Wednesday, December 4, 2013
China's Industrialization and the Depletion of the Commons
Estefania Velez
December 4, 2013
GVPT
Throughout
the decades China has evolved into one of the most industrialized and wealthy
nations in the world. They take the lead with about 19% of the world’s
population all living in the southern half of Asia. These things however, come
with negative consequences. China may be well known for having many factories,
but it is also known for having the greatest environmental issues in the world.
In his article “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Hardin argues that free access to
non-permanent resources that are needed for survival (e.g. oceans, the
atmosphere) will end up affecting humanity as a whole because these sources
will quickly diminish if they are not regulated wisely.
China
is a prime example of this because although industrialization has provided a
large boost in their economy, the smog levels in Beijing alone surpass the
levels that the World Health Organization declares hazardous. The amount of
cars that travel through that city alone and the factories that let smoke out
every day are enough to affect the atmosphere in ways that will end up hurting
the us in the near future. In a way, pollution goes hand in hand with excessive
energy use because every steel factory that causes the smog in the air uses and
takes up large amounts of energy from natural resources. Hardin claims that we try so hard to be
independent and successful that we end up “fouling our own nest” without
realizing that we are doing nothing but setting ourselves up for failure (349).
Hardin
also believes that over-population is one of our greatest flaws because
everyone is born believing that we have unlimited rights to the commons
therefore making us take them for granted. China is known for having the
largest population in the world and although they limit each family to having
only one child, that does not take away from the fact that as any population
enlarges, chemical and biological recycling begin to overload, more welfare
laws need to be created, and people become so caught up in their lives that
they forget not to pollute the water and not to liter. What is worse is that
not only are us humans hurting ourselves, we are affecting the wildlife and the
habitats of many animals that live in the rivers and grasslands that are being
contaminated and being cut down. In China, many of the rivers have become
factory sewers and many of them cannot be purified for human consumption.
Unfortunately,
China is not the only country that has issues with global warming, pollution
and all of the other consequences that come from depleting our natural
resources. In the long run, this all interferes with international relations
because there are nations who may not agree with China’s ways and could cease
trade with them, or threaten them to set laws for their regulations. As Hardin
describes these issues in his article, I begin to see what can happen not too
long from now and it is time for the government to regulate the use of the
commons and for people to speak up about protecting the world we live on because
if we continue to follow China’s footsteps, there will not be a world to live
on.
Yasemin Unal: Globalization
Yasemin Unal
Professor Mark Shirk
GVPT200FC4 December 2013
There is no denying that we are in
an era of mass globalization. A time of interdependence on other states for the
well being of our own economic and
social prosperity. Undoubtedly, globalization has had copious positive impacts
on the states and citizens around the world, bringing opulence. Yet, one cannot
be oblivious to the undesirable effects globalization has brought as well. My
argument will be centered around the theme that with globalization there has
been a loss of culture for states, there are increased ethnic clashes, and that
it is an indirect relationship with environmental problems.
To begin, globalization is slowly
homogenizing the unique cultures around the world, forming a type of culture
that is based off of consumerism and commercialization. This is creating an
international society with the same values and desires. This may seem as
harmless and even attractive, since the international community will have more
in common. However, with globalization there is also the spread of unwanted
social ideals. For example, with the spread of mass media commercialization around
the world consumerism is becoming targeted around the unattainable ideals of
beauty and thinness. I would argue that globalization is also spreading the American
culture, causing the individual cultures of states to become diluted. For
instance, English is slowly becoming the global language. While this is not necessarily
a drawback for businesses and English speaking citizens, it does causes the individuality
of national languages to slowly lose their importance for the younger
population, who strive to become Americanized. Moreover, this weakening cultural factor that globalization brings causes more ethnic tensions, leading to more violence. This violence does not have to directly translate into war and mass murder. In fact, this tension can be relevant between citizens of different states or even citizens within a single, diverse state. Like mentioned in the book "How Soccer Explains the World", globalization often results in "hooliganism" because of the loss of masculine roles, due to outsourced industrial labor. This hooliganism is translated into clashes between different ethnic groups. Like I mentioned previously, this violence can be present within a state with many different ethnicities ,or it can even transcribe over boundaries. One could also make the argument that the diluting of specific cultures causes the citizens of that state to feel an ontological threat, since it is their identity that is in danger. Thus, they resort to violence to defend their individual cultures and ethnicities against the threats they perceive.
On a final note, globalization has an indirect role with increased environmental problems. This is due to the fact that, third world countries are being exploited for their natural resources and labor during the process of industrialization. In rapidly industrializing third world countries, there are no strict pollution laws that have been enacted. The overwhelming desire to industrialize as soon as possible, in order to be a part of globalization, has resulted in increased CFC pollutants that contribute to global warming. These industrializing countries know that with globalization, there is a link with economic affluence. Consequently, they do not put their priorities is producing outputs in a way that does not mass pollute.
In the final analysis, globalization
does have its negative impacts on the international community. Even though
there are benefits, globalization causes the diminishing of diverse cultures,
increased tensions due to loss of identity, and increased environmental
problems.
Lauren Wilhelm
December 2, 2013
GVPT 200
Prof Shirk
Columbus: Courageous Discoverer
of Worlds, or Self-Serving Maverick
While some view Christopher Columbus to be an extraordinary hero and discoverer
of new
worlds, others see him as a manipulative, egocentric explorer out to
fulfill his own goals even at the expense of others. Columbus is viewed as the
father of the Americas, and expander of the world, yet most people don’t
realize he was not as understanding and open-minded as many think. When
children learn about Columbus in grade school, they hear of a great explorer
who wanted to discover a quicker trade route to India. They also learn of the
courageous man who sailed into uncharted waters when the world was thought to
be flat, so he could sail over the edge at any minute. Upon further research
however, it is revealed that Columbus was in fact a man of many contradictions
with self-interested incentives and a superiority complex. His journals are
additional proof that his interactions with the Indians were not honorable and
acceptant, but were actually exploitative. Although Columbus did set out
on an unknown journey to make discoveries, upon arrival in the Americas he took
advantage of the Indians and the resources around him and was not the hero
explorer many Americans today believe he is.
Christopher
Columbus is a household name all throughout America, and while he did open up
the Americas to colonization by happening upon them, he is not as wholesome and
deserving of praise as is typically assumed. It is known that Columbus voyaged
west in 1492 to find a more direct route to India for trade, yet he was much
more imperialist than most people believe. It can be learned from his journals
that upon landing in the Americas, he believed the land to be part of Asia and
actually believed he landed where he intended. His interactions with the
natives there, as recorded in his journals, reflect his imperialistic nature.
During his interactions with the Indians who inhabited the Caribbean, he learned
their names for the islands. Yet, he renamed them all and claimed them for
Spain. In doing this he was also showing a complete disregard for their
languages, and had no desire to learn the linguistics of the natives at all.
Columbus took the same entitled approach to the resources the natives shared
with him. He took and used as much as he could, believing he deserved it. He
justified it by saying it was a sign from God that the resources were shown to
him and because of that they essentially belonged to him and the Spaniards. He
claimed everything for himself and Spain, and took advantage of the generous
but naïve natives to accomplish this.
Many
believe that Columbus’s interactions with the natives were originally
peaceable, however, even in the beginning he was not as well intentioned as
most would think. On one of his first days there he writes to Queen Isabella
about how the Taino people will make great slaves for trade and he will bring
her as many as she wishes. Due to their generosity he believes they are perfect
for the slave trade because as Columbus puts it, they can be made to do
whatever you want of them. Columbus further writes to the monarchs on how if
the Indians do not comply he will torture and kill them, all the while allowing
his men to commit heinous acts such as rape and murder anyway. The entire time,
Columbus justifies his actions by claiming he does all of this with the end
goal of converting the Taino people to Christianity to save their souls. His
pre-conceived notions that the natives are savages, causes him to have a
complete disregard for their lifestyle and allows him to justify any actions he
takes by claiming he is helping to progress them. Columbus uses his advantages
of knowledge and power to take advantage of the natives of the Americas, and
treat them with contemptible hostility. Although Columbus is taught to be the
brave, noble explorer who discovered the Americas, he was actually a cruel,
manipulative opportunist, who took advantage of the natives of the Americas and
all of the resources they had to offer in order to advance his own objectives.
Cosmopolitanism in an Era of Globalization
Shiran Zecharya
GVPT200
Blog #5
Cosmopolitanism
in an Era of Globalization
The past decade has allowed citizens from all parts of
the world to feel both the blessings and burdens of globalization. The phenomenon
has physically changed global politics by means of increased trade,
interdependence, growth of the mass media, greater cultural acceptance
and widespread technological innovation. As a result, new generations of
citizens have begun to embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook on international
politics where they are more willing to engage and sympathize with The Other
and actively endorse the idea that all people are “citizens of the world” and that
it is their duty to defend the rights of all people, not just individuals that
live within the confines of their nation’s boarder.
A growing number of critics, however, censure
cosmopolitanism because they argue that it favors more powerful nations over
less influential ones. Skeptics believe that more powerful nations such as the
United States, China and Germany would have more say in the terms of the unity
and global citizenship that cosmopolitanism entails than less influential
states. This account, however, fails to take into consideration the fact that
cosmopolitanism is not always a political ideology and formula for world order,
but a shift in the way citizens of the world perceive each other. This change
is a result, not of a newly unified world that skeptics of cosmopolitanism and
internationalism depict with no political boarders, but a world where
acceptance, understanding, and cooperation flourish throughout these boarders.
While the overall impact of globalization may be difficult
to assess, the effect of cosmopolitan mindsets is not. Society, as a whole,
must learn to embrace this generation’s thirst for cooperation and desire to help
all people of the world. As individuals, we must continue to deny excuses of
patriotism and what is in our “national interest” as justification for taking a
blind eye to the misfortunes and suffering of others, we must castigate all
those who continue to use these excuses in the 21st century, because
they are steering humanity away from progress and mutual understanding and
toward divisiveness and brutality, and we must begin to adopt a more holistic
definition of what makes us humans and abandon our nationalistic
predispositions.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Lauren Wilhelm
November 8, 2013
GVPT 200
Prof Shirk
Risky Business:
Manipulation of CDOs and the Housing Market Crash
In
his book The Signal and the Noise, Nate Silver looks into and analyzes the
contributing factors for the housing market crash which led to the U.S.’s most
recent recession. In studying the inner workings of banks, loan sharks, debt
raters, NRSROs and so on, it can be discovered that their greed for money and
overall ignorance led to them overlooking many warning signs on the housing crash,
contributing to the crash in the housing market and recession. The corporate
workers in these industries wanted so badly for the system to work because of
the revenue it would bring in that they used confirmation bias, and built their
statistical data and proof around their ideas so it would support them. This
system of buying and selling debt may have seemed like a profit maximizing one
in the beginning, but eventually the false premise it was built on was bound to
catch up with it and take it all tumbling down.
The selling of
default rates and securities is wrong for more reasons than the simple fact
that the system failed. It was made more wrong by the fact that it was
essentially gambling. Gambling with debts and the possibility of risk may seem
exciting to those who can afford to lose money and take that risk, but when it
affects the livelihoods of others who need these loans and depend on them, it
is not okay. The system involved rating agencies predicting the probability
that someone would default on a loan and they predicted the nations 5-year rate
at .12%. This rate was considerably low so they saw only small risk and with
that sold and allowed for the trade of debt backed securities and CDOs as if
they were stocks. They tried to create a market for them because they saw the
possibility to bring more investors in on something they didn’t think existed
to sell in the first place. This prospect was propelled by greed and the hopes
of Wall Street’s new and young associates. The only problem with gambling is it
is almost always taken too far because no one knows when to quit, and
eventually, you lose it all.
The statistical
model these ratings were based on ended up being faulty in the end, and causing
the whole idea to fail because it was based on assumptions and not historical
data. In fact it caused the prediction rate to be wrong by more than 200%.
Those in charge were unapologetic and did not take responsibility for their
actions. Instead they claimed they were just unlucky and never could have foreseen
the housing bubble. They continued to blame external forces never truly taking
accountability for what they had caused. In essence they just passed the debt
around and spread it out more so that they could continue to reap the benefits
of being a big corporate laborer. They made assumptions using faulty world
models and instead blamed the fallout on a faulty world.
This goes to show
that Wall Street workers may not necessarily commit what is defined as
white-collar crime, but they do take actions that have larger repercussions on
the public and so they must be held accountable. There will always be greed in
the world just like there will always be those who believe business should be
left to itself and unregulated. However, something needs to change or else the
rich will continue to get richer by manipulating the system by creating these
entities that don’t really exist, and in the long run have huge fallout.
Why did Lehman Brothers not get bailed out?
Jason ye
11/11/2013
GVPT200
The financial crisis of 2008, which is
also known as the Global Financial Crisis is considered by many people the
worst financial crisis since the 1930s Great Depression. It resulted in
bankruptcy of financial institutions, high rate of unemployment, collapse of
the stock market and bailed out from the U.S government to some of the biggest
financial institutions in the U.S. So why did the U.S government bailed out
American International Group, Bear Stearns and nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but did not help out
Lehman Brothers and let it fail.
Frist
reason, in my opinion, the U.S government bailed out American International
Group instead of Lehman Brother is all about the impact on financial markets.
American International Group is the largest insurance company in the world, it insures
not just millions of people but also corporations around the world as well. It
also insures millions of dollars issued by the financial institutions’ lenders
and borrowers. If American International Group collapse, it will have a
tremendous effect on those financial institutions that are insured by the
American International Group, which may result in collapse of those financial
institutions too. The American International Group is like an ignorant kid playing with matches, he could harm not only
himself, he could have burn down the entire block, the Fed stepped in not just
to save him but also save the entire block, on the other hand, Lehman Brother is
more like a kid who pulls the tail of a dog and got attacked by the dog,
himself is harmed by the dog but nobody is harmed because of that, so nobody
really care about it that much.
Second reason I think why Lehman Brothers did
not get bailed out by the U.S government is because its lacked collateral for a
loan. During the 2008 financial crisis, before the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP) was established, it was illegal for the government to inject
capital into Lehman Brothers. Unlike the American International Group, which
had insurance addendum that can be evaluative, the Lehman Brothers lacks of ancillary
resulted in the Federal Reserve deiced not to bail out Lehman Brothers. Lacked
collateral is also a reason why the two potential buyers – Bank of America and
Barclays decided to back out at the last moment. Also, there were concerns of
“lending into a run”, some top government officers feared giving Lehman
Brothers loan can cause its customers to flee away which will ensuring its
bankruptcy.
The last reason why the U.S government did
not bail out Lehman Brothers is that the risk to taxpayers is high, like Bernanke said, “Lehman's status as a going concern was
"melting away" as trading partners pulled back from the firm amid
questions about its capital position and access to cash. The Fed couldn't have
lent to Lehman without risking a large loss.”
Overall, the reasons why the
U.S government didn’t bail out Lehman Brother are reasonable, but it might be
better for the economic if the U.S government had bailed out Lehman Brother.
Shiran Zecharya
GVPT200
Blog #4: Trade/Globalization
Globalization is undeniably changing the nature of the global economy; markets have expanded across political borders, international trade has flourished, and manufacturing has become more efficient and productive. For these reasons, many analysts have come to applaud these processes of economic change and conclude that the phenomena holds a great deal of promise for the future of the international political economy. There is, however, a dark side to globalization that liberal economists have observed: the rapidly growing inequality between the global rich and poor. As a result of expanded markets, firms are drawn to conduct business in low-income nations in order to reduce costs and maximize their profits. By doing so, these companies not only exploit workers who often lack the protection of basic worker rights but also foster a proliferating global wealth gap.
This year, many began to question the benefits of globalization following a building collapse in Bangladesh that killed over 1,000 garment factory employees. The incident gave new fuel to the debates about how increased trade and expanded markets may impact worker safety and contribute to global inequality. Corporations often follow the lowest wages abroad in seek of greater profits in response to the economic changes brought on by globalization. In countries where wages are exceedingly low, such as Bangladesh, worker safety is almost never a priority, and the human cost can be tremendous. Furthermore, when corporations accept low wages and neglect worker safety to increase their profits, the divergence between less developed countries who manufacture goods and wealthier nations who consume the goods grows while the hope of increased global equality recedes.
The overall impact of globalization hard to calculate, given that, in addition to its destructive elements, global trade has led to astonishing growth, interdependence, increased creativity and other immeasurable benefits. What can be taken as a mixed result of the debate of the costs and benefits is a formula for improvement. World leaders must understand the limitations of globalization to regulate the expansion of trade and ensure that it is mutually benefitting all parties. Additionally, corporations cannot continue to disregard labor rights in order to generate more revenue. Consumers must also demand fair labor practices from companies and apply pressure on ones that fail to do so. Inequality is not only a local issue, but also a global issue, therefore, all individuals in the international economy must work together to mitigate the global wealth disparity and questionable labor practices brought on by globalization; the result: a newly interconnected world driven by technological innovation and newfound interconnectedness but grounded in principles of morality and equality.
Power Within the United Nations
Estefania
Velez
November
11, 2013
GVPT200
– FC
In the past decade, there has been
some skepticism about whether or not the United Nations has served to help
protect the world by promoting peace or if it is just a group of the five most
powerful countries making decisions based on their own needs. It is said that
the United Nations was formed to promote peace and collective security throughout
the world. Although this is true, I believe that in this past decade it has
worked more for social and economic expansion than for peace itself because the
five permanent countries on the Security Council have more opportunity than the
non-permanent countries to do as they please. The power that the five permanent
countries in the United Nations hold does not allow the organization to remain
fair for the ten non-permanent countries because as time has passed, the
organization has worked less on promoting peace and more on the interests of
the five permanent countries. When the
United States invaded Iraq in 2003, it did not ask for permission from the
Security Council as to whether or not it could or should invade, it went ahead
and did it anyway. It is certain that if
any other nation tried to invade another country without getting UN approval,
things would go differently for them.
It is evident that the United
Nations has done a lot for the world but as Hurd said in his article
“Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life of the UN Security
Council”,
it can also be claimed that they succeed because of the powerful symbols they
have. For example, there are peacekeeping symbols that the UN is known for such
as the Agenda, which allows any state to propose their issues to the council.
These states want the five permanent members to care about their issues because
of the immense power that they hold and if their proposals are in fact
considered, they then get to brag that their issue is on the Security Council.
The permanent members of the Security Council are the most powerful nations in
the world today; therefore, other countries pay a grand amount of money to be a
part of this “exclusive” group of nations because it is extremely desirable to
be a part of the ten non-permanent members. In some instances, the small
non-permanent countries are required to give their troops to the United Nations
while countries like the United States do not because they want to be in
control of their troops and not let the UN use them. These are all symbols of
the power that the non-permanent members want to obtain throughout the Security
Council and international relations.
International organizations such as
the United Nations have helped the world grow and become more peaceful but it
seems as though the rules that come with the Security Council’s permanent
members are not fair to the other members who pay loads of money and risk their
troops to get a small amount of power. The fact that the five official members
get to veto any proposal that comes their way while the other ten really have
no say in the matter shows how unjust the organization has become. It is
understandable that the five nations are in charge because they are the countries
with the strongest economies, militaries and because most are the winners of
World War II but I believe that in order for the United Nations to strive as it
did when it was first created the power among the members needs to be balanced
in a more equal way for all of them.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
BLOG 4: The Legitimacy of the World Trade Organization
Yasemin Unal
Professor Mark Shirk
GVPT200FC
11 November 2013
The efficiency of
International Organizations fulfilling their objectives are often the subject
for debate. Some realists would argue that International Organizations are not
useful in accomplishing their objectives of creation. Yet, I would argue that
if an organization has acquired global legitimacy, then it has become a significant
source of prevention. Even though there is an abundance of International
Organizations, I will be focusing on how the World Trade Organization (WTO) has
gained legitimacy through regulating commerce between states.
To begin, the purpose of the WTO,
when it was created in 1995 after the Uruguay Rounds, was to provide international
trade with some type of a regulatory policy. This would ensure that states
could not discriminate against one another and global trade would be much
easier to take part in. In the long run, this idea of "free trade"
allowed many states to develop stronger economies through globalization and
modernization. Since the WTO was successful in executing it's purpose of
removing and preventing barriers of commerce, it has gained a sense of
legitimacy among international society.
Furthermore, the WTO has a specific
department, the Dispute Settlement Body, to act as a council for trade disputes.
If one state feels discriminated against by another's trade policy or quota,
then that state can appeal to the Dispute Settlement Body. This council has the
authority to uphold the trade policies ensuring a "free" global
market. Through the Dispute Settlement Body, states recognize the legitimacy of
the WTO because it has a method for implementing repercussions when policies
are violated. Having consequences for violators is critical for the global
legitimacy of International Organizations, because states want their interests that
are guaranteed in policies to be upheld. Thus, by providing a council the WTO provides
a method for states that are being restricted to seek justice.
A fundamental trait of the council
is that it does not hold prejudice against any state. Therefore, the overall
strength or importance of a state has no effect in the outcome of the council's
decisions. This further legitimizes the purpose and rulings of the Dispute
Settlement Body and the WTO. A prime example of the unbiased council can be referenced
through the Costa Rican Underwear dispute between the USA and Costa Rica. Even
though the economy of the USA is what arguably influences the global economy,
this did not influence the ruling that the USA did have a discriminatory
trading policy against Costa Rican underwear. When states feel that an
organization is just and not based on favoritism or influence, then that institution's
decisions are more readily implemented and followed.
In the final analysis, some might disagree
against the success of International Organizations. However, I argue that the
key for success for these Organizations is to acquire a sense of authenticity
among states and the global society. When this is achieved, then the rulings of
International Organizations are implemented and obeyed. To support my argument,
I explained how the WTO gained global legitimacy and why it's rulings are
followed.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
A Historical Approach to the Syrian Conflict
Shiran
Zecharya
GVPT200
Response
Paper 3
As political turbulence and
sectarian conflict continue to shackle the unitary Syrian Republic, the United
States, the American public, and the international community remain in discord in
terms of how to put an end to the humanitarian crisis and ensure geopolitical stability
in a post-war Syria. Some tend to sympathize with the Syrians’ suffering but
maintain that it is not the US’ duty to take on the role of a global policeman.
This isolationist perspective, while popular, is not novice in foreign policy
and has been employed and proven unsuccessful in the Rwandan Genocide when
President at the time, Bill Clinton, was reluctant to respond to the massacre
of the Tutsi minority because of the US’ failed intervention in Somalia the previous
year. As the number of Syrian refugees and casualties continues to multiply, world
leaders cannot afford to repeat their old mistakes; they must learn from their failures,
hold on to strategies that have benefited them and discard ones that have not
in order to improve their ability to respond to international crisis and
maintain consistency in addressing issues of human rights.
International Relations Scholars
often draw historical parallels between the Syrian Civil War and the Rwandan Genocide
in terms of US response. In both cases, the United States has rhetorically opposed
the aggressors, Hutu Rwanda and Assad’s Syria, but has failed to definitively protect
the victims of brutality. Most attribute US leadership’s lack of action in
Rwanda to their failure to instill peace in a war-torn Somalia the year before;
since intervention was unsuccessful in Somalia, the US did not want to invest
their resources in ending a conflict that they believed would end the same way.
Similarly, the American public is unwilling become involved in the Syrian
conflict following unpopular interventions the decade before in both Iraq and
Afghanistan. While there are key differences in the two situations, such as the
sophistication of weaponry used, analysts often classify US foreign policy in
addressing the Rwandan Genocide as a major failure for not only the Rwandan
people, but for the promise of human rights as a whole. Furthermore, although
it is not the United States’ job to directly intervene and protect human rights
wherever violations exist, history does not tend to favorably portray powerful leaders
who fail to act when dictators, such as President Assad, relentlessly massacre
innocents and children by means of conventional and chemical weaponry for over
two years and face little to no consequence.
As the plea for democracy continues to resonate in the
wake of a new century, it is the duty of society to apply pressure on their
leaders to aid individuals who suffer at the hand of oppressors. The solution
to peace in Syria is not black and white; there are many courses of action that
could bring about unintended consequences such as arming the rebels and
unilateral military intervention, and conversely, many policies that could
facilitate progress in the region such as working in collaboration with other
influential actors to exert smart power, supporting
countries who take in refugees, ensuring that goods and services get to
innocents in volatile regions of the war-torn country and maintaining a strong
international presence in the region if and when Assad falls and political
instability ensues. It is the hope of future global leaders to stand by human rights not only in rhetoric but also in meaningful action.
JJason Ye
10/24/2013
GVPT200
Chapter
10 of “The Nation-State and Global Order”
In my opinion, why some states fail is a
question for people who are studying international relation, one good thing
about recognizing failed states is that we can send in help for them and
sometimes establish a temporary government for them, like what the U.S did for Afghanistan,
but doing this just for failed states is not good enough, we also need to figure
out the cause of the failure in order to prevent it. I agree with the argument
proposed by Walter C. Opello, Jr. and Srephen J. Rosow, which is that a states
failure is related to colonialism, but I also think there are some other
factors that cause some states to fail, like the states’ culture and natural
resources.
The reason I agree with Walter C. Opello, Jr.
and Srephen J. Rosow is that throughout history, colonialism usually has a
negative effect on states, for example, during the World War II, different
parts of China were colonized by different western countries, they used the
Chinese people to mine natural resources like coal and ship them back to
Europe. They also signed inequity treaties with the corruptive Chinese
government officers in order to gain full control of Hong Kong and Taiwan and
in order to reduce the incentive of the Chinese people to fight back, opium was
introduced in China. Another example that illustrates the negative effect of
colonialism is when Belgium colonized Congo, the way Belgium colonized Congo is
more inhumane, they used the Congolese people as slaves for mining, and if they
don’t obey the order, the leader of Belgium would torture them to scare the
others. Unlike the partial colonization in China, the colonization of Congo
drained away most of the natural resources away from the Congolese. The biggest
reason that colonialism causes states to fail is that after a country has been colonized,
part of the natural resources or sometimes most of the natural resources are
drained way form it, and after the country that colonized it left, people try
to fight for the resources that are left in the country and with the lack of
government stability, riot breaks out in the country and as time went on, it
eventually leads the country to a failed state.
The other factor that caused a state to fail
is the lack of nature resources, even if the state has a stable government,
lack of nature resources equals to lack to contribute in the international
community, like we discussed in class, powerful states usually are not willing
to help out states that do not contribute in the international community.
Lauren Wilhelm
Prof. Mark Shirk
October 22, 2013
GVPT 200
Chemical
Weapons
Since
the end of World War 1, issues dealing with chemical weapons have wavered in
and out of people’s minds, but they have been brought to the public’s attention
once again this time with force due to the mass genocide occurring in Syria
presently. Humanitarians have advocated the destruction of chemical weapons for
many years because of the painful death they inflict upon those unfortunate
enough to fall victim. When the public learned Bashir Assad was using them
against his own people, murdering innocent civilians in the process they began
to push policy makers to enforce the permanent ban and total destruction of
chemical weapons, which had been put into effect in 1997. Chemical warfare is
destructive, cruel and barbaric and should be put to an end. The situation in
Syria is opening the current generations eyes and hopefully this time something
will be done to completely end it.
The first chemical
attacks recorded were between the French and the Germans during WW1, but these
gases were not designed to kill, simply incapacitate. However this quickly
escalated and a mere year later chlorine gas was used to kill. Since then,
chemical warfare waged until a ban was placed on the use of it in 1925. This
was due to the fact that aside from killing tens of thousands in the war, it
permanently damaged those who were exposed but did not die and caused then to
have to live the rest of their lives in suffering. Yet the ban did not prevent
the manufacturing of chemical weapons and did not regulate possession and use.
The ban did not hinder anyone from using chemical warfare again because less
than fifteen years later it was being used once more in WW2. Countries at war
have used chemical bombs in battle for decades, but when a malicious dictator
is using it as a desperate attempt to stay in power or to push their own
agenda, people pay attention.
Sadly, the situation in Syria is not the first time
something like this has happened. During the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980’s it was
known that chemical weapons such as mustard gas were used. The public was not
made as widely aware at the time, which is why the Syrian genocide has caused
such an uproar. Hopefully the Syrian crisis will make the world conscientious
of the need for chemical weapons to be destroyed, because of what they can be
used for. The effects of these weapons are too cruel to use in the present
especially when other WMD’s are manufactured that don’t induce suffering before
death. War and killing of any kind is undesirable but it would be better to do
it swiftly with bombs that cause death on impact as opposed to nerve agents and
chemicals that shut down bodily functions resulting in death. Using these
weapons outside of war is an even more heinous crime especially when they are
used to take the lives of innocent civilians. This is why all chemical weapons
must be destroyed so that situations such as the one occurring in Syria
currently never happen again.
Since the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons went into effect, more
than 70 percent of the world’s chemical weapons, nerve agents and biological
weapons have been destroyed. This accomplishment appears to be something to
celebrate until one remembers that there are still situations where chemical
weaponry is being used, like in Syria today. While many countries such as
Russia, Japan, India and Iraq have joined the OPCW, they have also
mass-produced chemical weapons in the past and until it is confirmed that they
are wiped out, they remain a threat to international relations. The
organization is a large first step in helping to assure situations like Syria
and chemical warfare in the first Persian Gulf War don’t happen again, but it
can only be certain once they are totally gone.
International laws against chemical weapons may make
it illegal to synthesize and maintain these arms, however it cannot completely
stop use of them. This is why the only solution is to completely destroy all
chemical weaponry and anyone who attempts to produce more must be held
accountable with the U.N. The OPCW is attempting to make sure this happens but
can’t without the cooperation of other countries. This is why it is so
important that the public be made aware of what can occur when a corrupt leader
is in power and that the situation in Syria can happen anywhere as long as
chemical weapons are still in existence. The knowledge on how to construct
these weapons can’t be wiped from people’s minds however the longer they are
eradicated and it is overseen that they aren't made, the less likely this
information will pass on and eventually they will no longer be an imminent
threat to states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)