Threats to Hegemony

It is interesting that in the debate, both groups pointed towards the United States as being its own worst threat to its power. However, neither group mentioned the large role that domestic politics has in American hegemony. This country was set up with failsafes to prevent a large government, but throughout the years the government has only gotten larger and larger and can now hardly agree on anything within itself. The American people, or at least the majority of them who are unhappy, will eventually decide it is no longer going to put up with governmental failure. 

The fact that there is a growing income gap which decreases the equality of majority of the citizens in the country is an indicator for domestic upheaval. If the majority are not happy, something may come of it since this is a country run by the (majority) people. Without its citizens’ support, the US government would have no respect in the international community. The balance of power would shift, and a new order would ensue. 

This leads me to my next point. The world order has placed the United States ahead of all other countries for a long time now, and the American people are well aware. What they are not aware of is the rise and fall of power in the order. There is a cycle that can be seen when looking objectively, but objectivity is not the mindset of Americans. There is a sense of pride within American culture that just simply will not allow for the foresight of the fall of its great power stronghold. 

There are many Americans within the US who do have a good grasp on reality and the concept of what is a threat and what is not a threat to the US, but there are not enough of them within all levels of society. Good public education and higher education is not available to many people in the country. The amount of money that the US spends on its education budget is sickeningly low compared to the amount of money it spends on welfare, defense and weapons development, yet the White House says that the education budget will be increasing in years to come. 

Hopefully the US is well on its way to fixing its inadequacies, and will be able to gain more public support, fix the income inequality and increase education levels. As both groups made clear, the US is its own biggest threat. 

The Last Debate

I agree with group one, majorly because they hit on the biggest key aspect of American weakness: education and funding for education. They also mention the lack of public support on important intellectual and advancement projects, but their main argument was that the US economy is its biggest weakness. Group two also even agrees somewhat with group one that internal financial policies hold weight as a threat as well. Generally I think that group one won the argument, but I actually disagree with both groups arguments as a comprehensive conclusion. I believe that the biggest threat to US hegemony is its domestic political and budgetary process as a whole, the lack of American global knowledge of culture and world order and especially its economy. I will elaborate more in my next post on my own perspective. 

The Danger of Internal Dysfunction

This week’s debate on the greatest threat to American power sparked a lot of differing views, but there was a fairly universal belief that America’s greatest threat comes from within. The country’s own politics and internal dysfunction could ultimately be what causes it to slip. But would a few simple policy changes here and there really prevent the US from losing its grasp on much of the world’s power? Is a better functioning government really the only thing necessary to prevent a decline in US clout? I believe it is. The US has so many traits which will allow it to succeed in the future if internal dysfunction doesn’t get in the way.

The US economy, despite being hit hard by the global recession, is still one of the most powerful and vibrant in the world. While concerns about mounting US debt and a growing percentage of the budget allocated to entitlements must be addressed, the US economy overall is still poised for success. The US is still at the forefront of most technological and scientific developments. For instance, the US dominates the field of nanotechnology, which many say will lead fundamental scientific breakthroughs for the next few decades. The US has issued more nanotech patents than the rest of the world combined. Additionally, biotechnology continues to grow in the US and represents 76% of the global market. Many politicians cite the loss of manufacturing jobs to countries like China as a threat to the US economy. But most products manufactured overseas are still designed and engineered in the US. The engineering behind the electronics assembled in China represents the true value of the product, and that value often lies in Silicon Valley. The US economy does have issues which need to be tackled by policy makers, but the overall economic landscape is still vibrant and shows potential to succeed well into the future.

Education is one area often cited as a great example of how the US is falling behind compared to the rest of the world. It is hard to argue that fundamental change isn’t needed to improve the nation’s primary and secondary schools. However, the US university system is still the best in the world and attracts top talent from around the globe. The US receives about 30% of the world’s international students and has most of the universities ranked in the top 10 globally. Other countries are improving their university systems but none will rival the US for decades. Creating a top notch educational institution doesn’t happen overnight. By being able to attract top minds throughout the world, the US holds a strategic advantage which will allow the country to thrive.

There are many who fear the rise of China’s military will put them on the same military footing as the US within a few years. While Chinese defense spending is rising, it’s unlikely they will be able to match US capabilities. The US is technologically superior to any military on the face of the planet because of its robust and sophisticated defense contractor contingent. Various US defense companies will continue to develop new technologies which give the US the edge on the battlefield. However, massive cuts in defense spending threaten to slow new technological developments. This highlights the importance for policy makers to come to agreements on sound economic policies which don’t paralyze the DoD.

There are numerous other characteristics of the US which speak to its ability to remain one of the world’s dominate powers. However, the world is changing and America must learn to adapt with it. Economies and militaries around the world are growing at a rapid rate which doesn’t seem likely to slow down anytime soon. This shouldn’t be seen as a threat to the US, but the country cannot stay stagnant while the rest of the world moves forward. Internal gridlock poses the greatest threat to America’s ability to adapt to a changing world and remain at the top of the world’s food chain.

References:

Fareed Zakaria, "The Future of American Power: How America Can Survive the Rise of the Rest," Foreign Affairs 87 (2008): 18.

U.S. Presence on the International Stage

                There are many threats to the United States as the great world power. Militarily, the U.S. is much more advanced and staffed than any other nation. Nuclear weapons will always be a threat to any nation and human kind as a whole. Because nuclear weapons present such a threat to the entire world, it is not likely the greatest threat to U.S. power. The greatest threat to U.S. power comes from more unexpected places, for example, its lack of presence or involvement on the international stage. This lack of participation can then lead to other nations feeling able and more willing to challenge U.S. power and authority.

                So why has the U.S. reduced its presence on the international stage? There are many possible motives for this. The U.S. may be more inwardly focused when there is no intense international threat such as war. Focusing on internal turmoil and pressures may keep the U.S. from exerting great amounts of strength internationally, as we see in our military presence reduction overseas and in general. Also, constant involvement in foreign affairs may at times bring bad publicity, both domestically and internationally. The U.S. or political leaders of the U.S. could be trying to avoid this negative view towards the U.S. or U.S. leadership. Sometimes it is easiest to avoid being the “bad guy”.

                The solution is not to draw back into an excluded internal looking system, but to maintain involvement and international participation. This is not simply militarily, but also diplomatically, for humanitarian presence, and others. If we keep our participation and authority on the international stage we avoid nations, or groups of nations banning together, from assuming they can challenge the U.S. or from choosing to try to overthrow the U.S. as a great power. 

The Future of Humanity

The Human Project is an interesting concept. As Jackson mentions in his lectures the concept of a “we” encompassing all humans would be very difficult to develop. Jackson states that in order to effectively have this group mentality it is easier when facing an “us” vs “them” and not simply a problem we are all trying to resolve. However, perhaps the problems humanity is facing now such as: global warming, lack of water, lack of food, decline in fossil fuels, and diseases are simply not catastrophic enough.

Indeed it is simpler to unite people when there is an enemy, solidifying the “us” and the “them”. However, if something truly catastrophic happened humanity would potentially be left with no option but to develop one large group – humans. We see this on a smaller scale now a days. When there is a catastrophic event somewhere, particularly if it somehow affects another nation, that nation sends help. When there are tsunamis, hurricanes or even plane crashes many nations rally together with monetary, man power and other forms of support. These are temporary, smaller scale events, but they do show some global unity.

This is not to say this human project will definitely happen or would not be met with serious resistance. This is simply to state that it is possible, depending on the circumstances for this pale blue dot to unite as one. Some of Jackson’s other alternatives such as new hegemonic institutions or a global constitutional moment are also plausible. Although even then, hegemonic institutions seems more likely where there is a union based on some benefits received for participating in these institutions. Whereas, a global constitutional consensus where instead of violence there is a constitutional reframing. Some might argue that there will be violence, nations not wanting to lose their autonomy or control. All three scenarios are difficult to envision as they would involve an extremely drastic shift in an environment that has been relatively stable for most of our lifetimes. As Jackson reflects on the difference between predicting the future and forecasting in the beginning of his lecture, we may not be able to predict what will happen in the future, but having an idea of these potential scenarios can help us better prepare. 

U.S. Multilateralism: An Expanded NATO?

Of this week’s readings, I found John Ikenberry’s “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age” most interesting. In the introduction, Ikenberry gives two versions of America’s “logic of order.” One logic is more “hard shelled” and centers around American military dominance. It seems much more focused on coercion than the more liberal logic Ikenberry presents which focuses on America’s use of multilateralism. I feel the liberal path is more accurate which means it is worth thinking about how the US’s multilateral relationships could look in the future.

NATO was mentioned in Ikenberry’s piece and I think it presents an interesting example of how some US leaders feel the organization should expand in order to allow the US to continue to be the world’s dominate military force. In statements with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2003, Condoleezza Rice advocated for a “global alliance of democracies, a global NATO.” Notable politicians have also supported a NATO with membership stretching outside of North America or Europe. A 10+ year operation in Afghanistan has proven NATO can be an effective military alliance well outside the transatlantic region. The organization has certainly taken on more of a global mandate since the fall of the Soviet Union which is why some say expansion is necessary.

With proven success in Afghanistan, and more recently in Libya, it’s no wonder US policy makers envision an even larger military alliance posing an even larger threat to potential adversaries. A larger collection of global military might could be viewed as a further safeguard to protecting American military dominance (especially from an ever growing Chinese military). But would US desires to expand NATO be beneficial for the organization or the US in general?

Some feel NATO has survived for so long because of its shared identity and common set of values. Adding members from around the globe could erode the sense of identity which transatlantic states have shared. In an organization run on consensus, decision making could be seriously paralyzed if agendas from every corner of the globe have to be factored in. More importantly, a global NATO, presumably composed of the world’s democratic states, would create an “us vs. them” mentality throughout the world. Those not in the “democracy club” would feel isolated and may seek to form their own type of security alliance. Notably, China would feel threatened and seek to further develop its military capabilities while also seeking to enhance multilateral military cooperation (likely with Russia).

So while America may continue to strengthen its current multilateral relationships as well as form new ones, they must be mindful of the effects. In some cases, certain international organizations are already seen by some as tools of US hegemonic power (NATO being one). If these types of organizations are expanded, their legitimacy will be threatened and new enemies could be created. NATO, in particular, should not be expanded globally. Such a move would force non-members to engage in serious balance of power calculations which would be detrimental for the US and global security as a whole.

References:

Hallams, Ellen. "NATO at 60: Going Global?." International Journal (Spring 2009). p426-450.

Pessimism in Theory

I love the opening to the "soliloquy" this week. Thinking about possible, unlikely, likely and impossible scenarios is one of my favorite things to do. Over-exaggeration can sometimes lead to more spontaneous or out of the box solutions for problems or just general changes.

There is always anxiety about transitions of power. No state has stayed at same level forever and each state is aware of this fact. There is a general consensus there there must always be a fall to follow the rise of a great power.

The rise and fall theory assumes a certain kind of actor. Each wants autonomy and everyone is competing, but for what? There is no broader social context other than sheer power, or the capacity to do as one wills.

According to Professor Jackson, there are a few general options for the way in which the world can function. Hegemonic institutions are set up by dominant power and maintained through threat of coercive force... but we also have constitutional moments which generally happen after wars. These create a new set of rules for "games" in following decades.

Another possibility is the notion of humanities, or an "operative we." How can we create something that fits the largest possible entity (humans)?

One theory that has been discussed is that the expansion of awareness of the world outside earth helps create an awareness of how much larger the universe is and the world becomes a community as a whole. Generally in group communications, an outside threat is necessary for group unity, but global warming and environmental things are not good enough for the global community. The threat needs a face. An "other." A "them" to battle against us.

I have been waiting for this moment. I have been saying for a while now that the only way for the world to become a comprehensive community and actually get along is if aliens invaded. It's nice to see these thoughts confirmed by experts. Dr. Bosco quotes someone on this subject in his book as well.

Professor Jackson asks in his video if there is anything outside of an alien invasion that can create a true notion of humanity. Perhaps a zombie apocalypse (some sort of global disease scenario) could also bring about a sense of unity, but this is nearly as unlikely as an alien invasion or could even produce the opposite effect and turn everyone against everyone to bring about even more animosity.

Honestly, a world without war just may not be the natural order. In the past 50 to 100 years or so war has become less prevalent and the world population is becoming nearly unsustainable. I'm not saying war is the only factor, but even just the sheer amount of human beings on earth could bring about a war. War seems to be inevitable. Animosity, chaos and power struggles seem to be unavoidable when looking at history. Now that overpopulation is becoming more of an issue, I would not be surprised if this generation sees genocide on a level unmatched by an historical example. Though I certainly hope that this will never happen.

Modified Boomerang Pattern

I briefly mentioned it in my Module 6 paper, but I think there is an element to the boomerang pattern which could be added. The article Activists Beyond Borders by Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink describes how NGOs in a state requiring action on a particular issue can pressure outside NGOs who can then put pressure on international organizations or other governments to demand change from the original state in question. On certain issues, I think the global public can play a role within the pattern and be key to pressuring a state to change its ways.

I believe there are issues which require more than NGO pressure on outside governments or international organizations. For instance, there are some issues which are easier for outside governments to ignore or only pay lip service to. Issues like freedom of the press come to mind where no one is being physically hurt or no single group of people is being repressed based on race, gender, etc. NGOs may be successful in pressuring a world power to condemn issues like free speech violations, but that often isn’t enough to usher in real change. In order to be more effective on certain topics, NGOs could do a better job communicating certain issues to the global public and make them feel inspired to also demand change. NGO pressure backed up by an outraged global public would be more effective in convincing outside governments to take real action. A global public infuriated by a particular event could lead to mass demonstrations or protest groups not necessarily tied to an NGO. These informal groups could be just has meaningful as NGOs in communicating displeasure with an issue. 

Motivating the global public to take an impassioned stand on any particular issue, admittedly, may not be an easy task. However, technology has made it more possible. Social media can be an effective tool to spread awareness of an issue all over the globe in a short amount of time. The Joseph Kony video which flooded Facebook a couple years ago was incredibly effective in outraging people over an event most probably would have never heard of sans that video. It’s impossible to say if the video or public outcry led to government action, but the US military did eventually send troops to hunt Kony. 

The Keck and Sikkink article was written back in 1998 when social media was in its infancy and not nearly as prevalent as it is in 2014. If the two had developed their boomerang pattern now, I wonder if they would have placed any emphasis on the ability of the global public, not just NGOs, to pressure outside governments to act.

NGOs and the Global Public Sphere

There are many different reasons states block redress from NGOs within it. As Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink describe in Activists beyond Borders there is a boomerang pattern many NGOs face. Though NGOs are generally trying to help support a right that is being denied in a state, the state can find many reasons to block this assistance or influence.

                States are autonomous impermeable entities, in other words they want to maintain full control over themselves. Though an NGO may mean well, most states do not like being told what to do and how to do it. States often do not want to be held accountable to an NGO or have this external entity holding any control over internal functions. If an NGO approaches a situation incorrectly this may be sufficient reason for a state to ignore the NGO.

In addition, sometimes a state is funding support for a certain cause. NGO’s at times want to resolve the actual issue and not just continue to supply money with not resolution to the problem. This is the same problem we often face with celebrities when their support of an NGO persuades the general public to donate money to a cause instead of actually supporting, providing awareness and solutions to the problems. Solely providing financial support does not resolve the issue. Often time’s additional training and support is required to actually assist those in need. For example, simply providing financial support to an area that is suffering from hunger will feed them, which resolves the immediate need. However, providing training and supplies to grow crops and develop farms is a longer term solution. If a state is providing funding to “resolve” an issue internally it may not want an NGO coming in and taking over, making the state look as if they could not resolve the issue themselves even while providing financial support.

                Often times a state is more likely to listen to another state than to an NGO. Gaining support from another state or multiple states can empower NGOs to accomplish their goals. When other states agree upon resolving certain problems they can develop and sign pacts. This holds them accountable to fulfilling their goals, accomplishing what the NGOs wanted them to in the first place. Sometimes another state or an intergovernmental organization has the additional pressure required to persuade a state to cooperate with an NGO or at least accomplish the goals set forth by these NGOs. This is why NGOs do not represent a global public sphere, though beneficial to the global public in general.

Global Public

According to Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink in their book, Activists Beyond Borders, at the core of a transnational advocacy network is information exchange. The main goal of a transnational advocacy network is to bring awareness of a specific issue to targeted audiences. These ideas and values that are spread can eventually transition into norms which are then institutionalized by the state through a "spiral" process described in The Power of Human Rights by Thomas Risse, Stephen Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink.

How these groups spread their ideas varies, but the general process remains the same. Groundwork is done to spread the prevalence of an idea or value so there is general public support. Either the domestic population of a state or the group brings the issue to the attention of the government, and the support for the activist group is already in place.

Here the process can take one of two turns depending on the identity of the state. Let's say that a human rights groups is advocating a particular women's rights policy in a country. Whether or not this country is a liberal democracy makes a difference in the reaction of the government. Either they will enter into argumentative discourse, or they will embrace the new idea and (with domestic pressure and support) institutionalize it as a norm.

According to Risse, Ropp and Sikkink, even if a state enters into argumentative discourse, some form of the norm will eventually become institutionalized due to outside pressure, which they call "shaming." Other governments within the "global community" will condemn the offensive state and exclude it from various privileges such as trade, institutional participation, etc. Once this occurs, the state would normally make strategic concessions in order to save face and maintain world status. This begins a slower process of changing state identity to one which encompasses these newly implemented ideas as norms.

This brings me to Professor Jackson's final question for Module 6... Is there a global public sphere? At first I thought that there may only be regional spheres of community due to the differences in culture and values. But perhaps the spread of ideas and their institutionalization as norms may be the beginning of the formation of a global public sphere. The spread of information through the internet and increasingly integrated economies seems to help the world become one global community. Each culture may influence one another until each becomes all encompassing in one complete identity.

This conclusion ignores the issues of state sovereignty and rational self-defense.... Yet if the world were to operate with a "what's best for everyone" mindset, and became one multinational, global public sphere, maybe war and coercion, the use of violence would cease to exist. However, history, and Hobbes, tells us that the natural state of man is one of war. So however utopian a global public sphere would be, it may not really be possible.

Celebrity Diplomats and Development

I found Dieter and Kumar’s article The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected Complexity of Development extremely interesting. As technology and social media expands perception and public acceptance become increasingly important. When a celebrity tries to bring awareness to a cause such as Africa anyone working against them or saying donating money to them is not helpful would certainly receive a huge social media backlash. Though the points may be valid the perception to the general population is an obstacle we must overcome.

I can see why Dieter and Kumar claim celebrity diplomats may in fact be doing more harm than good. When trying to help Africa stand on its own without requiring a steady stream of foreign aid to survive the expression “Give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” comes to mind. Simply providing donations will not resolve the problem where training, support, and awareness is needed. The problem is going against these well-known and liked celebrities is a very difficult task and social media is extremely powerful. Because it looks like these celebrities are doing “good deeds” and what is morally correct, no one stops to question them. No one questions where they are getting their information from or how educated/uneducated they are in development and underdeveloped countries in general.

Working to help Africa develop and providing awareness on areas that require assistance whether humanitarian, political or otherwise is important. However, rather than blindly following celebrity diplomats it is important to actually resolve the problems. Continuously providing the man with fish is not helping him in the long run, once you stop providing the fish he is just as lost as he was before you came along. Certainly, financial assistance will be needed in aiding Africa, however, merely providing supplies for them without actually helping to achieve development strategies will leave Africa in the same position it is in now. It is important to not only develop awareness for other states and areas that require assistance, but equally important to develop awareness in the best way to provide this assistance. If celebrities can provide this kind of awareness then maybe celebrity diplomats will accomplish what they are setting out to do.

Celebrity Diplomats

Living in Los Angeles, I have the “thrill” of seeing D-list celebrities on a semi-regular basis. With Hollywood in my backyard, this week’s articles “Beyond Hollywood and the Boardroom: Celebrity Diplomacy” by Andrew Cooper and “The Downside of Celebrity Diplomacy: The Neglected Complexity of Development” by Heribert Dieter and Rajiv Kumar about were particularly interesting. I was intrigued to see how different their opinions were on the subject. Despite both making excellent points, I found myself more on the side of Dieter and Kumar.

While Cooper makes valid points that celebrities can team up with wealthy businessmen (i.e. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet) to make an impact, I feel development should be left up to the professionals. As both articles mention, we have more and more celebrities trying to get involved with particular causes around the globe but few have the experience or education required to offer effective solutions. Celebrities can certainly use their “star power” to raise awareness for certain causes, but the nitty gritty aspects of development should be handled by experts. Each development situation is different and offers its own challenges. Simply throwing money at an issue often isn’t the solution and has the potential to cause more harm than good. Dieter and Kumar mention how Bono has teamed up with accomplished economist Jeffrey Sachs to tackle development problems in Africa. Both men believe massive amounts of aid is the key to solving issues in Africa. However, as illustrated in The Idealist: Jeffrey Sachs and the Quest to End Poverty by Nina Munk, Sachs’ vision has been unsuccessful. His African “test villages” which received massive amounts of foreign aid ended up falling short of most of the goals originally set by Sachs. Munk shows how there is much more involved with international development than just money.

In addition to celebrities, businesses dedicated to international development have also become more prevalent in recent years. For example, the shoe company Toms pledges to give one pair of shoes to someone in need for every pair of shoes you purchase. This sounds great to the casual consumer, but it’s not the best idea when it comes to international development. Dayo Olopade mentions Toms in her book The Bright Continent: Breaking Rules and Making Change in Modern Africa. She shows how most of the shoes Toms donates to Africa end up in countries where textiles (clothes, shoes, etc) are one of the main industries. With so many free pairs of Toms flooding the market, textile manufactures simply cannot stay in business. Thus, Toms has succeeded in providing people free shoes at the expense of an untold number of jobs in the textile industry. If Toms wanted to commit to making a change in Africa, they could move manufacturing facilities from China to regions in Africa specializing in textiles. By using African manufacturing facilities they may not be able to stick with the “one for one” slogan, but they would be doing much more to help the long term success of African communities.

I am certainly not condemning celebrities or businesses for trying to get involved with international development, but they should know their limits. They must know singing songs or acting in movies doesn’t qualify you as an expert on issues like poverty, AIDS prevention, and genocide. While raising awareness is fantastic, celebrities must stop short of being overly influential and leave solution formation to the experts.