Theories of Wealth Accumulation
Why is there a wealth gap between the northern countries and the southern countries? Theories such as economic liberalism, world system theory, and dependency theory, have emerged to explain the North-South Gap. A clear understanding of these distinct theories is essential to drawing the similarities and differences between how Northern and Southern countries earn their wealth.
Reiterating the previous sentence, a comprehensive understanding of economic liberalism theory is crucial. Coming from the latin root, liber, meaning free, the notion of economic liberalism was developed by Adam Smith who contended that the power of free markets was unprecedented and would be the most ideal system. He advocated for the idea of free trade in conjunction with the reduction of government controls and regulations, as this efficiency of trade, coming from greater lending and investments, would stimulate the economy, thus growing it. This concept was laissez-faire (let it be), the precursor to economic liberalism theory. Now, economic liberalism holds that free trade makes everyone richer through positive sum gains. The most common example used is a pie. From a mercantilist perspective, states would merely compete amongst one another to gain a larger slice of the pie; in contrast, liberalists argue that free trade would allow the pie to enlarge, increasing everyone’ share. How exactly does this play in reality? Essentially, liberalized economies empower investors and corporations to make enormous sums of money, including countries in the “North”, as those states would gain revenue through taxation. Likewise, while this also reduces power of governments in the “South” to shape economic policies domestically and to respond to problems when they occur, neoliberalist policies, theoretically, also empower LDCs, as salaries can be taxed on by the government for those working in corporations, providing the government with another financial stream.
The global system of regional class divisions has been seen by some IR scholars as a world-system or a capital world economy. This view is Marxist in orientation ( focusing on economic classes) and relies on a global level of analysis. In the world system, class division are regionalized. Region in the global South mostly extract raw materials.- work that use much labor and little capital and pays low wages. Industrialized regions mostly manufacture goods- work that uses more capital, requires more skilled labor and pays worker higher wages. The manufacturing regions are called the core of the world system. This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries
Marxist IR scholars have developed this theory to explain the lack of accumulation in the third world. It is define as a situation in which accumulation of capital cannot sustain itself internally. A dependent country must borrow capital goods; its debt payments then reduce the accumulation of surplus. Dependency is a form of international interdependence- rich regions need to loan out their money just as poor ones need to borrow it. Foreign capital invested in a third world country to extract a particular raw material in a particular place, it only leaves the the country with some jobs for few local workers. Over time, the resource depleted. Another pattern is that national controlled production, a local capitalist control the cycle of accumulation based on production. The profit goes to the local capitalist mostly and that builds up a powerful class of rich owners within the countries.
Reiterating the previous sentence, a comprehensive understanding of economic liberalism theory is crucial. Coming from the latin root, liber, meaning free, the notion of economic liberalism was developed by Adam Smith who contended that the power of free markets was unprecedented and would be the most ideal system. He advocated for the idea of free trade in conjunction with the reduction of government controls and regulations, as this efficiency of trade, coming from greater lending and investments, would stimulate the economy, thus growing it. This concept was laissez-faire (let it be), the precursor to economic liberalism theory. Now, economic liberalism holds that free trade makes everyone richer through positive sum gains. The most common example used is a pie. From a mercantilist perspective, states would merely compete amongst one another to gain a larger slice of the pie; in contrast, liberalists argue that free trade would allow the pie to enlarge, increasing everyone’ share. How exactly does this play in reality? Essentially, liberalized economies empower investors and corporations to make enormous sums of money, including countries in the “North”, as those states would gain revenue through taxation. Likewise, while this also reduces power of governments in the “South” to shape economic policies domestically and to respond to problems when they occur, neoliberalist policies, theoretically, also empower LDCs, as salaries can be taxed on by the government for those working in corporations, providing the government with another financial stream.
The global system of regional class divisions has been seen by some IR scholars as a world-system or a capital world economy. This view is Marxist in orientation ( focusing on economic classes) and relies on a global level of analysis. In the world system, class division are regionalized. Region in the global South mostly extract raw materials.- work that use much labor and little capital and pays low wages. Industrialized regions mostly manufacture goods- work that uses more capital, requires more skilled labor and pays worker higher wages. The manufacturing regions are called the core of the world system. This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries
Marxist IR scholars have developed this theory to explain the lack of accumulation in the third world. It is define as a situation in which accumulation of capital cannot sustain itself internally. A dependent country must borrow capital goods; its debt payments then reduce the accumulation of surplus. Dependency is a form of international interdependence- rich regions need to loan out their money just as poor ones need to borrow it. Foreign capital invested in a third world country to extract a particular raw material in a particular place, it only leaves the the country with some jobs for few local workers. Over time, the resource depleted. Another pattern is that national controlled production, a local capitalist control the cycle of accumulation based on production. The profit goes to the local capitalist mostly and that builds up a powerful class of rich owners within the countries.
Global Environmental Governance
The international society’s management of natural resources is exceedingly comparable to that of the Rapa Nui people on Easter Island, only in our case, there is a much larger pie, as well, as greater variety of resources at risk here. Similarly, the biggest challenge to environmental sustainability is the will to act. Both in their and our cases was collective action beneficial for all, but it was only a matter of sacrificing short-term interests. Internationally, it has become excessively difficult for states to take collective action, because one, many constituents are short-sighted and incessantly ignore the long-term benefits on the horizon, two, not everyone acknowledges the dangers and there is an unclear/vague picture of the potential benefits at hand, three, benefits are all long-term, and not short-term, four, many aren’t willing to trade off economic development for helping everyone as a whole, and five, especially in the case of global fisheries, no state has the authority to go onto the high seas and enforce any such agreements, giving rise to potential free-riders. In the case of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the agreement on CPCs can be considered as one of the most important successes achieved, because of two primary reasons: Costs of the measures that would be in place weren’t high, and the consequences of ozone depletion were better understood and more immediate. The 1984 Agreement to limit nitrogen oxide emissions to limit acid rain was mainly because rain forests in many European states had already been heavily damaged. Thus, there was a drastic and desperate need to change; thus, the regional agreements worked fairly well. MEDCs have struck deals with LEDCs that included the use of carbon credits and the leveraging of debt and monetary aid to convince LEDCs to protect forests, rather than cut them down.
U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A
The Inside Job only offers one aspect to how powerful corporations have infiltrated Congress to make the government their plaything with the use of a variety of tools, including the bombardment of lobbyists and large sums of money. Basically, the goals of the US government is simply aimed towards profit and with it, economic growth. Obviously, deregulation that followed the financial industry were in parallel to laissez-faire economic policies, and under the pretext of economic growth, to allow for massive exploitation those with mortgages and the working/middle-class. Now, Why We Fight also highlights how defense companies have adopted a similar strategy as those in the financial industry. The placement of military companies and the placement of many defense chiefs in power have ensured the survival and need for the private defense companies. In other words, America goes to war for money. Life & Debt also underlines how profit remains at the top of America’s checklist. The keeping of many indebted countries along with neoliberal policies and forced management, like the detracting of social welfare, keeps many poor and indebted to the United States and Western powers.
Improving Global Trade
Analogous to the scenario of deregulation, the question of free trade versus fair trade particularly examines benefits over disadvantages and highlights a question of ‘for who’. Obviously, there are the two major categories in which most trade falls under: free and fair trade. Free trade is similar to a deregulated financial sector. It allows for the flow of capital and technology, and for such goods to be available in developing states. Moreover, the lowered costs of goods coupled with lowered trade barriers leads to greater profits, and greater profits leads to reinvestment and more employment. It’s a positive feedback cycle that reinforces itself over time. The concept of free trade basically is parallel to the theory of economic liberalism; positive sum gains benefit all and that the more important goal is for the expansion of the pie to increase market shares instead of each individual’s slice. However, this system is not without its criticisms. Many critics have contended that free trade leads to outsourcing; outsourcing is when domestic industries in MEDCs move to states with lower labor costs. Not to mention, free trade mainly benefits the top dogs that already have established a strong footing; infant industries don’t get as many benefits of protection, including subsidies. In addition, there is a rising undeniable correlation between lower labor and environmental standards and places where many of these corporations have eagerly jumped into, and the match seems to fit, as profit maximization is their main objective.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have fair trade. Fair trade is a rising social movement that aims to create more equitable trading conditions in order to allow for disadvantaged producers in LEDCs receive a fairer and greater profit for the goods they produce, rather than being subject to exploitation and unsustainable environmental practices. One of the main benefits of fair trade lies within the definition: producers receive fairer prices and higher returns, thus, minimizing the inequality gap. Moreover, there is a chance to promote sustainable development and for unfair labor practices to end. Fair trade, itself, also comes with its critics. For one, money is often a contentious issue. Questions about the final destination of the cash turn up ambiguous answers and because of the lack of oversight, there is still evidence that the middlemen are happily taking in the cash, breaking the good faith in place. From the far right, many have argued that fair trade hurts farmers, and their opposite brother on the left has also contended that fair trade works in an unfair system. It merely asks as a bandage from a wound gushing with poverty.
First of all, in addressing the problem of environmental standards, a method in which governments could still temporarily maintain that level of economic development would be through an environmental tax, and need not I remind, this would need to be applicable to all states in order to deter multinational corporations, though it is also important to note that what we have here is also collective goods problem. Hypothetically, this is a question of priorities: Mother Nature versus economic growth. However, extreme economic integration also has its set of broader social ramifications as well. Increased interdependence upon one another might lead to a connecting set of ideas that promote positive thinking, though this, if it stands by itself, is a rather utopian idea. Generally speaking, if action were to be taken in maximizing economic development all the while protecting the people and environment, the global trade regimes in power right now would need to work together as a whole. We cannot afford to allow even more cheater, because that would not only be a detriment; it would allow the system to fall apart. We must recognize that because the system is anarchic, there are institutional veto players. For example, OPEC can raise prices simultaneously to impose an oil tax, all the while forcing other countries that are not used to being forced, to adapt and change. The current regimes like the WTO, which are puppet organizations controlled by those whose hands have dirtied with cash, must be altered. Equality for all. Votes must not be proportionate to money.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have fair trade. Fair trade is a rising social movement that aims to create more equitable trading conditions in order to allow for disadvantaged producers in LEDCs receive a fairer and greater profit for the goods they produce, rather than being subject to exploitation and unsustainable environmental practices. One of the main benefits of fair trade lies within the definition: producers receive fairer prices and higher returns, thus, minimizing the inequality gap. Moreover, there is a chance to promote sustainable development and for unfair labor practices to end. Fair trade, itself, also comes with its critics. For one, money is often a contentious issue. Questions about the final destination of the cash turn up ambiguous answers and because of the lack of oversight, there is still evidence that the middlemen are happily taking in the cash, breaking the good faith in place. From the far right, many have argued that fair trade hurts farmers, and their opposite brother on the left has also contended that fair trade works in an unfair system. It merely asks as a bandage from a wound gushing with poverty.
First of all, in addressing the problem of environmental standards, a method in which governments could still temporarily maintain that level of economic development would be through an environmental tax, and need not I remind, this would need to be applicable to all states in order to deter multinational corporations, though it is also important to note that what we have here is also collective goods problem. Hypothetically, this is a question of priorities: Mother Nature versus economic growth. However, extreme economic integration also has its set of broader social ramifications as well. Increased interdependence upon one another might lead to a connecting set of ideas that promote positive thinking, though this, if it stands by itself, is a rather utopian idea. Generally speaking, if action were to be taken in maximizing economic development all the while protecting the people and environment, the global trade regimes in power right now would need to work together as a whole. We cannot afford to allow even more cheater, because that would not only be a detriment; it would allow the system to fall apart. We must recognize that because the system is anarchic, there are institutional veto players. For example, OPEC can raise prices simultaneously to impose an oil tax, all the while forcing other countries that are not used to being forced, to adapt and change. The current regimes like the WTO, which are puppet organizations controlled by those whose hands have dirtied with cash, must be altered. Equality for all. Votes must not be proportionate to money.
World Trade Regimes: Dominance vs. Reciprocity
There is no doubt international trade plays a major part in our global economy. Our world is more inter-linked than ever before. As shown within the 2008 financial collapse, a hit on one country is a hit on them all. The role of trade within various countries may variegate, but at its core, trade is not only an economic issue, but a high politicized one that stretches across borders, and pressured by groups within each state. While it may have been true in the past that the global trading system was characterized by reciprocity, the structure is now more so in favor of developed and stable states or in general, the industrial North; thus, dominance has become the reigning doctrine in trading regimes.
For starters, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund are all successor organizations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. These three organizations were initially founded at the Bretton Woods Conference. At the time, World War II was drawing to a close and people’s concerns of ending the war soon shifted to issues in the post-war world-a global depression, past escalation of protectionist tariffs, dramatic currency devaluations. All everyone wanted at the time was to get international trade going again. The conference spawned three of these institutions, which would later guide much of the global reconstruction effort after the war and even until today, though the aim has shifted more so towards industrialization. Enter the decade of 1980 to 1990. It was especially in these years that the World Bank, IMF, and WTO ruthlessly adhered to their agendas of deregulation of trade markets around the world. One aggressive method that they adopted was to hold IMF and World Bank loans over their head unless those desperate developing countries accepted neoliberal reforms. Often times, this was encouraged and pushed on by the United States. After all, the IMF and World Bank were and continue to be run, not on a basis of a one-country vote, but instead, a proportional number of votes to the amount of money they pay in. In this sense, these organizations were only more so like puppet organizations, strung along by the United States, the puppet master. It was much the case that their long list of conditions for qualifying for reforms included opening to direct foreign investment and the privatization of state companies. Latin America was a prime example of American imperialism at work here. As covert CIA operations there controlled governments and staged revolutions, large American corporations with deep pockets entered and took control of those areas, exploiting their workforce and resources there. Not to mention, when a financial crisis developed in 1997 in several Asian countries, the values of their currencies fell dramatically in comparison the US dollar. Many of those affected governments were forced to turn to the World Bank for loans. In this case, the organization’s loans covered a wide spectrum of projects, including dams and job training programs. However, it was quite typical the case that these projects promote a development strategy that minimized the role of the public sector in tandem with the privatization of public property and industries. To reiterate the point on dominance, the United States had not concerns for the other side. It used whatever means necessary to break down trade barriers, infiltrate, and exploit. While it may be true that the WTO framework rests on the principle of non-discrimination, embodied in the most-favored nation (MFN) concept, this does not mean that reciprocity is in this case. Wealthier and rich countries can implement an increase in non-tariff barriers, such as anti-dumping measures allowed against developing countries. Not to mention, many of these countries have subsidies on certain products and are able to maintain the high import duties, all the while blocking imports from developing countries. Onto bilateral and regional agreements, this is one of the most disgusting areas. According to International Relations: Goldstein and Pevehouse, “bilateral treaties covering trade are reciprocal agreements to lower barriers to trade between two states”. However, it is only completely reciprocal when it comes to two countries on par with one another. Developed countries can afford isolating developing countries immediately and find alternatives, whereas the developing states can only hope for the best. Most of these countries are within Europe or North America, which are under NAFTA and the EU. These regional free trade agreements ensure a safety net in the event of, say, a developing country refusing to cooperate with its wealthier complement.
The United States is not the only one at fault here. Cartels, like OPEC have the ability to manipulate prices. Though it failed miserably in the past, there is dangerous potential here. OPEC is a prime example of a cartel not needing monopoly on production of a good to affect its price. In 1973, in response to the U.S. support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, oil prices went sky high, resulting in gas rationing and other lasting effects. One may argue that reciprocity is at work here, as it was support of Israel versus oil prices. However, when profit becomes the main motive above all, there is no need for reciprocity. Domination can easily be accomplished, leading to another reason why the United States has rather close ties with Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia can take up the slack from other members in OPEC; it can flood the market with oil and drive market prices down).
Another example of how the international trade system is based upon dominance is through the example of coffee. Americans have a secret obsession with the substance and drunk up to 400 million cups per day. However, despite so many being consumed, hardly anyone takes the time to ponder about the whereabouts and origins of the coffee. Some of the best coffee in the world is produced from Ethiopia. Over 15 million people depend upon it as their livelihood for survival and it provides up to 67% of their revenue. While a kilogram of coffee would valued at roughly $230 a kilo in the Western world, private buyers pay around 23 cents for a kilogram in Ethiopia. Obviously, it shows exploitation along with a massive and jacked-up price within the developed world. With only 20 cents more, their lives could change drastically, giving many the opportunity to obtain an education and break the cycle of poverty so many desperately want to escape from. Such low prices can hardly sustain the coffee farmers, and many of them, out of desperation have begun to seek growing other alternatives, like chat, an illicit drug. They do, not out of choice, but out of necessity. Their reliance on coffee also highlights another issue. Were the Western world able to impose a tariff or sanction coffee in Ethiopia, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would starve. The International Coffee Argument, which was signed in 1962, broke down in 1989, resulting in the dropping of prices with a falling share of the world market. Not to mention, at the last WTO conference, Africa was shown to have gotten poorer over 20 years, as developing countries could not and still cannot compete on the world stage. No equitable and fair trade relations came out of it, and many developing countries left out of frustration from not being listened to. According to one delegation, the way that talks worked were extremely unfair and disadvantageous. The UK and US have more people and resources there, simply because they pay more, and the countries will also not accept the removal of agricultural subsidies as that would, in no way benefit them. Even in present time, when both sides fight tit-for-tat, there is simply no hope in competing with the truckloads of money given to farmers in the Western world.
Most recently, there are rumors of bilateral talks between Russia with Ukraine and Pakistan and India. The term “talks” is a misnomer in this case, as “talks” implies that both sides are equivalents and that there is constructive dialogue between two sides with positive hopes of persuasion of both sides. This is obviously not the case, except when it comes to countries of equal wealth, power, and influence. When it comes down to two countries with an obvious disparate difference between the two, the advantage goes to the more powerful. Threats are easily levied, and on the other end of the spectrum, the incentives offered will hardly detract from anything. Aptly put by Lincoln Steffens, the commercial spirit is the spirit of profit, not patriotism; of credit, not honor; of individual gain, not national prosperity. In our reality, this reality, it is most typical that the more powerful dominate the weaker. True, it could be the case that it be a win-win situation but for the purposes of maximizing profits, the more powerful wins. It’s analogous to Darwinism. The most powerful and apt survive. Those who don’t feed on the scraps. And those who refuse to remove trade barriers will be forced to develop on a much slower pace than their former counterparts. As they continue to be an agrarian society, they can only watch in envy as others improve and climb up the ladder. Paired with strict tariffs and unending subsidies by the First World, I can only imagine what consequences those would suffer if they refused to bow down to their wealthier overlords. There is much barbarism that remains in these transactions of trade. It is not merely one-for-one, two-for-two. No, this is only the case for those of equal standing. When it comes to those who are impoverished, unfortunate, and incapable, there are only three words that will describe what happens to them: taken advantage of.
For starters, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund are all successor organizations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. These three organizations were initially founded at the Bretton Woods Conference. At the time, World War II was drawing to a close and people’s concerns of ending the war soon shifted to issues in the post-war world-a global depression, past escalation of protectionist tariffs, dramatic currency devaluations. All everyone wanted at the time was to get international trade going again. The conference spawned three of these institutions, which would later guide much of the global reconstruction effort after the war and even until today, though the aim has shifted more so towards industrialization. Enter the decade of 1980 to 1990. It was especially in these years that the World Bank, IMF, and WTO ruthlessly adhered to their agendas of deregulation of trade markets around the world. One aggressive method that they adopted was to hold IMF and World Bank loans over their head unless those desperate developing countries accepted neoliberal reforms. Often times, this was encouraged and pushed on by the United States. After all, the IMF and World Bank were and continue to be run, not on a basis of a one-country vote, but instead, a proportional number of votes to the amount of money they pay in. In this sense, these organizations were only more so like puppet organizations, strung along by the United States, the puppet master. It was much the case that their long list of conditions for qualifying for reforms included opening to direct foreign investment and the privatization of state companies. Latin America was a prime example of American imperialism at work here. As covert CIA operations there controlled governments and staged revolutions, large American corporations with deep pockets entered and took control of those areas, exploiting their workforce and resources there. Not to mention, when a financial crisis developed in 1997 in several Asian countries, the values of their currencies fell dramatically in comparison the US dollar. Many of those affected governments were forced to turn to the World Bank for loans. In this case, the organization’s loans covered a wide spectrum of projects, including dams and job training programs. However, it was quite typical the case that these projects promote a development strategy that minimized the role of the public sector in tandem with the privatization of public property and industries. To reiterate the point on dominance, the United States had not concerns for the other side. It used whatever means necessary to break down trade barriers, infiltrate, and exploit. While it may be true that the WTO framework rests on the principle of non-discrimination, embodied in the most-favored nation (MFN) concept, this does not mean that reciprocity is in this case. Wealthier and rich countries can implement an increase in non-tariff barriers, such as anti-dumping measures allowed against developing countries. Not to mention, many of these countries have subsidies on certain products and are able to maintain the high import duties, all the while blocking imports from developing countries. Onto bilateral and regional agreements, this is one of the most disgusting areas. According to International Relations: Goldstein and Pevehouse, “bilateral treaties covering trade are reciprocal agreements to lower barriers to trade between two states”. However, it is only completely reciprocal when it comes to two countries on par with one another. Developed countries can afford isolating developing countries immediately and find alternatives, whereas the developing states can only hope for the best. Most of these countries are within Europe or North America, which are under NAFTA and the EU. These regional free trade agreements ensure a safety net in the event of, say, a developing country refusing to cooperate with its wealthier complement.
The United States is not the only one at fault here. Cartels, like OPEC have the ability to manipulate prices. Though it failed miserably in the past, there is dangerous potential here. OPEC is a prime example of a cartel not needing monopoly on production of a good to affect its price. In 1973, in response to the U.S. support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, oil prices went sky high, resulting in gas rationing and other lasting effects. One may argue that reciprocity is at work here, as it was support of Israel versus oil prices. However, when profit becomes the main motive above all, there is no need for reciprocity. Domination can easily be accomplished, leading to another reason why the United States has rather close ties with Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia can take up the slack from other members in OPEC; it can flood the market with oil and drive market prices down).
Another example of how the international trade system is based upon dominance is through the example of coffee. Americans have a secret obsession with the substance and drunk up to 400 million cups per day. However, despite so many being consumed, hardly anyone takes the time to ponder about the whereabouts and origins of the coffee. Some of the best coffee in the world is produced from Ethiopia. Over 15 million people depend upon it as their livelihood for survival and it provides up to 67% of their revenue. While a kilogram of coffee would valued at roughly $230 a kilo in the Western world, private buyers pay around 23 cents for a kilogram in Ethiopia. Obviously, it shows exploitation along with a massive and jacked-up price within the developed world. With only 20 cents more, their lives could change drastically, giving many the opportunity to obtain an education and break the cycle of poverty so many desperately want to escape from. Such low prices can hardly sustain the coffee farmers, and many of them, out of desperation have begun to seek growing other alternatives, like chat, an illicit drug. They do, not out of choice, but out of necessity. Their reliance on coffee also highlights another issue. Were the Western world able to impose a tariff or sanction coffee in Ethiopia, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would starve. The International Coffee Argument, which was signed in 1962, broke down in 1989, resulting in the dropping of prices with a falling share of the world market. Not to mention, at the last WTO conference, Africa was shown to have gotten poorer over 20 years, as developing countries could not and still cannot compete on the world stage. No equitable and fair trade relations came out of it, and many developing countries left out of frustration from not being listened to. According to one delegation, the way that talks worked were extremely unfair and disadvantageous. The UK and US have more people and resources there, simply because they pay more, and the countries will also not accept the removal of agricultural subsidies as that would, in no way benefit them. Even in present time, when both sides fight tit-for-tat, there is simply no hope in competing with the truckloads of money given to farmers in the Western world.
Most recently, there are rumors of bilateral talks between Russia with Ukraine and Pakistan and India. The term “talks” is a misnomer in this case, as “talks” implies that both sides are equivalents and that there is constructive dialogue between two sides with positive hopes of persuasion of both sides. This is obviously not the case, except when it comes to countries of equal wealth, power, and influence. When it comes down to two countries with an obvious disparate difference between the two, the advantage goes to the more powerful. Threats are easily levied, and on the other end of the spectrum, the incentives offered will hardly detract from anything. Aptly put by Lincoln Steffens, the commercial spirit is the spirit of profit, not patriotism; of credit, not honor; of individual gain, not national prosperity. In our reality, this reality, it is most typical that the more powerful dominate the weaker. True, it could be the case that it be a win-win situation but for the purposes of maximizing profits, the more powerful wins. It’s analogous to Darwinism. The most powerful and apt survive. Those who don’t feed on the scraps. And those who refuse to remove trade barriers will be forced to develop on a much slower pace than their former counterparts. As they continue to be an agrarian society, they can only watch in envy as others improve and climb up the ladder. Paired with strict tariffs and unending subsidies by the First World, I can only imagine what consequences those would suffer if they refused to bow down to their wealthier overlords. There is much barbarism that remains in these transactions of trade. It is not merely one-for-one, two-for-two. No, this is only the case for those of equal standing. When it comes to those who are impoverished, unfortunate, and incapable, there are only three words that will describe what happens to them: taken advantage of.
Evaluating Effectiveness of the United Nations
The closest thing we have ever had to a united world government,
the United Nations was established on October 24, 1945 on the founding
principles of universal peace, international security, and respect for human
rights. Its aim was to meet eight distinct objectives by the end of the millenium -to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal education, promote gender equality, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, and develop a global partnership for development, which, obviously, has been past. These eight goals fall under the 4 purposes the United Nations, which are as follows: to keep peace throughout the world, to develop friendly relations among nations, to help nations work together to improve the lives and to conquer hunger, and to be centre for harmonising actions of these nations to achieve those goals. It should seem, of course, reasonable for an
honest evaluation of the United Nations effectiveness, albeit there hasn't been a third world war yet. It is evident, of course, that the United Nations has made meager successes , but in truth, the United Nations has hardly met its purposes for which it was intended to meet.
It is a commonly accepted fact that the United Nations is nothing much, without the inclusion of the P5 members of the Security Council who make it what it is. However, there are specific rules to how and when the Security Council can authorize the use of force under international law. After all, does the circumstances under which use of force can or cannot be used not measure how effective the United Nations is? To go in depth, the United Nations can only use force when there has been aggression from one country against another or as an act of self-defense. Aggression of one country against another is seen under two distinct cirumstances-the first, when a state has been attacked, and the second, when there is an imminent threat. This imminent threat is up for the Security Council to interpret. As for self-defense, the United Nations can only intervene in order to restore peace and security, only limited to the scope of that area. The United Nations has no right to open the aperture and expand the scope of the objective, perhaps, to world domination. However, force cannot be used when matters are within domestic jurisdiction under the Principle of Non-Intervention. There is no legal basis to deter ore repel genocide and other crimes against humanity (towards one’s own country). Primacy is often afforded to a key pillar, sovereignty, rather than to human rights. Notwithstanding, force can be denied with the use of vetos in the hands of the P5. Finally, to reiterate, force can only be authorized by the Security Council, as shown in Articles 39, 41, and 42 in the forms of sanctions, determining threats, and the use of force, respectively.
Now, to answer the question of how effective the United Nations is in meeting the purposes for which it is designed, the inter-governmental organization has two main administrative problems that hinder the institution. First, leadership in the United Nations is determined by the Security Council, which was in itself, conditional to the victors of World War II. Many have criticized the lack of representation of these five members being representative of the current leading nations of the world. Such frustration is currently seeping out from rising powers like Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, and Japan. Not to mention, others have censured how the Security Council does not have true international representation and instead, only addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members. A common example is the United States’ rapid deployment protecting oil-rich Kuwait, while allowing resource-poor Rwanda in 1997 to burn. Finally, objections have also been made towards the United Nations’ veto power. As it stands, one nation’s objection has the ability to cripple many others and leave hundreds of thousands to perish and suffer. Unanimous approval is near impossible to accomplish, even in face of the most radical and extreme issues. All these administrative issues do currently burden the United Nations’ effectiveness in fufilling its purpose, varying per issue. These are all the issues we see. There are essentially several major problems, in which everything else sprouts from. One, the United Nations is nothing more than a weak government mouthpiece, in which large numbers of world leaders meet and spit out airful rhetoric that hardly does anything. Two, the maintaining of sovereignty is of the utmost priority, rather than the protection of human rights, thus, giving rise to so many failures, as shown in Sri Lanka, Srebenica, Darfur, and most notoriously, Rwanda. The genocide in 1994 is a prime example of the gross ineffectiveness of the United Nations. The world watched silently and turned away as roaming mobs of Hutus massacred Tutsi minorities. Third, the United Nations has no true enforcement power. There is no “leading” nation at the very top. Thus, with a myriad of interests being tossed about the room, action is near impossible to be taken.
Laub, Zachary. "The UN Security Council." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 6 Dec. 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2014.
Weis, Thomas G. "What's Wrong With the United Nations and How to Fix It."Global. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2014.
The UN as an Organization. A Critique of Its Functioning (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
Buckley, Hannah. "A Critique of the United Nations Security Council."Fordham Political Review. Fordham Political Review, n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2014.
It is a commonly accepted fact that the United Nations is nothing much, without the inclusion of the P5 members of the Security Council who make it what it is. However, there are specific rules to how and when the Security Council can authorize the use of force under international law. After all, does the circumstances under which use of force can or cannot be used not measure how effective the United Nations is? To go in depth, the United Nations can only use force when there has been aggression from one country against another or as an act of self-defense. Aggression of one country against another is seen under two distinct cirumstances-the first, when a state has been attacked, and the second, when there is an imminent threat. This imminent threat is up for the Security Council to interpret. As for self-defense, the United Nations can only intervene in order to restore peace and security, only limited to the scope of that area. The United Nations has no right to open the aperture and expand the scope of the objective, perhaps, to world domination. However, force cannot be used when matters are within domestic jurisdiction under the Principle of Non-Intervention. There is no legal basis to deter ore repel genocide and other crimes against humanity (towards one’s own country). Primacy is often afforded to a key pillar, sovereignty, rather than to human rights. Notwithstanding, force can be denied with the use of vetos in the hands of the P5. Finally, to reiterate, force can only be authorized by the Security Council, as shown in Articles 39, 41, and 42 in the forms of sanctions, determining threats, and the use of force, respectively.
Now, to answer the question of how effective the United Nations is in meeting the purposes for which it is designed, the inter-governmental organization has two main administrative problems that hinder the institution. First, leadership in the United Nations is determined by the Security Council, which was in itself, conditional to the victors of World War II. Many have criticized the lack of representation of these five members being representative of the current leading nations of the world. Such frustration is currently seeping out from rising powers like Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, and Japan. Not to mention, others have censured how the Security Council does not have true international representation and instead, only addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members. A common example is the United States’ rapid deployment protecting oil-rich Kuwait, while allowing resource-poor Rwanda in 1997 to burn. Finally, objections have also been made towards the United Nations’ veto power. As it stands, one nation’s objection has the ability to cripple many others and leave hundreds of thousands to perish and suffer. Unanimous approval is near impossible to accomplish, even in face of the most radical and extreme issues. All these administrative issues do currently burden the United Nations’ effectiveness in fufilling its purpose, varying per issue. These are all the issues we see. There are essentially several major problems, in which everything else sprouts from. One, the United Nations is nothing more than a weak government mouthpiece, in which large numbers of world leaders meet and spit out airful rhetoric that hardly does anything. Two, the maintaining of sovereignty is of the utmost priority, rather than the protection of human rights, thus, giving rise to so many failures, as shown in Sri Lanka, Srebenica, Darfur, and most notoriously, Rwanda. The genocide in 1994 is a prime example of the gross ineffectiveness of the United Nations. The world watched silently and turned away as roaming mobs of Hutus massacred Tutsi minorities. Third, the United Nations has no true enforcement power. There is no “leading” nation at the very top. Thus, with a myriad of interests being tossed about the room, action is near impossible to be taken.
Laub, Zachary. "The UN Security Council." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 6 Dec. 2013. Web. 03 Nov. 2014.
Weis, Thomas G. "What's Wrong With the United Nations and How to Fix It."Global. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2014.
The UN as an Organization. A Critique of Its Functioning (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
Buckley, Hannah. "A Critique of the United Nations Security Council."Fordham Political Review. Fordham Political Review, n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2014.
Explaining IS Project
Combating Structural Violence
Our world has come a long way since our inception as a species. We have formed our communities and tribes into much larger groups that make up states. We have developed technologies that rival Gods, so powerful that they threaten our very existence. Through these various weapons of sorts, we have waged war and direct violence against one another. However, there are also two variations of violence that are invisible to the human eye that have been the hand that has molded who we are and are at the root of the problems. Statistics that have shown that conflict is on the decline are too simplistic. They do not capture the true picture. It may easily portray violent conflict, but systemic conflict, including human rights abuses and discrimination are prevalent and ubiquitous. One such variation is structural violence, define as a form of a violence where some social instution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basis needs. Often times, this sort of structural violence is displayed through forms of oppression: institutionalized elitism, ethno-centrism, racism, sexism, and nationalism only to have a few. However, among these, this blog post will attempt to prove that the core problem lies with the mentality that resides within classism and elitism by first exactly defining the terms, proceeding to determine which is the most harmful and hardest to eliminate, and then finally concluding with what actions would be required.
To start with, ethno-centrism is defined as the evaluation of other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of one's own culture. In other words, it is the judging of and discrimination based on a culture and its values and standards. Ageism is prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a person's age. Racism is the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Sexism is prejudice, stereotyping, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Adultism is prejudice and accompanying systematic discrimination against young people. Nationalism is a patrioic feeling, principle, or efforts. Heterosexism is discrimination or prejudice against homosexuals, on the basis that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation.
Moving on, these definitions were only meant to provide some relative understanding behind each of the diferent 'isms. While many will point towards racism or sexism as the most common and pernicious among them, the real danger lies invisible to us all: elitism, classism, and ethnocentrism, respectively. Elitists are at the heart of everything in our world today. The 1% control the majority of the economy and take in the bulk of the profits. They are instrumentalists, controlling and shaping issues, like ethnic conflicts. Subconsciously, they see themselves as superior to most, which result in our issues. Take poverty for instance. Poverty could be solved if every single wealthy and powerful person felt motivated to do so, but why are they not? It is not because they see other things as important. That is the excuse they give themsleves to justify their actions. It is because they do not value them. This begs the question: how can we combat this problem? The simple answer is socialism. Through socialism and the uprising of the proletariat, we can distribute wealth to everyone equally and solve problems. Everyone's interests would remain the same, leaving no room for conflict and war to sprout.
To start with, ethno-centrism is defined as the evaluation of other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of one's own culture. In other words, it is the judging of and discrimination based on a culture and its values and standards. Ageism is prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a person's age. Racism is the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Sexism is prejudice, stereotyping, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Adultism is prejudice and accompanying systematic discrimination against young people. Nationalism is a patrioic feeling, principle, or efforts. Heterosexism is discrimination or prejudice against homosexuals, on the basis that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation.
Moving on, these definitions were only meant to provide some relative understanding behind each of the diferent 'isms. While many will point towards racism or sexism as the most common and pernicious among them, the real danger lies invisible to us all: elitism, classism, and ethnocentrism, respectively. Elitists are at the heart of everything in our world today. The 1% control the majority of the economy and take in the bulk of the profits. They are instrumentalists, controlling and shaping issues, like ethnic conflicts. Subconsciously, they see themselves as superior to most, which result in our issues. Take poverty for instance. Poverty could be solved if every single wealthy and powerful person felt motivated to do so, but why are they not? It is not because they see other things as important. That is the excuse they give themsleves to justify their actions. It is because they do not value them. This begs the question: how can we combat this problem? The simple answer is socialism. Through socialism and the uprising of the proletariat, we can distribute wealth to everyone equally and solve problems. Everyone's interests would remain the same, leaving no room for conflict and war to sprout.
Policy Options for NATO using IR Paradigms
It was within a matter of days that Russia’s aggression in Ukraine raised eyebrows and caused an insane media tornado. Three Foreign Policy articles have described Putin’s actions from three distinct perspectives. Within the article written by Taylor entitled ‘Putin’s Nuclear Option’ is an example of a constructivist view. He essentially states how Putin would react and how in order to avoid a direct conventional battle against NATO, he would rather order a nuclear strike on one or two of the Eastern states that had recently joined NATO, which would basically just, at the same time, destroy NATO’s core value of how an attack on one member state would be an attack on all, eliminating US hegemony. When Putin does attack with nuclear weapons, Taylor, in essence, believes that the US would not risk all out nuclear war for a couple of cities that they had never heard of compared to those in London or Paris, where they would be of great value to the American public. In the article by Galeotti and Bowen, their views are quite obviously liberal. According to them, while the West views Putin as a brutal tyrant, they go in-depth and, by any rational calculation, his actions now don’t make sense because Russia already has immense regional influence and not to mention, the securing of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Instead, his decision towards the annexation of Crimea is because of how he sees his role. Putin has, according to them, come to see his role and Russia’s destiny as becoming inextricably linked and he must protect the interests of the Russian people and defend his civilization against the ‘chaotic darkness’. Finally, the third article by Walt is one by a realist.
The Uni-polar Myth
An invisible blanket that encircles our entire world and the method in which it functions, the international system is continuously ever-changing. As of now and ever since the onset of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has emerged as a hegemon, leading the world and slowly shifting it with its massive influence and power. However, it has been in this decade or so that we have seen the emergence of some potential challengers in all aspects-China, India, Russia, etc. Will the rise of these challengers lead to a unipolar or multipolar international system in the years and centuries to come? In order to answer this, we will first go in-depth into two distinct articles
In the first article, Starrs essentially argues that American power is underestimated and that we seriously overestimate Chinese power, but makes no serious indication of whether the international system will be multipolar or unipolar. Instead, he makes the main point that national accounts do not accurately measure the power of a state and that people are debating about the wrong data, especially regarding GDP. For instance, despite the fact that there are more than 100 Chinese automobile firms, their combined market share within China only takes up a less than substantial amount: 30%. The vast majority of the auto market is dominated by foreign firms, from Germany to the United States. To summarize, the international system, in his opinion, will be unipolar with either China or the US spearheading the system.
In the second article, Engelhardt states that as of now, the world is unipolar with the US at the helm, but he suggests, as history has shown, everything can change in an instant. Russian troops could cross borders in force, Japan could go to war with China, or maybe Israel could launch a massive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Everything and anything is possible is the message that he’s trying to convey here. The only clear and directly stated message he has is that the notion that the US is a classic great power slowly declining is simply unwise.
While these two have not been so directly forthright in their opinions, I will. The title of superpower that has always been pinned on the US will be meaningless in the years to decades to come. There is a new world order coming and there is nothing that anyone can do to stop it, with the exception of some incredibly powerful weapon. First of all, let’s look at East Asia. This particular region has been relatively heated but characterized by weak regional alliances and institutions, in which dramatic economic rise within any one of these states could mean regional instability. However, while many point fingers towards China, many avert their eyes from their largest trading partner, Japan, who is ironically also one of their grudging competitors. Why is peace most likely to flourish here despite spiked tensions? First rule of war: Go to war to protect your interests. It is in both sides’ interests to continue economic growth and war will merely flip that goal around and achieve two things: destruction and only potentially, a mere possibility-glory. India has also been portrayed as a rising actor in the multipolar world, and riddled with horrid relations with Pakistan, at best, in combination with the scarcity of natural resources, India seems only to be a ticking time bomb. However, this will simply not happen, not because of its ties with the US but because of the other watchful neighbors that will be keeping an eye on the growing nation. Not to mention, our economies are interdependent and interlinked so much that war will inevitably cause a domino effect, stirring trouble for other states and themselves. Military needs will simply fall back while economic ones rise to the top of their priorities (that is, unless resources begin to bleed dry). While the US may continue to lead the world in military expenditures, the EU will continue its integration while Russia slowly diversifies its economy and taking it into global markets, all the while taking advantage of their huge oil reserves. In both India and China, fast economic growth will solve infrastructure problems, and the development of the scientific/private sector.
Still, the main question remains: how will this new multipolar world result in peace? First, economic growth is at the top of every country’s priority and sacrificing this is not an option, even if it means backing down and losing face. Will this be like the 18th-20thcenturies where European countries fought amongst themselves? No. The reason lies within alliances. Alliances emphasize the diminishing of war and while interaction with members of other alliances become limited, at the end of the day, the alliance the country is in itself will prevail and hold it back. That balance of power will keep everything in check, obviating hostilities.
In the first article, Starrs essentially argues that American power is underestimated and that we seriously overestimate Chinese power, but makes no serious indication of whether the international system will be multipolar or unipolar. Instead, he makes the main point that national accounts do not accurately measure the power of a state and that people are debating about the wrong data, especially regarding GDP. For instance, despite the fact that there are more than 100 Chinese automobile firms, their combined market share within China only takes up a less than substantial amount: 30%. The vast majority of the auto market is dominated by foreign firms, from Germany to the United States. To summarize, the international system, in his opinion, will be unipolar with either China or the US spearheading the system.
In the second article, Engelhardt states that as of now, the world is unipolar with the US at the helm, but he suggests, as history has shown, everything can change in an instant. Russian troops could cross borders in force, Japan could go to war with China, or maybe Israel could launch a massive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Everything and anything is possible is the message that he’s trying to convey here. The only clear and directly stated message he has is that the notion that the US is a classic great power slowly declining is simply unwise.
While these two have not been so directly forthright in their opinions, I will. The title of superpower that has always been pinned on the US will be meaningless in the years to decades to come. There is a new world order coming and there is nothing that anyone can do to stop it, with the exception of some incredibly powerful weapon. First of all, let’s look at East Asia. This particular region has been relatively heated but characterized by weak regional alliances and institutions, in which dramatic economic rise within any one of these states could mean regional instability. However, while many point fingers towards China, many avert their eyes from their largest trading partner, Japan, who is ironically also one of their grudging competitors. Why is peace most likely to flourish here despite spiked tensions? First rule of war: Go to war to protect your interests. It is in both sides’ interests to continue economic growth and war will merely flip that goal around and achieve two things: destruction and only potentially, a mere possibility-glory. India has also been portrayed as a rising actor in the multipolar world, and riddled with horrid relations with Pakistan, at best, in combination with the scarcity of natural resources, India seems only to be a ticking time bomb. However, this will simply not happen, not because of its ties with the US but because of the other watchful neighbors that will be keeping an eye on the growing nation. Not to mention, our economies are interdependent and interlinked so much that war will inevitably cause a domino effect, stirring trouble for other states and themselves. Military needs will simply fall back while economic ones rise to the top of their priorities (that is, unless resources begin to bleed dry). While the US may continue to lead the world in military expenditures, the EU will continue its integration while Russia slowly diversifies its economy and taking it into global markets, all the while taking advantage of their huge oil reserves. In both India and China, fast economic growth will solve infrastructure problems, and the development of the scientific/private sector.
Still, the main question remains: how will this new multipolar world result in peace? First, economic growth is at the top of every country’s priority and sacrificing this is not an option, even if it means backing down and losing face. Will this be like the 18th-20thcenturies where European countries fought amongst themselves? No. The reason lies within alliances. Alliances emphasize the diminishing of war and while interaction with members of other alliances become limited, at the end of the day, the alliance the country is in itself will prevail and hold it back. That balance of power will keep everything in check, obviating hostilities.
Nature's Gift or Curse?
In retrospect, our world today has progressed forward by a tremendous amount. However, as much as we have pushed beyond nature’s boundaries, we are still plagued by a variety of issues, including natural resource demand, poverty, unemployment, and dying bees. Still, the top of our agenda right now should be finding a way to resolve the issue of our natural resource demand, as it is simply the most devastating of them all. This question is not one that affects the poor or homeless or the farmers. This is an issue that affects us all, and will take away the one thing we all have in common: us being a species.
To start with, poverty and unemployment are inextricably linked to one another. Obviously, the number of people who are without jobs and poor matter drastically. However, this is not an issue that affects 7 billion on earth. It affects a small percentage of that number. While poverty and unemployment can be resolved in the future when we have less pressure on ourselves, our consumption of natural resources only gives us a limited time frame in which to act. The disappearance of the honey bees has raised much awareness, but the idea that we would all suffer from mass starvation is a strawman fallacy. However, the introduction of alternatives, including hummingbirds, mason bees, and even robot bees may prove to be even more effective.
So, back to the former issue at hand, why is our consumption of natural resource demand such a pressing issue? Take water for instance. Eleven years from now, the Food and Agriculture Organisation predicts that 1.8 billion people, approximately 1/10thof the population will be in regions with water scarcity. This may result in an abundance of problems. The massive inequality between the supply and demand of many strategic resources, not limited to water may drive conflicts, resulting in economic and political instability and humanitarian disregard. Drastic price increases could result in collapse of the world economy. Oil is our number two consumed natural resource. In approximately 42 years, the world will have essentially run out of oil and that is at the 2011 consumption rate. Almost all, if not all, of our industries depend on oil in one category or another. This shortage would almost guarantee the collapse of our economy and our governments, leading to widespread anarchy. Finally, our third most valuable element: phosphorus. Plants depend upon phosphorus to grow. However, it is predicted that within the next half century to the end of the century we will run out of phosphorus, definitely resulting in mass extinctions. Now, is this the legacy we want to leave behind? For only a couple generations to live knowing that in the next couple years that their time would come to an end? Would it matter if poverty were solved if no one was to there to enjoy or praise the accomplishments?
To start with, poverty and unemployment are inextricably linked to one another. Obviously, the number of people who are without jobs and poor matter drastically. However, this is not an issue that affects 7 billion on earth. It affects a small percentage of that number. While poverty and unemployment can be resolved in the future when we have less pressure on ourselves, our consumption of natural resources only gives us a limited time frame in which to act. The disappearance of the honey bees has raised much awareness, but the idea that we would all suffer from mass starvation is a strawman fallacy. However, the introduction of alternatives, including hummingbirds, mason bees, and even robot bees may prove to be even more effective.
So, back to the former issue at hand, why is our consumption of natural resource demand such a pressing issue? Take water for instance. Eleven years from now, the Food and Agriculture Organisation predicts that 1.8 billion people, approximately 1/10thof the population will be in regions with water scarcity. This may result in an abundance of problems. The massive inequality between the supply and demand of many strategic resources, not limited to water may drive conflicts, resulting in economic and political instability and humanitarian disregard. Drastic price increases could result in collapse of the world economy. Oil is our number two consumed natural resource. In approximately 42 years, the world will have essentially run out of oil and that is at the 2011 consumption rate. Almost all, if not all, of our industries depend on oil in one category or another. This shortage would almost guarantee the collapse of our economy and our governments, leading to widespread anarchy. Finally, our third most valuable element: phosphorus. Plants depend upon phosphorus to grow. However, it is predicted that within the next half century to the end of the century we will run out of phosphorus, definitely resulting in mass extinctions. Now, is this the legacy we want to leave behind? For only a couple generations to live knowing that in the next couple years that their time would come to an end? Would it matter if poverty were solved if no one was to there to enjoy or praise the accomplishments?