Week 10 Post-Class; Globalization vs. the State

It's interesting to have had this discussion while simultaneously being midway through the macroeconomics module of another course I'm taking.  In my mind, globalization hasn't been kind to state expressions of public authority - what we've seen is that as multinational corporations grow and capital flows worldwide, nations have become careful to avoid upsetting MNCs and causing their business to be taken to another nation.  This has allowed them to get away with quite a lot, from low corporate tax rates to outright privatization of previously public spaces.

While globalization has certainly resulted in economic prosperity, states have had to take a hit on the nose here, accepting reductions in their authority in order to preserve their own economic competitiveness on the global market and continue to preserve their own advantages.  The boundaries of state power are becoming less rigid as a result of globalization, but what should the solution be?

In some cases, individual nations and economic blocs have had success in standing up to MNCs - the European Union's case against online videogame retailer, Steam, comes to mind here, in which the EU was able to implement consumer protection policies and force the distributor's hand into permitting refunds through their service, but these cases are few and far between.  In absence of any kind of global public authority, it's difficult to fathom any significant checks on the ability of MNCs to usurp the authority of the state.

I guess I have more questions than answers here - is there even a desire for some kind of global public authority?  If states are enjoying high growth rates and standards of living are improving for their citizens, do they particularly care if they are unable to project their sovereignty upon actors within their own borders as well as they once were?

Week 12 Post-class, and the global public sphere or lack thereof

Largely, I still find myself in agreement with "billiard ball" analyses of the international realm after this week's discussion.  While globalization has brought societies together through the advent of Internet communication and ease of travel (for those that can afford it, at least), recent trends in political belief in the US and Europe have led me to strongly question whether or not a global public sphere is actually emerging.

The recent swing in nationalist tendencies in the US and Western Europe has given me cause for concern as I've watched our collective responses to the Syrian (and Middle-Eastern) refugee crisis of the past couple of years.  Foregoing the fact that global governments neglected to take action on this issue for 4 years of bloody civil war for a moment, the reactions of citizens to the influx of refugees has seriously made me question the levels of tolerance I'd assumed of Western society - can we truly have a global public sphere if citizens are increasingly demand that they be walled off from other cultures?  I don't mean to paint with a broad brush here, but the loudest resistance to accepting refugees seldom finds itself rooted in economic arguments so far as I've seen.

But what of the collective inaction regarding the rest of the world's governments' failure to respond more quickly to the refugee crisis?  Nations bordering Syria had been taking in refugees since the beginning of the conflict - Turkey itself having received most of the brunt of the early refugee flows, and were mostly left high and dry to figure out how to deal with the problem by the rest of the world.

In light of these issues, it's difficult for me to view the global public sphere as anything that currently exists - perhaps it was emergent in recent years, but with recent trends in political ideology, I'm now operating under the assumption that there's either no global public sphere, or what little of one had been established is quickly being eroded.

Post-class, Week 13: What good are celebrities, anyway?

It seems that we got pretty down on celebrities during this week's discussion - I'd like to do something I'd usually never do and defend them to an extent.

But first, I must be cruel if only to be kind.  The comments by Sean Penn regarding the NGO he worked with must absolutely be condemned, especially as they appear to be separated from reality by some amount.  It's here that I do take issue with celebrity involvement with NGO activities.  It is fine, to me, for celebrities to use their public visibility to champion causes or to raise awareness, but I would prefer that when news organizations wish to interview those involved with the work, they go to the experts rather than the pretty mouthpieces that Hollywood has so graciously supplied.  Celebrities must never be allowed to speak for NGOs they are working with, as they're unlikely to be considerably more knowledgeable in the subject than those that have devoted years of their lives to studying the problems they seek to alleviate and implementing solutions.  In the chat-box, I mentioned Angelina Jolie and George Clooney's tendencies to enroll in classes at UCLA in order to inform themselves about issues they wish to advocate for, and although these two in particular have always been fairly beneficial to the causes they work with and haven't committed any offenses anywhere near the level of Sean Penn's damages, I still would prefer their contributions be limited to speaking engagements at fundraisers and photo ops to 'raise awareness,' even if they have taken the initiative to become educated on matters before chipping in.

To me, the perfect model of celebrity involvement in charity work looks a lot like Live/Farm Aid - simple usage of celebrity power to organize a massive fundraiser.  While I'm certainly no fan of Bono or his music, his contributions to the two concerts during the 80s shouldn't be discounted - as much as I hate the guy (I concur with Trey Parket and Matt Stone's opinion of the man), he was incredibly useful in raising funds and putting them to good use.  Both of those concerts were massively successful for their time, and that was during the 80s - long before Web 2.0, internet streaming, and the possibility of donating via the Internet.  Were such a concert to be attempted for some major cause today, I expect they'd find even greater success.

Moving forward, it may perhaps be best for celebrities to continue their involvement with NGO activity, but if I had my way, they wouldn't be allowed onto  the 'frontlines' of aid work - they are best used doing what they do best, being massively visible in the public spotlight.  The model of the massive fundraising concerts of decades past can likely be very successful, it's simply a matter of resurrecting the ideal.

Final Debate Reflections

It's hard to say who really won this debate between my team and our opponents.  Both teams raised important points, though I may perhaps agree with Kirstin that our team slightly came out ahead.  But, I should probably preface that statement by saying that initially, I would have said that climate change is the greater threat to US power over infectious disease/pandemic, as trends resulting from climate change can even exacerbate the spread of infectious diseases.  But, this isn't about my personal beliefs, which I still largely cling to - it's about the overall arguments.  I became concerned with some of Team 1's responses, as it seemed that they were responding to our points only in tangent in places, and misunderstanding them in others.

I was relieved, however, to see Dan McDevitt's question to Team 1 about the US' positioning and power remaining relatively strong in relation to the rest of the world as climate change continues - it was something we'd attempted to probe Team 1 on twice to that point during the debate postings without exactly receiving a direct answer.  While it's definite that US power is going to be affected by climate change, they never really presented the argument that the US would be affected any worse than other nations, it almost seemed as if they were treating the US as if it existed in a vacuum at some points during the debate.

As far as Team 3 and 4's discussion goes, both teams did an excellent job here, too - but I'm going to give the leading edge to team 3, though I'm having a hard time deducing whether this is related to my personal lefty biases.  Yes, it's true that the US has been marred by inequality for, literally, the entirety of its existence (check out the wealth disparities in the South during the colonial period and up through Reformation.  yikes.)  but inequality is increasing globally, and with it, individuals' purchasing power in marketplaces are being reduced - if we are to continue along with the liberal ideal that trade and commerce will lead to beneficial foreign relations, it seems prudent to fine-tune the system to promote as much commerce/trade as possible, preventing wealth from accumulating at the top and failing to re-enter the economy.

I recognize the potential threat of a change in world order, but, from where I sit, it appears that the US is still one of the major leaders of the current order and what will emerge in the next several decades.  While it's likely that the US will begin to take on a less dominant role in the global sphere as China continues to prosper and grow, that is not to say that, necessarily, we will be edged out of the international sphere.  Given the incredibly intertwined trade relations between the US and China, to me, it seems more likely that we will take on a role more similar to that of the UK's present relationship with the US -  that is, majorly influential, but simply not as much as we once were.

I enjoyed this debate assignment overall, at least - being placed on a team whose position I did not necessarily agree with starting out helped to broaden my horizons a bit, and Kirstin's expertise on the matter of infectious disease definitely served to inundate me with a lot of information I hadn't previously had access to - I feel like I learned a lot from this one.

Week 15: Debate Reflection

Debate Reflection

It is difficult for me to go to who won in these things as there is so much gained simply from reading and listening to perspectives.  It was nice to have four in this last project and to see how deeply everyone delved. Nevertheless, we are asked to reflect on who won and why. I will start with the first exchange. 

While Team 1 presented some excellent arguments, I feel we in Team 2 presented the stronger debate case in the Climate Change v Global Pandemic related to U.S. power. Team 1’s most powerful arguments lay in United States’ political ignorance of the threat altogether.  They made great points related to the natural dynamics and the threat those pose to the U.S. economy.  Where they were not as strong is related to Dan McDevitt’s question to the group. I do not feel they made a particularly powerful case as to how this would have been unique to the United States and its relative power on the global stage. I also felt there was missed opportunity in barely brushing on the failure of the United States to take the lead in the renewables market even as China is expanding this industry at an incredible pace. I do think  climate change is by far the greatest threat humanity, as a whole, faces today.  Annihilation of the human species (among others), aside, as a nation, we stand to lose economic and political power in the very near term by not capitalizing on significant mitigation efforts in the development of renewables, the fastest growing energy sources now on the planet.  That the incoming administration and Congress have thumbed their noses at this is remarkable in the worst possible sense of the word.

I believe Team 2 was strong in our primary arguments introduced in Rebuttal 1 and expounded on in Rebuttal 2: the immediacy and breadth of pandemic; the extreme to which mitigation resources could be impacted by a super-flu virus as opposed to those we have seen in recent history; failures in current U.S. response readiness; economic impacts; and concerns related to isolationist response. Where I thought Team 1 did not, but might have come back with a smack-down rebuttal lay in Kyra’s question regarding the likelihood of “the big one.” We tried to prepare for that one, but I am not sure we have good data on whether we are imminently in for that virus with the lethal effect of Ebola or HIV at its outset but the infectivity properties of Influenza.  

 Moving on to the Team 3 and Team 4 debate related to Inequality v a Change in World order, Team 3 had strong arguments in presenting the misguided and self-defeating shift looming toward isolationist and nationalistic policies in an increasingly globalized world.  I felt they effectively positioned this as having driven mechanisms in globalization compounding income inequality and, subsequently reducing faith globally in democratic institutions.  Their case related to social breakdown and its potential to reduce U.S. power is also quite good.   I am not sure the health argument stands up to scrutiny as nations that have not had particularly good records in maintaining a healthy citizenry have still managed to be powerful (China and Russia, for instance).  I agree with their rebuttal statement that their position was not significantly challenged but was rather augmented to some extent by Team 4’s first rebuttal because they were speaking to the root of the “change in the world order” problem.  They make some particularly salient arguments in distinguishing sources of nationalism and isolationism, arguing it is not these things in and of themselves that create the threat to U.S. power, but the motivations underlying those today.

   

Team 4 presented strong points related to rules-based institutions and the interdependence of nations as being integral to the strength of the United States as a global power. Absent allies and affordable resources we would be diminished as both an economic and political leader.  Their historical references related to isolationism in the second rebuttal were also excellent. They made some good arguments that inequality has been present throughout history and posited the nature of American politics would eventually reset, though these points were not argued quite as strongly as their others, and to a certain degree, weaken a component of their own argument regarding change in the world order.  For this reason alone, I believe Team 3 had some advantage in the debate.

Again, though, it was about the argument. This debate exercise, as the last, challenged us to think differently. In both sets of debate this week, the contest was “won” in my opinion by the positions I would have argued against given preference. They were all important issues and I walk away happy to have learned much from the arguments presented by my fellow students on all four teams this week – and in every exchange throughout the semester.  

Week 15 Sign-Off Post: Threats to the Republic

Threats to the Republic

Looming Hazards to American Power in the World

     This particular Module and the related discussion, in my opinion, was without question the most important topic we have debated to-date. I thought it was an absolutely fantastic note to end on as it allowed us to put our newly acquired stills to the test on what, if it occurs, is likely to be the defining issue of our era. The United States, as the defining power of our age, hold an incredibly influential position of leadership in the modern world. It wields a level of power that can shape the course of human history in a way that few other nations have ever been able to rival. Due to this awesome strength and position, and in an effort to preserve it, it is crucial to study the health of the world's leading nation and attempt to identify what threats may be looming that could topple its place.

      While the discussion we had in class was rightfully limited in scope and depth because of the inherent format and time constraints of an online course, it nevertheless enabled us as a class to take an initial foray into attempting to define what we saw as the greatest threat to health of American power in the world. The topics included a broad range of options such as pandemic and global warming, to inequality and the collapse of the global order established after the Second World War. In this regard, I stand by my group's position on the matter: the potential collapse of the post-WWII liberal world order, as the main mechanism for support of, and the primary conduit for, U.S. power, stands as the defining and most immediate threat to American power in the present day. The other options are uniquely crippling, but either less total in their impacts across the broad range of American power traits, or otherwise farther beyond the horizon than this looming threat. Defense a global system of governance that has produced the single greatest period of relative peace and prosperity in human history must be guarded as sacred, because for the time being, the alternatives both for the world and our Republic, are not appealing.

     All of this having been said, I think, personally, that there is a significantly greater, though less immediate threat to the long-term survival of U.S. power: cultural divergence. Its an issue that I wrote at length about in my previous semester and one that I could continue to talk about for some time. In essence, it centers on the notion that the United States is a conglomerate nation full of distinct cultural and regional groups. For some time, particularly since the 1960's, although the federal government itself remains highly active, on a cultural level that has been a devolution of inter-regional exchange in this country resulting in a return to regionalism. Left unchecked, such regionalism threatens to shatter the central unifying culture of the Republic and with it, the bonds that bind us together as Americans. This is a central theme of a multi-cultural state and it has been recognized as early on as the Roman Republic. The Romans regularly scrambled their legions as not only the primary conduit of inter-cultural exchange (read: contact theory) in the Republic, but also in an effort to minimize regionalism through territorial loyalty from long-term postings. This is a small glimpse of an ancient problem that still haunts multi-cultural states in the modern world. In short, it leads me to subscribe to the notion that great republics may be harmed from without, but they are defeated in totality only from within. I worry greatly that such an eventuality may occur and I believe it is absolutely paramount that we as a nation seek to correct this trend before it overwhelms the nation. If such a trend were to transpire in full, it would deal a much wider and more complete destruction of American power that none of the other options can quite compete with.

     To cap things off, this is my short take on what I view as the greatest threat to U.S. power. On one final note, I'd like to thank my blog group for an absolutely fantastic semester. It has been a great pleasure trading and debating theories and points of view with each one of you. I sincerely learned a great deal from our exchange and I look forward to our next opportunity to work together again. For now, Happy Holidays!

Week 14 (Belated) Post: Rise and Fall of Great Powers Post-Empire

Rise and Fall of Great Powers Post-Empire

How does the lack of colonies affect the rise and fall of Great Powers?

     It is very well known that some of the most dangerous times in human history have been at the crossroads between the rise of a new great power, and the fall of an old one. Given this, the title and sub-title are an initiation into the question I am seeking to answer here: in an era where the world's great powers are no longer global empires with colonial holdings, what will the 'fall' of a great power look like? The rise? These are important questions to examine because in doing so we gain insights into the world around us. Knowing more about these questions may enable us to identify such actions as the rise and fall of great powers sooner rather than later, potentially preventing calamity.

     Insofar as the rise of a great power is concerned, I think the example of China is critical to our understanding of such dynamics in the 21st century. This may be a bit of a simplistic take on the rise of great powers (and admittedly, the blog format has something to do with that - brevity is key here!), but my personal view is that we will see a similar pattern (like China's) in future great powers. Rapidly industrializing nations with large populations, size-able territories and stable governments will form the mold for future great powers. Presuming that the UN-model of world governance holds, the difference between this pattern and that of older great powers is that the martial path to great power status is not the stepping stone to success. As a result, smaller nations with relatively large militaries will likely not advance to great power status through conquest, but instead those following an economic model have a much greater probability of achieving prosperity, so long as their houses are kept in order (read: governments).

     The fall of great powers is much more complicated. Taking another broad-stroke approach to this analysis while looking generically at the future model of great powers (specifically avoiding too much focus on a US-centric analysis), economics and domestic political instability stand as the most likely culprits in the fall (or otherwise, the suppression of emergent) great powers. Two important examples are Russia and Brazil. Both nations appear to hold the necessary keys to great power status - so much so that they were long heralded as emerging superpowers - but unfortunately both have fallen short. Russia's economic model limits it greatly, creating an almost Soviet-like hollow state that may appear strong, but is in fact greatly limited (in this case, due to Russia's dependence on its energy sector). The Brazilian case is different, but with similar results. Political corruption and the associated instability caused by scandal have, in addition to economic mismanagement, led to a dashing of any hopes that Brazil will emerge as a true great power any time soon. It is rather telling then that Europe, China and other states guard themselves so jealously against such factors.

Week 15 Post Class Blog

What is the Single Greatest Threat to US Power?

Professor Shirk made an excellent point at the end of our live session this week.  The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is a multi-volume tome for good reason, there were numerous contributing factors and no single event or circumstance would have effectively ended the empire on its own.  With this consideration in mind, all of the topics discussed in our final live session have incredible potential to bring about the fall of American power: change in world order, inequality, climate change, and global pandemic. 

While I always root for the home team, I feel that Dan, Kyra, and Karan effectively argued for the most promising (or is it unpromising?) demise of US supremacy on the global stage.  A change in the liberal world order, from what has been developed since WWII, would certainly have devastating effects on America’s role.  What I found myself thinking is that each of the other arguments fit very nicely within this framework.  If America does not take a stronger stand for climate change advocacy, continues to let inequality define the nation, and remains unprepared for the next flu pandemic, there is a high possibility for the world order to collapse and rebuild.  Individually, these are all valid threats; when combined, they are almost guaranteed to end our current world order, thus disrupting the long era of American supremacy.

This is easily identifiable in the argument for a pandemic threat.  As mentioned in class, while America is nursing its sick and dying citizenry, and other nations are seeking to do the same, America is unable to assist other states.  This lack of ability will result in the world returning to a state of, at the least, semi-isolationism as they strive to remain healthy and strong.  America’s power is no longer relevant on the global scene because it is no longer able to extend that power to others.  This reversion to isolationism is one of the key factors that supports the argument for a changing world order.

A question of timelines made its way into each subject’s debate this evening.  Immediacy, as indicated by both the climate change and pandemic arguments, is a critical element influencing the importance of such events; this may make it a more immediate threat, but not necessarily a devastating threat to America’s power structure.  While inequality and a changing world order seem to happen at much slower paces, they can be aggravated or abated by other elements at work in the world.  However, these slower acting issues have the potential to be more destructive in the long run. 

And one final point for my pandemic group:  while I don’t like the idea of zombies (they really creep me out), knowing that the government has a plan on file to deal with zombie scenarios makes me feel both terrified and grateful at the same time.

Week 13 Post-Class: A (Quick) Note on Celebrity Ambassadors

A (Quick) Note on Celebrity Ambassadors

Useful or Counterproductive? It depends...

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll start things off by putting all my cards on the table: I honestly did not enjoy this topic. It was worth a discussion, I felt, but certainly not as much as it got. I do not believe it contributed substantially to the greater understanding of international relations theory and it recieved far too much of the relatively little class time we have to learn such theory. In part, this is why I forayed into other, and what I felt were more crucial, topics with my classmates. Nevertheless, some important points were made regarding the activities of celebrities in international relations.

For my part, I largely agreed with many of my classmates, namely Erica, on the effects of celebrity ambassadors. Hollywood stars and other well-known, non-politicians around the world can both benefit and harm a cause they are trying to promote depending on their level of knowledge and depth of involvement. First, the good. Our world, when looked at from space may seem tranquil, but on the surface, this tends to be very far from the case. This adds up to one truth: there is no shortage of problems on Earth for mankind to contend with. Additionally, not all of these issues are created equally. Many are initially overshadowed by the relative importance of other, more pressing matters. To this end, celebrity ambassadors often do the most good in bringing attention to these less well known or otherwise more far-removed, or relatively less pressing (to the mainstream public) subjects.

Unfortunately, as mentioned, celebrity ambassadors can also do a reasonable deal of harm. Generally this comes from relatively uninformed individuals attempting to wade into the details of a particular cause or situation. While intentions may be in the right place, if facts are not misinformation will flow and result in either inefficient actions being taken to better the cause or situation, or worse, counter-productive action.

In all, celebrities are not exactly great sources of expert information. While they are certainly entitled to their opinions, and should make efforts to aid in the causes which they hold dear, it must be tempered by the knowledge that their information is limited. When such self-imposed limits are not placed on a speaker of influence, uninformed endorsement of a particular course of action can wind up doing significantly more harm than good. Essentially, bad advice is often times not better than no advice at all.

Week 13 Post Class

                                                       Celebrities: Only Human?

Up Front Apology:  I thought I hit publish on Thursday. I was wrong, whoops!

This past week’s discussion of celebrities on the international relations stage was intriguing, to say the least.  Celebrities have increasingly thrown their weight, wealth, and popularity behind NGOs, national and international governments, and global issues.  Until Erica mentioned her decidedly negative experience with celebrities working with her organization, I never considered these actions to be an issue.  After further discussion, critical thinking, and digging into some celebrity case studies provided in our readings, I think this may be because organizations and governments have become better at sweeping the negative experiences under the rug or relegating them to nonexistent instances.  Despite these negative experiences, I still hold to my belief that celebrities are still human, most of them, and for that reason cannot be held entirely at fault for some of the international debacles that may have occurred under their thumb.  Part of the fault also lies with governments and agencies that back these celebrities without a vetting process or thinking projects through to completion before implementing; in the Army, we like to call this phenomenon, an attack of “the good idea fairy”.  Everyone has ideas, but they are not all good.

Part of our discussion included a question of whether or not celebrities should even be allowed to assist NGOs.  I think yes.  Perhaps not in any official capacity; as Erica mentioned, it can very easily turn into an ugly situation where the celebrity tries to overpower leadership and take over operations because they think they know what’s best and bring money and power to the table.  But, certainly, they should be able to serve others by devoting time, resources, and money to causes they deem worthy; as humans it’s natural to want to help people, especially in times of crises.  Without this outlet, they will surely only become more self-centered and the potential for positive change in our world would be greatly diminished. 

All celebrities are not created equal, and we, as NGOs, governments, and people fighting for global change, need to hold accountable those who disrupt progress and encourage/guide those who are seeking to do good.  Andrew brought up an excellent point in class about finding a reliable method for actually holding a celebrity’s feet to the fire.  How do you ensure that, when a celebrity is chosen as a spokesperson or even ambassador, that they will not “go rogue”?  Unfortunately, there is no current promising answer.  However, I think the first step may be to choose more carefully and implement contracts for more specific roles in international relations roles, and promote more generic service as a way to engage issues they care about.  Additionally, the groups and governments they work for and with need to be less worried about negative repercussions and more concerned with promoting their causes in a positive and engaging manner.