us work, hire, and do business with almost whoever we please. My argument is because Columbus set sails back in the 1400’s he

opened the door to an economic flattening of the world and with each phase of globalization, the door has opened to all types of actors trying to get a piece of the economic pie.

To some, this is a good thing. Free market, free trade, capitalism is what we are all about. However, these actors (be it governmental or private) do not always take into consideration the political, geographical, cultural, and the international relation impact that they may have in a state or country nor do they have the purview of the conflicts and or destruction that they may leave behind or enter in. Reason being, the goals of the autonomous actor’s may be focused just on the exchange of products and the competitive edge in a particular market but not all that concerned with regulation, social accountability, and or the policies and ethics of their home country.  

Here the lies question, if you have corporations and private security firms acting in the name of economics, and there is no designated institution working on the behalf of the greater good then who  decides who has the authority to regulate commerce, fairness, consumer entitlement,  and privacy and environmental laws? What if there are no laws to regulate, what will bind the ethical actions of all parties? If there is a conflict, who steps in to mediate? Whose responsibility is it? I’m sure none of these questions was on the mind of Columbus when he took the challenge, but as a result, these are issues and conflicts we know will need to solve the question is who is going to address them.

Strategic Trade Agreement

At one point in the lecture, Professor Jackson brings up strategic trade agreements, and poses the question about if these are coercion through another means. It seems as though coercion may be an incorrect way of looking at the circumstances.

Leverage may be a better way of analyzing trade agreements, strategic or not. In any bilateral trade agreement, one nation or another may have more or less leverage in a particular area. A poor nation may have access to specific raw materials. China and India are such large countries that access to their markets gives them leverage.

So what would make a trade agreement strategic? Just because the US and the UK trade doesn't mean any agreements made are not mutually advantageous. Even one of the most strategic economic plans in US history, the Marshall Plan, was advantageous to American businesses because European countries became markets for American goods. I doubt that coercion had a large role to play in that example.

In more modern situations, utilizing a trade agreement to further other geo-political goals of a nation is not necessarily coercion. One state may be able to negotiate better terms in a trade deal due to some effects that another nation may want to have. But to call that coercion is going a bit too far.

MNC's are here to stay

The Inayatullah article and the article by Frieden and Rogowski were very interesting reads when considered in relation to each other. On page 32 Frieden and Rogowski seemed to emphasize the “costs” of having a closed economy and seemed to overall paint economic liberalization in a positive light throughout their article. On the other hand, Inayatullah points out that economic liberalization may not be beneficial for all countries and furthermore that some countries had a head start and greater advantages in the current system.

            Interestingly enough, I think both points illustrate why MNC’s play such a large role in the international community. There are clearly costs to keeping a closed economy and there are clearly countries that have an advantage over other countries in terms of their level of development. For this reason, it is often in the interests of states to have MNC’s within their countries. In poorer countries this can even help fill welfare gaps that the country cannot manage on its own.

The question then is what happens the interests of MNC’s and states come into conflict. Ideally the MNC’s should be subject to the laws of the state but this can become ambiguous when MNC’s can move any part of their production chain to any country in the world and even influence policy decision within state governments. Additionally, issues of authority vs. capacity come into play here. A less developed and more dependent country will be less able to enforce any law on an MNC compared to some wealthier nations. In the last live session, some students suggested that as consumers, we should be aware of the actions of major corporations and boycott them if need be. Being subject to the market, this might have more effect on MNCs than the law they are supposed to be subject to. Although, I am skeptical of how effective the general population can be in significantly influencing the behavior of corporations overall.

Another possibility might lay within countries or states acting to blacklist a corporation until it falls in line with internationally agreed upon standards regarding how a corporation should behave. The issue here however is that of the prisoner dilemma. Each country would have to honor its agreement to blacklist a problematic corporation and not cheat in favor of gaining economically from the situation. Such a strategy of cheating would be very difficult for a poorer country with a struggling economy to pass up. Thus again, even with this solution there seems to be a need for enforcement that would be problematic in regards to issues of sovereignty and capacity.       

International commerce - pre class post

The readings for this week kind of argue a point that I agree with.  International commerce conducted on the internet has effectively made sovereign states and impermeable borders obsolete.  We've entered into a period in our history where commerce can take place in cyberspace - which raises the interesting point on who would be the regulatory body for this type of commerce and who would be able to tax it?  Is it the country where the product is bought or the country that it was sold?  If it's not a physical item but instead software or support, how is that quantified?  I'm sure we remember the days of Amazon being tax-free (days that personally, I miss) but it seems as though governments are catching up to the idea of taxing and regulating goods that are bought, sold and shipped online.  However, other transactions that never leave cyberspace (software and music downloads, for example) are more difficult to quantify, control and tax.

States can seem to hold on to their political sovereignty, but economically the world is too intertwined to support autonomy.  International companies operate in their own set of rules and only so many laws can be made to try to regulate trade when it comes to things like networks between companies.  In fact, it seems as though these companies have realized what the governments are slowly coming to a realization of - international cooperation is beneficial to all and autonomy never really existed in the first place.  I found it very interesting to find out that pre-1914, the world economy was vastly interconnected and growing at a fast rate.  Two world wars and a cold war / arms race really threw things out of wack!  Now we're in such an interesting, interconnected world that we want so much to believe is totally different from any other period of history.  The thing is, we're still people - the gadgets and societal structures may have changed but governments at every level still exist.  In the Kobrin reading he mentioned about medieval times and different feudal leaders that the people were answerable to.  The same thing exists today - the local, state and national governmental agencies and police forces all can enforce their will upon the people.  So what really changes?  Perhaps just the ways in which information is shared, the speed with which transactions take place and the new marketplace which exists only online.  It will be fascinating to see how governmental agencies eventually catch up.

My final thought was one that I had a few weeks ago in light of the coming election:  Do politics drive the economy or does the economy drive politics?

Nuclear Weapons and Authority

The attempted control of nuclear arms demonstrates some interesting features of modern authority and capacity to enforce authority.

The P5 + 1 maintains a “nuclear monopoly” and are even open to using coercive force to maintain it. (Gusterson) For example, many American were in favor of going to war to stop the Iraqi government from achieving nuclear capabilities. Gusterson suggests this was a factor in the US decision to enter the Gulf War.

The ownership of nuclear weapons in of itself illustrates the persistence of coercive force. Waltz offered a counterargument to the mainstream resistance towards developing countries gaining nuclear weapons. Waltz argued that nuclear proliferation could actually lead to more peace in the developing world due to nuclear proliferation. The concept of peace through nuclear deterrence sought by developing nations like Pakistan is a clear example of states using the threat of coercive force to achieve their relative goals even goals of peace.

Despite the increasing threats associated with having a short warning and decision time for launching a nuclear attack. Proliferation, continues as the US begins to target areas in China leading China to shorten its own warning and decision time for launching a nuclear attack. (Blair) Through the lens set up by Gusterson, Blair’s assessment of current trends regarding nuclear proliferation in spite of increased threats seems to demonstrate that state actors will rely on the threat of coercive force to secure themselves and achieve relative peace as opposed to relying on rational bargaining.

In fact, the more powerful member-states seem to try and use such institutions meant for rational bargaining to deter less powerful states (or the “other” as Gusterson refers to them) from increasing their own nuclear capabilities. One could argue that by doing this, powerful nations are able to maintain the degree of threat they can pose on the world in regard to their potential for coercive action. States that pose a greater threat will be able to influence weaker states with great ease. This sort of colonial aim was strongly suggested by Gusterson to be a motivation for the preservation of the “nuclear monopoly” as it exists today.

            Additionally, coercion seems to be developing into a major tool for non-state actors as well although at this point states still seem to hold greater influence in the international environment.  It does seem likely however that this will change as boarders slowly become more porous both through the development of technology and the emergence of Non state actors like MNC’s, NGO, and other IOs facilitating the process of globalization.  

            There is yet another development worth noting that was pointed out in the article on PSC’s. Some entities such as MNC’s and even State actors as we have seen are trying to utilize non-coercive techniques like rational bargaining in order to find lest costly ways to enforce their authority. However, whether or not this will result in a total change of methods for enforcing authority depends on the nature of the environment and how successful such methods can be. 

Nuke and Change

One of the theories we have had in class is that one of the ways change in the international occurs is through shocks to the system. In my group's presentation we brought up the reasons why nations that currently possess nuclear weapons will not disarm, and I think that's a pretty convincing argument. However, the idea of a traumatic event might be a key to changing the system.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world has come to a nuclear exchange, and there have been numerous mishaps throughout the world involving nuclear weapons. Since none of these events have resulted in appreciable change in the theory of mutually assured destruction, I doubt anything short of a limited nuclear exchange would result in a dramatic disarmament plan.

There are two possible scenarios that I see could realistically bring about a limited nuclear exchange. The first is an India/Pakistan scenario, and the second is a war between NATO and Russia, but only one where Russia utilizes its escalate to de-escalate strategy. There are many other possible scenarios that involve nuclear weapons, but they don't meet the criteria. First, a large scale nuclear exchange between any combination of NATO, Russia, and China will be so devastating as to its effects that humanity may not survive. Second, a war between a small nuclear armed state, such as North Korea, and NATO, as long as a more capable ally does not become a belligerent, would not necessarily involve nukes, due to the overwhelming conventional capabilities of the US.

The two viable scenarios involve the use of enough nuclear weapons to have dramatic consequences for the world's environment and economies, but not enough to end the system all together. The result of either scenario could conceive of a change to the system akin to the founding of the UN. The real sticking point in this scenario is the requirement that nations give up portions of their sovereignty, the ability to use nuclear weapons, in exchange for the security that such dramatic events will not happen again.

And the desire for nations to hold on to their sovereignty and autonomy in terms of national security in all circumstances is precisely why change in the form of nuclear regulation is so difficult.

Nuclear Weapons

So what could make the nations of the world give up their nuclear weapons?  In the realist' opinion of class, we determined that nuclear disarmament is at best a fantasy.  While moving away from the "minutemen" is a great idea, it would require a trust between powers that does not exist.  Could it possibly exist?  I'm thinking not.  The world politic seems to me to be based upon a system of smoke and mirrors, deception and double-talk.  While we'd like to believe that we trust our allies, this is not true because we also spy on our allies.  The international stage is one that is fraught with subterfuge.  Frankly, the whole time that we were discussing the idea of nuclear weapons and taking them away from our arsenal all I could think of was Star Wars.  It seems to me that the issue of retaliatory strikes could eventually be turned into a debate of who shot first - America or Russia?  Han or Greedo?  From a certain point of view, if one were to be the victim of a nuclear strike, they would want to be able to retaliate very quickly.

Now, that being said, the other article which raises the ideas of terrorists being able to hack into country's nuclear programs and trigger a nuclear strike is frankly terrifying and quite possibly the best argument for disarmament.  However, even as we have states with plenty of nuclear weapons at hand, there are still others who are building their arsenal looking toward them being a "deterrent" for their enemies to use nukes on them.  Is that reasoning sound?  Perhaps.  I was struck by the mention about America and Russia during the cold war sharing information on safety switches and the like.  Interesting that nuclear weapons could inspire cooperation by the two powers at the head of the arms race.  Perhaps the world being full of nuclear weapons would be the push toward cooperation that would be needed for us to move to a more integrated, less sovereign world.  Perhaps. 
 

PSC's, Sovereignty, and Machiavelli's Warnings

Upon reading the work by Abrahamsen and Williams Security beyond the State: Global Security Assemblages in International Politics, Machiavelli’s warnings about mercenaries and auxiliary forces quickly came to mind. In chapter 12 of The Prince Machiavelli states:

The mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous, and if anyone has a state founded on the arms of mercenaries, he will never be stable or secure, because they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, disloyal; bold among friends, among enemies cowardly, without fear of God, without faith in men; and your ruin is deferred only as long as the assault is deferred; and in peace you are plundered by them, in war by the enemy.

He then explains the reason as:

The reason for this is that they have no love or any motive that keeps them in the field other than a little bit of salary, which is not enough to make them willing to die for you. They are quite willing to be your soldiers as long as you are not waging war, but when war comes, then it is: retreat or run away.

This concern was somewhat reiterated in class by the students. With PSC’s there is a question of accountability and who they are really serving. Another student pointed out that many of the individuals employed by these firms are ex U.S. military and may be serving U.S. interests to an extent. I must give credit to Genorie and Meshal for bring up these excellent points. From the onset of reading this text I certainly shared this skepticism and the article has only just begun to alleviate that skepticism.

Following this kind of reasonable skepticism and Machiavelli’s warnings one can consider PSC’s to be a threat to the sovereignty of the states that require their services. However, after reading the article, it seems that understanding the PSC’s as international firms helps to put the PSC’s under a slightly different light. As large firms susceptible to market conditions and public scrutiny they are less likely to neatly fit into the mold set by Machiavelli regarding Mercenaries. This makes it less likely for individual ambitions amongst the security personnel to negatively affect those that employ them assuming that they are working under contracts the security personnel view as fair. Assuming that the firms are strong and stable enough to be considered a foreign force rather than a force of individual mercenaries we might then consider Machiavelli’s thoughts on Auxiliary forces in chapter 13 of The Prince.

These troops can be useful and good in themselves, but they are almost always harmful for the man who calls them in, for if they lose, you are undone; if they win, you remain their prisoner.

The auxiliary forces provided by firms however stand apart from those described by Machiavelli in sever ways. One key difference is that the security PSC’s given in the examples were typically working to safe guard the assets of private entities. In both cases these assets were natural resources. These assets or natural resources are typically also large sources of economic growth or at least sustainability for the countries that are home to these assets. Because of this, the interests of the local governments and firms providing the PSC’s were in line. Furthermore, with a sole focus on profit, the firms that hire the PSC’s are less likely to challenge the authority of the local governments as it would likely be too costly for any firm to govern an entire population. With that it seems less likely that they would hold a state “prisoner” although it was noted that the dynamics between the PSC’s and the local governments were sometime criticized along the lines that the firms might be able to influence the vulnerable local governments. This might very well be the case but it probably wouldn’t be through the tradition coercive force that Machiavelli refers to and this kind of private influence on government from firms can arguably be seen across the globe.  

Regarding PSC’s and coercive force. There has been a lot of pushback to the attempts of the PSC’s to use arms in the host countries. This has increased the need for the PSC’s to work together with local forces. Additionally, the article by Abrahamsen and Williams specifically notes the following about the PSC’s in the Niger Delta:

In the past, the oil companies at the very least tolerated, and in some eyes promoted, the highly coercive security strategies of the Nigerian police and military (Okonta and Douglas 2003; Meier 2004). There are now signs that companies are seeking (at least in part) to abandon such strategies and to distance themselves from the coercion of public security services, in recognition of the failure of these policies and the considerable international opposition and negative publicity they have generated. Instead, the oil companies are adopting more ‘comprehensive’’ security strategies incorporating community engagement and development (Omeje 2006; SPDC 2002).   

  

                Although the article also notes that the degree of commitment to this strategy is questionable it does show a significant step away from the tradition use of coercive force. It seems more than likely, commitment to this strategy will increase in response to continuous positive feedback. If it works they will continue to employ it. This also illustrates that both the international firms, PSC’s, and local governments are working together along similar interests to increase their total capacity to enforce their various forms of authority, whether it is an authority to govern or an authority over an asset to be collected and put into market. Skepticism still seems reasonable about these security assemblages however and only time will tell if such alliance truly are tenuous. That being said this article certainly opens up the door to an idealized world where such long lasting assemblages and perhaps even some sort of globalized security might be conceivable.

Organized Crime

I find the subject of organized crime fascinating.  The unwritten rules of conduct, the understanding of different norms and how to enforce their rules.  I'll admit an interest in Al Capone and the gangsters of old.  The thing that I never really thought of until now was states perceptions of the impermeability of their borders, yet organized crime's ability to slip through them like water through a sieve. 

We often have been referring to North Korea as the state that is most impermeable to things like the internet and Western influence, but I ask you - if their borders were impermeable, then no one would ever be able to leave, right?  And yet, there are tales of people saving money and paying others - people in organized crime - to smuggle them out.  It seems to me as if organized crime and their ability to operate across all borders is the great equalizer between states - looked at through this lens, no state is totally sovereign because no state can truly control 100% of the traffic on its borders - both of goods entering and goods leaving the country.

To me, the prevalence of organized crime brings into sharp focus the notion that money does indeed make the world go 'round.  Enough money can get you whatever you want if you have the right contacts... and even if you don't have the right contacts but you do have enough money and are fairly smart, you can buy your way into those contacts.  One thing that I continue to think about is that some organized criminal organizations began by selling their protection - that's how they used to run the unions in New York and Boston, that's how some Mexican organizations still operate by selling their protection to the corrupt politicians.  As in the Godfather, it's all about favors and money.  The more favors people owe you, the more power you have over them, the more money you have, the more power you can wield. 

Will states ever be able to get rid of organized crime?  Unlikely.  I know in class we often talk about the Federation from Star Trek, but I'm more of a Firefly kind of chick.  In that (sadly) short-lived show, there was the Alliance of the planets, but there was also plenty of smuggling and other organized criminal type activities.  Of course the big difference between those two universes... anyone... ideas... in Star Trek money was obsolete.  In Firefly money was still very much a thing.  As long as money and perceived power over others is around, we'll not be seeing a decrease in any organized crime - no matter how many gangsters or cartel members are captured.

PSCs and Sovereignty

One of the final questions that Prof. Jackson posed during the module was if there is such a thing as 'legitimate violence'. I think this question lays a great foundation for the discussion of PSCs and Organized Crime. This also serves to highlight that purely internal matters for a state have an impact on broader issues of sovereignty and legitimacy.

The simple answer to his question of legitimate violence is that it depends. In a liberal democracy, the government theoretically exercises power because it has the consent of the governed. Laws are enacted and enforced because the will of the majority is being expressed. Limits to that authority exist because of the respect for civil and human rights of all citizens. Or so theory states. In practice it's a much muddier picture.

However, there are many dictatorial regimes that do not even pretend to have limits to power. Where is the legitimacy of state security forces in that context? In such a situation, any PSC that derives authority from the state is lacking legitimacy by extension. In this frame, the PSC does not diminish the sovereignty of the state in any appreciable way because the state does not have legitimacy in the first place. The PSC is just another tool for government will.

This is in contrast to a situation where a PSC is able to gain enough control within a state so that it can change the rule of law to benefit the PSC. However, this is just as possible with any other corporate entity. The only difference is that a PSC's business is security, not just commodity extraction or manufacturing. So the threat to sovereignty comes from any corporation.

To Fundamentally Change or not to Fundamentally Change....What was the Question?

Interesting title I know however, this is how I feel when it comes to fundamentally change within the international realm. I feel most actors would like to change the system and create something grander than what has been created  but something deep down in me will always think that international actors(when push comes to shove) will emphatically revert back to a autonomous, anarchy, and sovereignty viewpoint becasue at the end of the day  countries will act upon the it's all about me, my self interest, and how I choose to protect and secure my country mentality. This type of thinking will make you put the Utopia yearning on the back burner and revert back to anarchy. This is what Waltz would call a natural state of anarchy. Like I mentioned in my argument, If you are looking through the eyes of Hobbs, an anarchic environment in the state of nature is described as a state of disorder and war of all against all. However, this description is not the case with many theorists including Waltz. According to Waltz, anarchic is described as “no sovereign body that governs the interactions between autonomous nation-states”. Waltz also points out that in an anarchic environment, war happens between states and is based on states wanting to survive (war exist when states struggle with the structure of the system). To me,the struggle will always exist.

Personal views on the debate and whether the international environment can be changed.

     Addressing the question of whether or not the international environment can be fundamentally changed is a bit more challenging then addressing a question about how it exists today. In asking questions about the current state of the international community, one only needs to consider whether a claim is valid or not; or whether or not we can reject the null hypothesis. When addressing questions of the future, we switch from asking “what is” to “what could be”. In asking the latter type of questions we find ourselves dealing with the probability of whether or not something will occur in the future. Any answer comes with a greater degree of uncertainty compared to questions about the world as it is. For either side to have a superior argument they must be able to prove that the change of the international environment is probable for the pro group or improbable for the con group.

                Both sides presented their arguments with a state focused approach and from the perspective that anarchy is the starting point of the environment. The con side focused more on Waltz while to pro side focused more on Wendt. Both sides were able to use these respective theories effectively in their arguments. However, the con side seemed to do a slightly better job of finding current events and specific examples to back the theories they chose to use. The pro side was able to call on more general examples illustrated by current conditions of the international environment. By this, I mean the existence of IO’s, alliances, and to some extent technology in the form of nuclear technology.

                Going forward, much of the debate seemed to become centered on the nature of IO’s as having agency or only being used by state actors. The con side also brought the question of human nature into question. The Pro side was not able to neglect the lack of agency within the international organizations but was able to emphasize that change is a slow process and the continued development and existence of these organizations seems to indicate that such a change occurring in the future is more probable. Regarding human nature, the con group brought up the Hobbian state of nature and the “predator theory” brought up in both Waltz and Wendt. Given the adaptive nature of humans and the degree to which human behavior and cognitions are based on their environment and culture I found the Hobbian argument to be a somewhat weak. Various social movements in the past have shown us that humans can change their perceptions about themselves and how they relate to others. Furthermore as institutions develop they often develop internal systems for dealing with corruption and other forms of selfish action. As for the predator theory, I find this to be a much stronger argument. However, they didn’t seem to properly address the role of emerging security communities interested in maintaining international security and the value of sovereignty.    

                Giving my own opinion I think that the con group didn’t quite prove that a future change in the international environment was improbable. The Pro group did a decent job of showing that it was a possibility but it wasn’t able to show that such a change was likely to occur soon enough for it to be relevant to today’s world. Proving that something not seen in history can occur in the future is a difficult task. However, proving that something conceivable can’t happen is also fairly challenging.

                 

Can the World be Remade?

This week's debate brought up many interesting arguments surrounding the question about if the international environment can be fundamentally remade. Although we expanded our scope towards the end, there is a topic that we didn't really delve into much, and that is the role of corporations.

Corporations have always had a role in the international environment, but people could argue that they are taking on a different role than they have in the past. Multi-national corporations extend beyond the borders of any individual state. Many take on the roles that states have traditionally held a monopoly on, such as espionage and security. Private security firms, such as the former Blackwater, possess military capabilities comparable to some states.

Combined with an ability to evade laws by setting up operations in a state with a more permissive legal environment there is the potential for changes to the international system. We have debated if states act out of interest or ideas, but I don't think this question applies to corporations writ large. A state must govern. A corporation does not have to.

However, these issues are not new. The Dutch East India Company had many of the hallmarks of a modern corporation. It also took on many of the powers usually reserved for states. It waged war, operated a legal system, and had a currency. The company began as a state-sanctioned monopoly. It did not operate as independently of the Dutch government as many modern corporations do.

In the foreseeable future corporations will not challenge the primacy of states in the international realm. They will, however, take on an increasingly important role on the international stage. The role they take will be determined by how willing governments will be to enforcing their laws and norms on corporations.

Results of the debate - I'm a cynical idealist

So the question is "Can the international environment be fundamentally remade?"  After the week of arguing for the pros and cons of this statement, I think the answer we've arrived at is a solid... maybe... depending on how one defines the "fundamentally remade" part.  

For me, I think that the answer is yes, the international environment can be fundamentally remade.  I think it will either be a gradual process as organizations like NATO and the UN and such barter for more power over the states who are members in the organizations, showing how it's beneficial to them to give up that power for greater security, more economic power, etc.  Or it'll happen in response to a cataclysmic event - being from Wyoming, my mind automatically goes to the super-volcano under Yellowstone blowing up and covering a good chunk of the world in ash, while plunging the rest of the world into an unnatural winter.  Based on how IO's began after world war 2 (in response to a cataclysmic event) I think that the chance of fundamental change happening in our life time is rather small - hence the cynicism.  In order to move toward the kind of governance that comes to mind (the Federation from Star Trek) I think that there would have to be a total shift in every country as to how they self-identify.  What I mean is, we could no longer say "I'm American" with the kind of emphasis we now do, it would have to shift to "I'm american."  We would have to see ourselves as citizens of the world first, Americans second.  This kind of shift is probably possible, but does require generations of people traveling the world, understanding world issues, electing leaders who truly have no intention of being the ones to push the nuclear button.  I'm writing this from an American standpoint, obviously, but I think it does cross other borders.  One of the most enlightening parts of travel is learning that people are people everywhere.  Disappointment in cancelled trains sounds the same in Budapest as it does in Paris or New York. 

Of course the image I have of an interconnected, understanding world is probably different from yours.  Hence the idealist in me.  Imagine a world with no war and no poverty.  I think we owe it to ourselves and to the future to even try to make that a reality.  Yes, there's plenty of other issues, but again, change takes time.  As for the issue of sovereignty... I think that every time we get scared or surprised, our reaction is to pull back, to assess the event, collect data, determine our reaction and then re-engage.  Every state at this point in time will pull back if they feel that their national identity is being threatened by international organizations or globalization.  That's why we tend to go back toward the billiard balls analogy.  The thing is, in our interconnected society, as technology reaches the furthest ends of the globe, I think that states will no longer be able to retreat back into an impermeable shell.  Like it or not, we're more connected than ever before and international states and organizations are trying to find their ways in a world where there is no precedent and it's scary and they're doing the best they can while making sure that their interests are served.  Basically I think that economics and technology will drive globalization and international cooperation more than any other factors.  We'll likely end up fighting radical groups within countries rather than countries themselves, which will make warfare totally different from any other point in history (as is happening now).  And eventually we will have to figure out if our national identity is more important than having a mutual place to live (good old planet Earth).

So perhaps I lean more toward cynical than idealist... I want good changes, I just have NO idea how they could come about... at least not right now... tune in next week.  :)

It's easy to get lost in the theory of these readings without seeing how they practically apply to current issues in international relations. However, Wendt's , “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics," does exactly that. In looking to the future of relations between the post-communist Russia and the west, he says:

"Notwithstanding today's rhetoric about the end of the cold war, skeptics may still doubt whether Gorbachev (or some future leader) will succeed in building an intersubjective basis for a new Soviet (or Russian) role identity. There are important domestic, bureaucratic, and cognitive-ideological sources of resistance in both East and West to such a change, not the least of which is the shakiness of the democratic forces' domestic position. But if my argument about the role of intersubjective knowledge in creating competitive structures of identity and interest is right, then at least New Thinking shows a greater appreciation-conscious or not-for the deep structure of power politics than we are accustomed to in international relations practice." (Page 422[PDF 33])

It seems that the last few years have brought a return to some of the power politics between East and West. Russian rhetoric often talks about NATO as a threat to Russian national security. How is it that an organization which is defined as a mutual defense organization is viewed as an offensive threat to Russia? (NATO treaty text if you are interested. In short, Article 5 states an attack against one in Europe or North America is an attack against all.)

I think a good explanation lies in Wendt's article. He lays out an argument that, as I interpret it, suggests Russia has returned to its identity as enemy of the West. It seems that the 'important domestic, bureaucratic, and cognitive-ideological sources of resistance'  have won out, and that, for the time being, antagonistic relations between East and West will remain. Is it a coincidence that Putin is a former KGB officer?

There is much room for critical analysis of the West's actions since 1990. Particularly the interventions in the Balkans in 1995 and 1999 are often cited as evidence of Western aggression and reasons for Russia to be fearful. However, I believe that these actions are interpreted as aggressive towards Russia only if one believes that Russia and the West are antagonists already.

Wendt's Social Construction and Possibilities of Changing the International System

                Of the readings, Alexander Wendt’s article stood out in particular. The concepts of “intersubjective construction” and “identity formation” as being integral to the structure of the international system are without question significant ideas along with the concepts of neorealism and rationalism. Using these concepts, Wendt’s work seems to argue fairly effectively that the perception of state actors has been significant in forming the structures within the international system as it exists today.  It also suggested that these views held by state actors were possibly more malleable unlike some of the premises’ of the realist view point regarding human nature. This would bode well for the possibility of being able to change the international system as it suggests some features of the international community seen as structural are really left more to the agency of the state actors, even if the state actors are unaware of the degree to which they have agency. On the other hand, Wendt also suggests that some of these features are less malleable and more structural as a result of being institutionalized even though they were born of intersubjective construction.

                Focusing on states and the idea of sovereignty served Wentz well in his argument for those seeing states as still holding a majority of influence within the international arena. Assuming this is true, their predominant influence would suggest that states have the greatest potential to initiate and carry out change within the international system. Following this logic, it is conceivable that any form of a postmodernist world would have to be created by the actions of sovereign state actors. With that, an understanding of sovereign state actors would bring any analysis closer to answering the question of whether or not the international system can be changed.

                Furthermore, Wendt’s work in some ways tried to explain how the international system could come to be formed in a way that would seem to give credibility to the realist or Hobbian views of the world. In other words, Wendt explains how such an international system can develop irrelevant of the degree to which rationalists are accurate in describing human nature. The concept of the “predator state” brought up by Wendt did well to explain how a Hobbian world might develop even if the Hobbian view of human nature wasn’t true. This also complimented the concept of State actors focusing on their own security in their actions as opposed to their own desire for power; a concept brought up in the reading by Kenneth Waltz.

                It seems that there is certainly something to be said for the intersubjective construction of the international system by state actors based on their perception of both themselves and the other actors. However, it also seems that Wendt’s work fell somewhat short in not considering the degree to which real environmental factors might limit the agency of state actors. These potential factors include resource scarcity and other forms of physical adversity that may be faced by state actors. The need to resort to aggression may be born out of desperation as well as greed. It would also be important to consider in such an analysis that the development of various technologies and societies would limit these burdens on the state actors and give them more agency to form international systems out of intersubjective construction. This transition may also be facilitated by communication technology and many aspects of globalization which allow Wendt’s “Ego and Alter” to have a clearer understanding of the international community and reduce the chances of identities being constructed based on the false assumptions or understandings of other state actors. These issues are addressed in Wendt’s work but they seemed to be presented more as disclaimers. 

Can the International Environment Be Fundamentally Remade

If you go back through our history in international relations, you will see that we have come along way. Each actor and agency has had (in some way) some type of accountability or control of options that has changed the course of action or history of international relation. This is to include looking at the actors we had back in the 1940's who were Western and Asian male dominated,antiquated technology to the actors in the 21st century such as changes in technology,women taking on non- traditional roles,diversity dominated with many different countries and,changes in trade and the economy. Although we can see how the subject of international relations has drastically changed and remade from the 20th century to the 21st century,we know that change was implemented by the actions of certain actors who were involved.

With this said,  when it comes to change or remaking the international environment it seems to me that the  actors with high levels of agency  can and do have the capacity to change in contrast,actors with low levels of agency do not have the capacity to change. So we go back to the original question "can the international environment be fundamentally remade?". Well, I would imagine that it depends on the actions of the actors and agencies involved and whether or not they see a reason (within their social and cultural values, ideas and interest) to remake  or change the environment and if the change is for the greater good of the international society.

Changes

So can the international environment be remade?  If it were to be re-made, how might that happen.  Does complete globalization make sense?  Can states ever successfully integrate?  These are all great questions that are brought up for discussion this week.  Personally, I think that global cooperation is a good idea, but complete globalization does not seem to me to be plausible.  Some international organizations are able to function well within the parameters that they are defined, but if any international organization were to be totally effective, they would need to be able to use coercive force.  Or at least have some kind of coercion they could use in order to get states to do things when the states really don't want to do them.  The international stage is constantly changing as states gain and lose power, but a major restructuring of the international environment itself seems unlikely without some kind of outside catastrophe being the catalyst of such dramatic change. 

In thinking about international institutions, a part of the literature seems to sum them up perfectly.  In the Koremenos, Lipson and Snidal article, they state the presumption that states construct and shape institutions to advance their goal.  I think this presumption is correct because no state will willingly give an international institution more power than the state itself perceives that it wields.  And if the institution is perceived to be less beneficial to a state, they simply will not join it.  The incentives HAVE to outweigh the cost.  I think we see this not only in the international realm, but also in our personal lives.  I'm slowly coming around to the Hobbesian idea that the international stage is one of anarchy and each state trying to advance it's own interests (or at least the interests of those in power).  I still disagree with his view of the "natural" state of man, because I think it's very simplistic, but when taking his views and expanding them to countries, it makes sense.

Closing thoughts on ideas and interests

                In addition to addressing whether ideas or interests are more instrumental in motivating the actions of states, much of the work in this field seems to also be focused on defining and conceptualizing what an idea is exactly. In my closing thoughts for this module I will first address the concept of an “idea” and then consider whether ideas or interests might have more influence on the actions or behavior of state actors in the international arena. This is all based on my understanding of the readings and observations of current and historic events.   

Regarding concepts of ideas and interests effecting policy and action in international relations, I thought that Laffey and Welds’ article added something significant to the conceptualization of ideas with the “symbolic technologies” metaphor. In many ways it refines some of the concepts of ideas brought up in Goldstein and Keohanes work. This refining was needed due to the available technology we have today; that is the lack of technology related to decoding the content of mental beliefs. Although, I also think there is something to be said for Goldstein and Keohanes categories of ideas which includes: world beliefs, principles, and causal beliefs. I spoke to this in a previous blog.

Laffey and Welds approach of analyzing ideas using language and symbols with an “agnostic” (as put by Laffey and Welds) view towards the content or existence of beliefs as mental phenomena might be more practical given the current lack of ability to measure mental phenomena in a way that would allow us to seamlessly apply it to methods used to explain the motivations of the actions of state actors on the international stage. That being said, it would be very interesting and may benefit our overall understanding of motivation if we could better measure mental phenomena within the individual and study its interactions with the symbolic technologies that are drawn from it. Looking at ideas through the lens of “symbolic technologies” and discounting the relationship that may exist between mental phenomena and the symbolic technologies which in some ways can be seen as extensions of mental phenomena may very well set limitations for our understanding of how ideas function in society and in effect influence policy, decisions, and actions. For example, considerations of what factors make ideas acceptable to different individuals may give analysts insight into the relative value of a given idea. From various observations it would seem that the value given to various ideas is significant in understanding it as a potential motivation for action when comparing it with that of other interests or ideas.  It should be noted that I am not claiming that these individually held beliefs in the form of mental processes are significant. Rather, I am suggesting that it should be proven empirically to be significant or otherwise as opposed to being held with an “agnostic” view. Lacking the ability to achieve this kind of empirical understanding Laffey and Welds approach may be the best for now but it should be understood that it potentially leaves out significant details regarding ideas.

Concerning the actual question of whether ideas or interests have more influence on the actions of actors in international relations, the answer seems very complicated based on observation of current events. In many cases they may coincide or work in unison towards motivating action. However, there are cases in which ideas or interests might come into conflict. In these circumstances it seems that the relative value given to each of the competing motivators will determine the action taken. It also seems that interests related to the survival of the state seem to outweigh most other ideas and interests. There also might be times in which a state acts against its own interest in favor of an idea that it holds at a greater value.

The other issue seems to be the relationship between ideas and interests themselves. Ideas seem to shape or at least be related to world views or categorical views as Laffey and Welds pointed out and these in turn can shape our preferences which are integral to our interests. Likewise, in a conflict between an interest and an idea (especially related to survival) a case of cognitive dissonance might come into play in which the idea is questioned and may be changed in favor of the interest. In both these cases we see that ideas and interests can influence each other as well as the actions of actors.