Key Features of Successful Globalization: Institutions and Time

In reading the six assigned chapters of Foer’s text, there seemed to be two underlying themes: all of the countries mentioned have failed in their attempts in globalization and that time plays an important role in a country’s instillation of policies or ideas to successfully globalize. All of Foer’s examples of failed globalization have one distinct commonality: none of them had successful institutions set up. Instead, their government often consisted of dictators and or blatant forms of corruption within the government. In addition, in all of Foer’s examples, globalization policies and practices were instilled quickly and shortly thereafter, failed rapidly. One possible reason for these rapid failures of policies and ideas could be pointed at those who instilled them; generally these people had little experience in doing so. A second possible reason is that they were simply not given enough time to evolve and possibly flourish in the long run.

One argument for the reason why the United States is so successful in its globalization efforts is due to the institutions we have set up. Our democratic system of government, while flawed, is set up so that there are constant checks and balances of government power to ensure that one branch of government does not gain more power than the others. In addition to our checks and balance system, the U.S. has a constitution and accompanying amendments that grant rights and freedoms for citizens. One such right is the freedom to express any feelings (good or bad) openly. For example, you can openly yell out your negative feelings regarding the (lack of) efficiency of our government, or you can initiate peaceful protests, argue over controversial policies via twitter, etc. If you have an opinion, you have the freedom to voice it, and not only do you have the freedom, you are encouraged to exercise these freedoms. None of the countries that Foer talks about in the reading have democratic institutions or democratic societies. Thus making a connection that globalization is successful in democratic societies where there is a balance of power and extensive rights for citizens.

 Something that I noticed while reading the examples of failed globalization attempts in Foer’s book is how time is a key factor with regards to a country’s success or failure in globalization. For example, Foer talks about Brazil’s (less than) ten-year period of economic growth and industrial boom (“Brazilian Miracle”) that hit a bump after the 1972 oil shocks. Instead of adjusting Brazil’s economic growth plans due to the oil shocks, the military dictatorship maintained its initial intent and kept the economy aimed at its stellar growth rate; which meant more state spending and more borrowing from foreign banks. This high rate of borrowing and spending put the government into a $40 billion debt, which thus lead to inflation and unemployment. Brazil’s attempt to globalize and become an international power by enacting new policies and creating new public works projects was all done extremely quickly. Just as quickly as the “Brazilian Miracle” began, it crashed and burned.  The lesson I took away from this example is that globalization takes time. For a country to implement an entirely new structure in order to create economic growth, like Brazil did, it may have successful outcomes in the short run, however the Brazilian government had no previous experience or knowledge on how to deal with a bump in the road (the oil shocks) and maintain a steady growth rate. Had Brazil took more time in developing its economic plan or had experts monitoring the plans for economic growth, they may have been more successful. If you look at the U.S. in contrast, which is a country that is known to be a globalized country, it’s important to note that our success did not just come over night. Again, taking a look at our political structure, it took a lot of time, trial and error, patience and innovation to come up with our strong democratic system; and even today, this system that we pride our self on as “the voice of the people” is far from perfect. As the saying goes: slow and steady wins the race and from my observations reading Foer’s book, this applies to globalization as well.

The Legitimacy and Power of the United Nations

The United Nations offers a platform for international discussion and cooperation. But its effectiveness is often highly debated. No matter how effective one believes this institution to be there is always room for improvement. The United Nations will only be as effective and powerful as the states involved perceive it to be. What we should take away from this is the fact that we as actors in a state have the power to give this institution as much or as little legitimacy as we see fit. This means that regardless of ones belief as to whether it serves as an effective forum for change, it can always be changed to reflect the consensus of the given population of people at the time. This means that this institution has the ability to adapt to the needs of the international community. The soft power that open discussion generates is the most powerful tool that the United Nations offers the global community. In this way the sharing of ideas and information allows rational decisions to be made about when to deploy hard power. In order to access the United Nation’s full potential it would be logical to include as many different voices/ viewpoints as possible. This is where I see the most impactful change could be made.

The way in which the United Nation’s permanent members only consist of the United States, Russia, China, France, and England is what I see to be the biggest component of the institution that could be changed. With the council needing no vetoes to pass anything, the conflicting views of these contrasting states often end in no action being taken. To amend this stagnating system of the UN, either more semi permanent members should be added, or a logical system for choosing more permanent members should be enacted. The voting structure is a bit less clear on how one should go about adjusting it. Saying that one country could veto a proposal, and it could still pass could lead to all the other countries in the UN ganging up against one country. Although for this to happen I imagine the country vetoing the action would be either in very clear violation of some fundamental rights issue, or protecting an ally that was. This is not to dismiss the power of discussion, but history tends to remember action better than words.

There are so many more valuable countries, cultures, and people who aren’t being included in this institution’s practices. In the ever more integrated and globalized world community it is essential that we continue to discuss important matters with the majority of the world in order to continue to strive towards peace and cooperation. The most powerful tool that the United Nations uses is the legitimacy it brings to the issues that countries bring forth. Their soft power can often prevent the need for hard power. By diversifying this institution we could grow the potential for soft power to dominate world conflict resolution and help the global community effectively communicate.

Institutions: Reflections of – Not Solutions to - Societal Power Structures

 

From our class discussion of the U.N. as a political institution and from the feminist-psychology perspective of marriage as a social institution, I came to see that institutions inevitably act to produce individual power rather than to produce mutual cooperation.  This is due to the power gradient that exists between the actors who participate in the institution.  Institutions are meant to level the playing field, in the sense that they are meant to bring everyone together under one collection of rules, but in practice, the dominant members of institutions end up writing the rules and thus exerting their power over the weaker members. 

            In class, we discussed the U.N. at some length.  This institution is a prime example of my point; it contains 193 member states but five of these members hold the majority of the power as permanent members of the Security Council (UN.org).  That each of these states has veto power over security issues means that they are each capable of singlehandedly determining the course of action for the Council –even one veto limits the Council’s options.  Thus, the desires of all the other states are subjugated to the desires of at least one of the “Big Five” states.  In this way, the institution intended to be a platform for solving dozens of countries’ problems turned into an institution that serves the interests of a few. My point is that this skewed power is inevitable because no institutional structure can remove from itself a power hierarchy that exists outside the structure; the hierarchy will carry over into the institution.  The Big Five – the U.S., England, France, China, and Russia – all came into the U.N. on the first day with the most economic, political, military, and/or reputational power of all the countries. With this greater power, they were able to be influential in the creation of the institution’s structure; given that it was created by them, from their perspective, it only logically follows that the design of the structure makes room for them and keeps them in power. 

Another example that comes to mind is marriage; I thought of this parallel in class when Professor Shirk mentioned marriage as an example of institutions that are not fully codified but are still fully binding. In my Psychology of Women and Gender class, we discussed how our society is patriarchal and androcentric, meaning that it has been historically focused on men and that its structure has lent the most power to men.  Marriage is nominally an institution of partnership between equals but when it is practiced within the preexisting patriarchal power structure, it (that is, marriage) takes on the same patriarchal power structure.  As a result, marriages often favor the husband in some way.  The evidence for this can be observed in the fact that men are often not required to pay spousal support and if they are, that requirement is not enforced; my psychology textbook reports that “only 15% of all divorced women in the United States are awarded spousal support. Most awards are for a period of about 2 years; and in the past, less than half of the men ordered to provide such support have actually complied” (Crawford 255).  Also, that the man is often put first in marriage is evident in the practice of sex therapists prescribing testosterone to wives who have less sex drive than their husbands; this is done so that his sexual needs can be met (Crawford 230). 

            It is readily observable, then, that institutions – whether marriage or the U.N. or any other – reflect and internalize the power structures that exist outside the institutions.  Therefore, the idea that institutions will bring about mutual cooperation must be tempered with the acknowledgement that the mutuality of such cooperation will be uneven, weighed in the favor of the most powerful member of the institution.

 

Works Cited

Crawford, Mary.  Transformations: Women, Gender, and Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2012.

 

Prisoner's Dilemma Applied to Economics

Article

After the exercises we did in class I became very interested in Prisoner’s Dilemma and how it applies to different types of real world situations. This Article by Elvis Picardo, explains how the prisoner’s dilemma translates to businesses and the economy in the United States. He uses the example of Coke and Pepsi battling in the market to be the most competitive. If Coke were to lower their prices and Pepsi remains at their price, than coke will sell more coke and vice versa. In the end though if neither drops their price it is not the best case scenario but is the second best. Therefore the Prisoner’s Dilemma in economics is very similar to the Prisoner’s Dilemma of International Relations. Picardo then goes on to give a few examples of how to use it in our lives. He uses a salary negotiation as his example. He suggests that one should not take the first offer given by an employer because you may able to get more money out of it, but the employer might say that a higher salary cannot be given. If that same person takes the job immediately the employer may be satisfied but the person could have made more money.

What I have learned from Prisoner’s Dilemma is that without communication between both parties there is no correct answer. If the parties communicate they can find a ground in which both are satisfied. In these cases both parties cannot be completely satisfied but the middle ground would be better than receiving nothing at all. Communication can apply to both economics and international relations. Companies are able to talk to other companies of the same good about pricing, just as a country to talk to another country. Although in the game The Prisoner’s Dilemma no communication is allowed, if this came up in my life I would try first to communicate with the other party. If no communication was allowed then I decided that I would defect (or in our game give up the other person) because the results are either win or get a reduced sentence, which is better than taking the gamble of not defecting and the other person defecting. Therefore, if possible communication is the best case scenario, but if there is miscommunication or an untrustworthy partner, than defecting would be the second best decision. To use the salary example. Communication would most likely not work because the employer may not be willing to have an open conversation about what your salary should be and therefore defecting and saying a high price may cause the employer to raise the salary at least slightly.

The inability of the UN to help those outside of the sphere of Wolrd Powers

William Chandler

Humanitarian intervention has changed over the years, but until organizations charged with preventing these atrocities can rely on hard power as well as soft power, gross violations of human rights will continue because those with the power to stop these crimes are often not willing to get involved:

“You’re dirt. We think you’re dirt, Paul… The West. All the super powers. Everything you believe in, Paul. They think you’re dirt. They think you’re dumb. You’re worthless… You're black. You're not even a nigger. You're an African. They’re not going to stay, Paul. They’re not going to stop this slaughter.”

-UN Peace Keeper Colonel Oliver, Hotel Rwanda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKjprq67kYI

I recently watched “Beats of No Nation” on Netflix. It follows the life of a child soldier in Africa. It is a very upsetting and disturbing film. In this film there are horrible violations of human rights at every turn. From the execution of innocents, to child soldiers, drugs and rape this movie shows it all. In fact, it occurs so frequently, it gets to the point that the viewer, as well as the characters become immune to these terrible acts. And despite all of the institutions in place, including the UN, all of this persists and continues without really any outside intervention.

This begs the question, why is there so much turmoil, failed states and violations of human rights in Africa, while, there is often quick intervention in some regions of the world, such as with “Operation Provide Comfort”? Why was that humanitarian mission so successful whereas aid was was found to have saved perhaps no one in Somalia?

The UN has plenty of soft power, but little to no hard power. While the UN has a plethora of soft power, especially when it comes to legalizing the actions of states, “The UN has only so much hard power as it can borrow from its member states.” This is especially difficult when the board is divided. As long as all members of the Security Council are in agreement, the UN does have some hard power, but once divided, this all goes away. The UN cannot successfully intervene unless they have backing from the Security Council. This backing rarely comes unless it is in the interest of the world’s super powers. While these interests may range from protecting their own sovereignty, economy or resources, such as oil, the world super powers are more likely to intervene in places outside of Africa and as such the majority of terrible atrocities have occurred there.

Because the UN relies on others to give it the man power and hard power needed to help those in need and stop the breach of humanitarian crimes, many atrocities are neglected, because these world powers do not care for the sufferings of others. The reason for prolonged genocide in Rwanda is explained by this quote in Hotel Rwanda, “I think that when people turn on their TVs and see this footage, they'll say, "Oh my God, that's horrible," and then they'll go back to eating their dinners,” (Hotel Rwanda). While Westerners and other super powers may see that these atrocities are going on, they are likely not interested enough to get militarily involved. As such, these issues drag on and thousands or millions can die as a result.

Humanitarian aid can help save lives, but it is often times botched, or non-existent. Many times the aid that is most required is safety. Supplies are stolen, lost or unable to be used as the area is in turmoil. World powers only care about their interests. Because of this, they do not care about the atrocities committed in places away from their political agenda. And as such these places do not get he humanitarian support they need. The best way to provide for these people is by giving them protection. Arming the UN for humanitarian interventions is the solution. While it may lead to more violence between the fighting sides, it will protect the innocents civilians, and not just those that the super powers deem worthy enough of investing in. Ultimately is will create stability and prevent these conflicts from dragging on and destroying generation after generation of young boys and girls. 

"There will be no rescue, no intervention force. We can only save ourselves. Many of you know influential people abroad, you must call these people. You must tell them what will happen to us... say goodbye. But when you say goodbye, say it as though you are reaching through the phone and holding their hand. Let them know that if they let go of that hand, you will die. We must shame them into sending help." 

-Paul Rusesabagina, Hotel Rwanda

  

Have we Learned from Rwanda?

Have we Learned from Rwanda?

The Rwandan Genocide was a serious genocide that did not receive the attention it deserved. Realists argue, in general, that humanitarian intervention does not make sense because it is not in the best interest of the state. However, in times of death and serious crime, it is essential in order to save lives and protect the integrity of the international community. The international community has a role and responsibility to aid in times of great despair. Great powers have no excuse but to intervene and self-interest is meaningless.

In Rwanda, after the shooting down of the plane of the Hutu president, Hutus grew angry with the Tutsis and wished for them to be eliminated as a race. The hatred grew, and announcements of slaughter for the Tutsi people were made through radio. The United States heard about these announcements but still did not intervene. Reasons for not intervening included the events of Somalia where U.S. rangers died, lack of “national interest” in Rwanda, and reluctance to deem the Rwandan killings acts of genocide (Rwandan Genocide: Failure of the International Community?). These are not reasons, these are merely excuses. The United States simply watched as thousands of innocent people died. There is no justification for that. Linda Melvern, an investigative journalist, said: “The US and the UK refused aid at this crucial time in February 1994 for reasons of economy. This failure, I think, sent a message to those planning the genocide that they could continue, knowing that the world would fail to react” (Rwanda: Why the international community looked away). When perpetrators are given the green light, their actions will only get worse. The U.S. and UK let this happen. Let that sink in for a second.

The United States claimed that the events of Somalia damaged them and they did not want to enter a similar conflict where their soldiers would be at great risk. Also, the United States was reluctant to use the term genocide. If the term genocide was used at any point, then the U.S. had an international responsibility to intervene because of the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention (Bystanders to Genocide). Thus, the U.S. avoided the word at all costs, trying to avoid intervention as much as possible. Yes, the United States, the supposed “greatest” country on Earth avoided saving thousands of innocent lives. That is the sign of a selfish country. It is frustrating how the United States, a nation that prides itself on promotion of human rights and freedom, denied any genocide. To be honest, it is sickening. The U.S. had no excuse not to act. Thousands of innocent Tutsis died and still face oppression today. If the U.S. did something, just something, that would be different. What sickens me the most about our inaction is our denial. We don’t think our inaction was all that bad. We don’t realize the positive impacts we could have made and we don’t realize the negative impacts our inaction had.

While people such as realists may argue that the United States had to worry about self-interests, there is nothing that trumps the attention a genocide deserves. To not pay attention to a genocide not only hurts the people affected, but also leaves an embarrassing mark on the international community. Self-interest is never more important than a genocide. Never. UN members even acknowledge their failure. Kofi Annan, who was the UN Secretary General at the time, said that “We must never forget our collective failure to protect at least 800,000 defenseless men, women, children who perished in Rwanda 10 years ago. We must acknowledge our responsibility for not having done more to prevent or stop the genocide” (Rwanda: Why the international community looked away). The UN at least made some effort, unlike the United States. This is not a nature of simply accepting our failures. We must learn from this terrible mistake, admit to it, and never let it happen again.

The genocide in Darfur is still occurring and although we have helped provide troops, promoted democracy, and tried to end human rights issues, we cannot lean back. We must continue to save innocent lives because that is our role as the most powerful nation on Earth. We have the power to end genocides such as the one in Darfur. We must use that power to our advantage and never stop trying to aid human rights across the globe.

The question becomes, have we learned from our mistakes? Do we realize how much of an effect our lack of intervention had? Quite frankly, I think the U.S. is a nation that doesn’t like to admit to failure, and the U.S. never really admitted to failure during the Rwandan Genocide. If the United States can’t fully admit to such a brutal mistake, then how can the U.S. be trusted as the most powerful nation on earth in the future?

Not the Best But Better Than Nothing: Political Intervention Through the Lens of Addiction Intervention

Influenced by my observation of interventions on an alcoholic family member, I believe that political interventions (like addiction interventions) will never be fully effective but that they are still an improvement on doing nothing.  Both addiction interventions and political interventions are acclaimed as a way for one party, who allegedly knows better than another, to stop harm from occurring.

                One of the biggest arguments against political intervention is that it will not fix the problem, that it is a bandaid measure whose effectiveness disappears as soon as the interveners leave.  I do not argue this point; in the class discussion about intervention in Syria, I even said that I did not think it would have been possible to fix through intervention the humanitarian offenses occurring there. The same argument is levied against addiction intervention.  When my family member went through his intervention, he felt enough pressure from everyone around him that he entered rehab.  Once he finished the requisite cycle, however, our family left him alone, thinking he had changed.  However, as we discovered eventually, the change was only temporary; it was dependent on the constant presence of people around him who would enforce his sobriety.  As soon as that presence was gone, he started drinking again.  He had never internalized the message of the intervention, which was that he had a problem - because he didn’t believe he had a problem, he didn’t think he needed to change. 

In the same way, political interventions will always have only temporary success.  Political interventions, like Syria and Iraq, are military, so they are a show of force, an invasion of another’s space to bring about change through intimidation.  Intimidation and coercion only affect actions; they cannot change people’s hearts or minds (this goes back to the effects of hard power versus soft power).  These tactics are effective as long as that force is actively applied.  When the pressure is removed, however, the wound of injustice bleeds profusely again.  Political interventions, by their coercive nature, simply cannot be counted on to make people or nations believe that there is a problem, and therefore will not bring about lasting change. 

Nevertheless, the alternative is to do nothing and this is even worse.  The argument goes that intervention should not be pursued precisely because people cannot be helped until they want to be helped and that no force or intimidation can make them want anything.  We were advised on a few occasions to do nothing and wait for the addict in our family to hit rock bottom to let him realize for himself that he needed help.  The same advice could be, and often is given to potential political interveners.  Some might say: wait, let the injustice and violence get so bad that the nation cannot ignore it.  The problem with this advice is that even hitting rock bottom does not necessarily make an addict - or a nation - realize that there is something that needs to be fixed.  My family member drunk drove and crashed into the bedroom of a house; he was jailed for several months.  Still, he did not acknowledge the need, or express a desire for help.  Likewise, nations may simply keep escalating violence or human rights violations and not ever care about how bad it gets.  The time in rehab that kept my family member sober and kept him from hurting himself and others, and the time of foreign presence that keeps nations on their best behavior are the temporary reprieves from harm that intervention offers, and they are better than nonstop injury.