Models of World Order

             The four models of world order are: 1) International Anarchy 2) Global Governance 3) World Hegemon and 4) World State.  The four models are also sub-categorized under the areas of supranational authority(World Hegemon; World State) and no supranational authority (International Anarchy; Global Governance), and effective norms and values (Global Governance; World State) and no norms and values (international Anarchy; World Hegemony). 

                International Anarchy relates to the academic school of international realism because sovereign nation-states remain the main actors on the international stage and continue to pursue their national interests with little or no international authority, as “the model postulates the impossibility or at least the long-term ineffectiveness of universally valid norms and rules in international politics” (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 269).  I do support this model as reality, but I think that the period of history that this model represented has long past and whether it will one day return is currently only worth contemplation.

                Global Governance is an over-optimistic world model which declares the “possibility of sustained cooperation between states and non-state actors on the basis of international and transnational agreement on binding norms and rules” (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 274).  The model of Global Governance views international cooperation as a horizontal structure, instead of a vertical hierarchy established by a superior nation-state power or military-economic hegemon acting as an authoritative international overseer. 

                The World Hegemon model views international organizations as instruments or institutions to establish and maintain world hegemony, whether by a single polar power or by multiple powers.  In this model, a single nation-state or an alliance of nation-states can further their individual economic-political-territorial-military interests through a hegemony that often comes disguised as an international organization using “carrots and sticks” (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 270).

                Economic globalization and true democratic authority through international organizations are the cornerstones of the World State model and are considered to be essential to the process of civilization.  This model seems very far reaching and unattainable in the future because under the guise of international cooperation between nation-states, a power hierarchy will always exist to disrupt true international democracy and equality.  There will never be an inherently ‘good’ and honest democracy as power rules the international stage, the actors involved and the human element.

                When I view and contemplate which model is the most realistic model of world order, the only plausible choice is the model of world hegemony.  I clearly see a collective hegemony, each individually interested in individual nation-state interests, very precisely established in the United Nations Security Council.  I believe the victors of WWI attempted to set up a world state model on the international stage with the failed League of Nations, but after a second war and the realization that a world state model was impossible, the United Nations and the UN Security Council was established under a world hegemony model and has been successful in holding a collective hegemon for over 60 years (though I do not think it will last for another 100 years).

                I just do not see how anyone could look at the UN as anything other than a perfect example of the World Hegemony model.

Kruck, Rittberger, & Zangl, International Organization, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 268-278.

 

European Human Rights and Global Human Rights

The reason why human rights in regional Europe developed in a more progressive manner, over the past 35 years, compared to the global human rights system of the United Nations since 1945 is due in large part to the end of the Cold war and the expansion of western capital into the European eastern bloc. The Helsinki Final Act established in 1975 was broadly about political and economic issues of bringing the post-Soviet satellite nation-states into the world economy, but also “included human rights provisions” and established “fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief” (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 247). It should be noted that although the political principals of opening the eastern bloc to western markets were the main structure at work, the influencing efforts by the Human Rights Watch and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe played an intricate part in inserting the final human rights achievements into the final 1975 act.

The United Nations, while accredited with being the example for the Helsinki framework concerning human rights, is not able to fulfill the standards they set as a global organization due to the realist identification of nation-state interests. The permanent members of the UN Security Council have veto power which allows certain members to veto resolutions which condemn accused human rights violators if the economic or political circumstances demand it. I have used the example many times in the first six weeks of this course, but many nation-states in the UN General Assembly have viewed, and proposed resolutions of condemnation concerning, Israeli military aggression toward the Palestinians, which have included many civilian deaths during those aggressions, only to see the resolutions automatically vetoed by the United States due to economic and political ties with Israel.
The result of Europe being the main battlefield of WWII and the atrocities of the Holocaust, Europe was very sensitive to the issues of human rights through their first hand experiences. Western Europe created the Council of Europe which formed an institutional frame for protecting human rights. In 1950, the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was signed and in 1961 the European Social Charter was signed, which guaranteed that citizens of signatory member-states would be assured of equal housing, economic rights, and legal rights.

Can you remember what was occurring in the United States in the 1960s?

Interestingly, the supervision of human rights in Europe under the Council of Europe, compared to the politically bias and hypocritical monitoring of global human rights by the UN, requires each member state to submit a written report every two years on their human rights commitments which is not exclusively government written, but also includes input from trade unions and employment organizations reviewed by a Committee of Experts. Unlike the UN, individuals as well as nation-states are allowed to file complaints.

Kruck, Rittberger, & Zangl, International Organization, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 248-248.

International Organization Interdependence and Human Rights

“The existence of such international moral interdependencies crucially depends on the activities of transnational networks of human rights organizations which construct local human rights violations as global problems which require governance beyond the nation-state.” (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 242)

The United States can ensure (and contain through sometime dishonest justifications) their domestic civil rights just as the European Council is able to ensure and contain so-called human rights regionally, but as far as global human rights exist, the international organizations (and nation-states) on the global stage fall under rank order beneath the United Nations hegemon of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Global human rights and humanitarian efforts can only be achieved as long as they do not infringe upon the economic, military and political interests of these five nation-states or their allies (both nation-state and private sector) in political and economic interests.

International non-governmental organizations, civil society actors such as Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch, often generate useful information on alleged human rights violations in nation-states. Depending on the political and economic interests of the permanent members of the Security Council, information generated by civil society actors can either be utilized as international propaganda to gain international support for sanctions and possible military action, such as what occurred in Libya, or can be simply ignored due to differing interests within the permanent Security Council member-states, such is the current case with Syria and has long been the case with Israeli military aggression against the Palestinians.

“The preamble of the UN Charter reaffirms ‘faith’ in fundamental human rights, the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small” (Kruck, Rittberger and Zangl, 243)

The United Nations charter is empty of sincerity and is complete hypocrisy. There can be no true framework for global human rights if those rights only exist for some, not all. How can it be viewed otherwise? A prime example of this hypocrisy was in 2011 when the United States, one of the most powerful permanent members of the UN Security Council, boycotted the UN sponsored Durban World Conference on Racism in 2011 because the conference would address Israeli human rights allegations.  If this hypocrisy concerning human rights is so openly displayed for all nation-states to see, then why even pretend there is a Santa Clause?

In short form, IOs and NGOs can apply pressure and provide information, statistics and proposals to the main IGO (UN) for human rights issues and the UN can use that information in earnest efforts to affirm human rights, use the information for to gather international support for corrupt political aims, or simply ignore the information altogether.

Kruck, Rittberger, & Zangl, International Organization, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

U.S. Boycott of UN Durban Conference on Racism

 

U.S. Boycott of UN Durban Conference on Racism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhP_gWP0BMU

The selected link covers the United States’ boycott of the UN Durban Conference Against Racism in 2009 due to predicted criticism toward the nation-state of Israel (a Jewish state: a Jewish person is an ethnicity) for repeated aggressions against the Palestinian people, illegal settlements on confiscated land, and overall human rights violations). Again, we see just how influential the nation-state of Israel is, through their pro-Israeli lobbyist efforts on American representative democracy, by the actions of the United States actions across the international stage.

The public justification for the U.S. boycott was over the use of the word ‘Zionism’ in one of the Durban conference documents. Israel, and therefore the United States, did not want Zionism to be referred to as a racist terminology. Oddly enough, in 1975 the United Nations General Assembly resolution 3379 declared Zionism a form of racism.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/000/92/IMG/NR000092.pdf?OpenElement

Of course, this resolution was revoked in 1991 by resolution 4686.

The issue and point here is that if the permanent members of the UN Security council play favorites, especially the United States, and walk out on every leader or conference that criticizes Israel’s actions, such as they do every year when President Ahmadinejad speaks at the UN General Assembly, what is the point of having any UN programs aimed at human rights? If it is not open dialect and human rights efforts for all, what is the point of having these programs at some and ignored when it concerns others?

Realist Prespective: Post-Cold War, The Collapse of the Soviet Union, Military Hegemony of the U.S. and the era of mass private globalization

Looking at the historical decade between the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the new millennium, the sudden polar shift after the collapse of the Soviet Union created a Tsunami of capitalism that flowed east and southward within the classical realist perspective of nation-state actors seeking to elevate and protect their own interests.  For the United States, the interests were not only national interests; they were the interests of private sector capitalism. 

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the international stage was balanced by two world nation-state powers, the Capitalist United States and the Communist Soviet Union.  Once the Soviet Union collapsed leaving the United States as an unchallenged hegemonic power, the United States and her lesser allies instantly began to expand global private sector markets further east and south.  In 1990, after the ‘2+4 Talks’, Germany was reunified after the destruction of the Berlin Wall and, along with Hungary and Poland, was opened for Western capital investment and the Eastern expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  American private capital was already in the oil fields of Kuwait, which had been a British Protectorate prior to 1961, so the U.S. was required to defend Kuwait’s so-called independence from Iraq, which claimed Kuwait as part of Iraq, after a border dispute concerning oil procurement that led to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.   In 1994, American capitalist interests expanded south with the invasion of Haiti and the subsequent passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.  As the sole international hegemon during the 1990s, the United States promised to spread freedom and democracy through military operations in several areas such as Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo, but in reality it was the natural resources and the open market that the private sector behind the capitalist superpower desired.  Once the balance of power between the Soviet Union and the United States was gone, the United States was the largest military power on the international stage and private sector capitalism began a ruthless expansion, with no nation-state resistance capable of challenging U.S. military might. 

From a realist perspective, the U.S. acted in its own interest by spreading the private sector and opening global markets through military interventions.  The post-WWII allies of the United States acted in their own interests by supporting the lone major nation-state superpower in expanding the free market while left-over satellite states of the former Soviet Union and the underdeveloped post-colonial nation-state governments in Africa had no choice but to except economic crumbs and allow the free market of capitalism in to exploit their natural resources; or risk being replaced by U.S. military intervention.  The 1990s not only saw a shift from bi-polar to unipolar nation-state power, it saw the beginning of mass capital globalization and a multi-polar private sector balancing of power sweeping across the globe under the protection of one superpower.

Bibliography

BBC News Middle East.  Kuwait Profile.  (Accessed on December 15, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14647211)

Henry Nau. Perspectives on International Relations. 3rd ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2012), 261-284.

NATO Review.  Germany’s Accession to NATO: 50 Years On.  2005.  (Accessed on December 15, 2012 from http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2005/germany_eng.pdf)

North American Free Trade Agreement.  January 1, 1994.  (Accessed December 15, 2012 from http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/view.aspx?x=343).

U.S. Department of State Archives.  1989-200 Post Cold War Era.  (Accessed December 15, 2012 from http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/pcw/index.htm)

 

International Polarity, Balance of Power, the Cold War and the War on Terror

Polarity has always been an important element of the international stage. A balance of power is impossible without multi-polar or, at a minimum, bi-polar power structures. During the decades of Cold War, the United States painted the Soviet Union and their nation-state allies as evil communists who were hell bent on taking over the world. We have already studied how the balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union sparked massive arms races, bolstered the space race, and was overall very economically productive for international private sector banking systems, arms manufacturing corporations, military manufacturing corporations, space technology manufacturing, manufacturing of production parts, and many other areas of profitable procurement from capital production. The evil communist empire was an actual nation-state with borders and a government system, which eventually collapsed and ended the bi-polar balance of power (which was so profitable to so many private sectors) which had lasted over three decades.

During the sole polarity era that the U.S. stood as the only world hegemonic superpower, it wasn’t until the attacks of 9-11 an opportunity presented itself to reestablish an international power balance which would increase profitable arms manufacturing and production, military vehicle production, manufacturing parts production, international banking loans, construction, and a score of other private sector areas that profit from a balance of polarity (or the fear of an enemy that creates one). The decade long military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been extremely profitable for the private sector. In the so-called war on terror, the opposing polarity has no physical nation-borders or government expenses (that could collapse like the Soviet Union). It was simply a phantom enemy menace, that could never physically collapse, which required extensive military preparation, intervention and occupation in multiple nation-states as well as domestically The profits off manufacturing, construction and arms (and multiple other areas) achievable by the private sector in such a balance of polar powers are potentially limitless.

Even though the historical period was pre-industrialization and capitalism, the same bi-polar political-religious balancing can be seen during the Crusades led by the Holy Roman Empire.

Farrell, Paul B. War, Terror, Catastrophe: Profiting From ‘Disaster Capital’. Dow Jones Business News, October 16, 2007. (Accessed on December 13, 2012 from http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/profiting-disaster-capitalism)

Kidwell, Doborah C. Public War, Private Fight? The United States and Private Military Companies. Combat Studies Institute Press, Leavenworth, Kansas (Accessed on December 13, 2012 from http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/kidwell.pdf)

Dowdy & Erdmann. Private Sector Development in Afghanistan: The Doubly Missing Middle. (Accessed on December 13, 2012 from http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/aerospace_and_defense/people/~/media/8BA7705D2083435BAB3654EA60CAF320.ashx) Investing in Afghanistan.

The Embassy of Afghanistan, Washington, D.C. (Accessed on December 13, 2012 from http://www.embassyofafghanistan.org/page/investing-in-afghanistan)

If you were an international organization with 50 billion dollars over 4 years, which human problems would you address?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

I watched the speech by Bjorn Lomborg and took interest in how the largest world problems were ranked by the Copenhagen Consensus according to the cost efficiency of addressing those problems, and the fact that climate change was ranked near the bottom of the list. As Bjorn instructs his audience, I followed instructions and choose my areas to invest the hypothetical 50 billion dollars. As an IO, the three areas I selected to address were: the 800 million people starving, the 2 billion people lacking sanitation, and the 140 million illiterate adults. Why did I select these areas over the other problem areas? I felt as with the hypothetically provided economic assistance in these areas that the nation-state governments being assisted could possibly regulate the humanitarian efforts on prevention and treatment, instead of allowing foreign capital investment to infringe into the equation offering short-term solutions that would create more debt, strip natural resources and cause even worse levels of the existing problems in the long term.

I agreed with Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus that prevention is more cost efficient and advantageous for the future in these problem areas than treatment, but looking at the top 4 ‘best problems’ that the panel of economists found to address (HIV/AIDS, Malnutrition, Free Trade and poverty, and Malaria), I could not help but struggle to think of ways to keep the private sector out:

HIV/AIDs: Perhaps prevention techniques may help somewhat, but the private sector owns the medical equipment and technologies, the production and capital to mass produce required medicines, and contraceptive technologies.

Malnutrition and Poverty (free trade): we have already studied how the IMF, World Bank and WTO have the capitalist global system on lock down. These international partners will not help a nation-state unless loan conditions clear a path for private sector investment profits and the stripping of natural resources are part of the deal. If you are not a member of these hegemonic IOs and IGOs, you are left isolated in the global cold.

Malaria: Again the private sector has a monopoly on most medical technologies and poverty stricken nation-states do not have the capital to build hospitals or obtain technology (unless they receive international loans with conditions).

The realistic truth is that 50 billion dollars over a four year period is not going to make much positive change as long as the United States is issuing out between 52 to 60 billion dollars in “so-called” aid across the globe to achieve and protect political and economic interests. Foreign aid is not only conducted in this manner by the U.S., it is also conducted by members of the European Union and the members of the UN Security Council to protect their nation-state interests. As an IO, you could do your best to invest the 50 billion dollars in humanitarian causes for the future of the planet, but with the global, political and economic hegemon of the United Nations security council member states unchallengeable, as soon as those humanitarian efforts began to conflict with privatized international capital interests or political government alliances (which could come in many forms: protection of GDP and domestic exports, influence on member states from domestic or international corporations or organizations, protection of regional military hegemonies, or endless other political/economic possibilities), your efforts will more than likely be blocked from success, economically strangled or out-funded, slandered within the international public perspective, condemned, or outlawed internationally by a UN resolution). To do the most humanitarian good for the most inexpensive cost within the international global system, it would be most productive to spend the 50 billion dollars in an area where there are no capital interests involved at all (if that is even possible).

Copenhagen Consensus Project Website. (Accessed on December 12, 2012 from http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=1623)

Lomborg, Bjorn. Global Priorities Bigger Than Climate Change. (Accessed on December 12, 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs)