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.