Disaggregated Sovereignty by Anne Marie Slaughter - Coursework Example

Slaughter (2004) has postulated a grand idea of formulating ‘a global transgovernmental constitution’ (Slaughter 2004 p.190). This constitution requires the input of all the stakeholders of life within the nations of the world. It requires an effective networking of these stakeholders. Slaughter (2004) highlighted the present ineffectiveness of ‘global governance’ and suggested possible solutions to these inefficiencies (Slaughter 2004 p.159). For the author of this paper these suggestions for a more effective networking of the nations will not materialize until there is an equalization of power amongst the nation of the earth. Is it possible for each nation to believe that the other has the right to exist without interference of another? Is it possible for a nation to observe the wealth of another and be contented to remain without essential resources whilst the other nation prospers? Is it possible for the governments of the first world to leave the operations of third world in their own hands? The author of this paper believes that the answers to these questions are all in the negative. Not until the rulers of these super powers begin to accept that the smaller and less developed nations have a right to exist there can be no equitable ‘global governance’ (Slaughter 2004 p.159). Throughout this reading, the question that overrides all others is, ‘Can a nation be neutral in its operation?’ Neutrality implies that one is willing to forego one’s inherent cultural beliefs in order to accommodate the cultural differences of another. Perhaps it may be possible to be neutral to a certain extent to the nations for which one country may have respect but the power hunger that appears to have consumed certain nations would in no way be curtailed to accommodate a lesser nation or one that is not in high esteem. Thus, one can conclude that it is absolutely impossible for a nation to be totally neutral. Further, Slaughter suggests that in order to advance the accountability level of government networks to their local people it would be necessary for the individual governments to have ‘two faces, internal and external, but they still have only one audience’ (Slaughter 2004 p.172). Her second suggestion for accountability involved allowing the activities of the governments to become as ‘visible as possible’. Thus, he suggested the creation of a ‘virtual space’ (Slaughter 2004 p.172). But how can one ensure that this ‘virtual space’ would not be contaminated by the interference of those that regard themselves as the higher power. These are the countries that would undoubtedly have access to greater technology both in terms of physical and human resource. Slaughter desires a good thing in his quest for equity in global networking but this author does not see anyway for equity to occur. The world seems to run on the notion that some are more equal than others and so the author is rather skeptical about any kind of positive outcome to this request by Slaughter. Therefore, I would like to end this discussion by repeating a phrase from Slaughter herself, ‘having a voice in collective discussions is better than being silenced by exclusion, but it does not guarantee that you will be heard’ (Slaughter 2004 p.172). O’Rourke (2005) highlights the role of NGOs in today’s dynamic market. These NGOs claim that they are in the process of developing and conducting market campaigns which are aimed at reducing consumers’ consumption of inappropriate or environmentally unfriendly products. They propose to utilize market campaigns to motivate consumers to purchase newer and more environmentally appropriate products. The NGOs insist that their market campaigns are based on research and dissemination of credible data. Interestingly, the NGOs utilize negative information in their critiquing of certain brands whilst simultaneously using positive information to create ‘new markets for improved products’ (O’Rourke 2005 p.117). What is of concern to the author of this paper is the extent to which the NGOs would be willing to ensure that there is no bias in the information that is received on the offending organization? In my mind it appears that at any time a member of this NGO may be willing to doctor research data to give credibility to a particular organization versus another. In other words, who will police the NGOs for neutrality and credibility? The author is amazed to note that these NGOs appear to be the voice of a concerned organization but are they affiliated to some of these same organizations that refuse to operate and produce products in an environmentally stable environment? Or are these NGOs affiliated to an organization that falsely claims to be producing ‘greener’ products (O’Rourke 2005 p.116)? What are we to do from a consumers’ point of view? Should we believe these NGOs as we formerly believed the governmental organization before them? These agencies proved to lack credibility after a while. Hence it is necessary to adopt a wait and see approach for time to determine whether these NGOs are trust worthy. In the interim consumers are confused about which standard and markets should receive their loyalty. (O’Rourke 2005 p.126) Notably, O’Rourke observed that consumers orally express a desire to purchase ‘greener’ products (O’Rourke 2005 p.116). However, researchers have discovered that these same consumers who insist that they would refuse to purchase products with a negative connotation in reality were the ones who gave credence to the market for the inappropriate products. They were only unwilling to purchase if there was a specific ‘bad news’ about the practices of an organization (O’Rourke 2005 p.118). O’Rourke asserts that consumers will only buy the ‘greener product’ if its cost was less than another brand and if it comes from a trusted brand. In short the greener product must not cause the consumer to deviate from their habitual purchasing location, ‘quality, performance and endurance’ level (O’Rourke 2005 p.118). Kirsch (2007) highlighted the plight of the indigenous and dare I say the plight of all individuals who are considered as uneducated, sub human or unworthy of acknowledgement. For the author of this paper, Kirsch directs his readers to the fact that one individual no matter how insignificant has the power to change the way in which their lives operate. The indigenous people of Ok Tedi were able to turn the tables around to their potential advantage. Kirsch (2007) referred to the Ok Tedi campaign. In this campaign he notes ‘as long as the protests against the Ok Tedi mine remained local, however, they failed to achieve their objective’ (Kirsch 2007 p.305). It was only after this campaign escalated to global level that an appropriate solution was put forward but by then it was too late to save the resources of the indigenous people. The author of this paper is alert to the fact that although it was only after the case was thrown into the international arena that the Ok Tedi campaign was successful one should remember that it all began with one voice crying out for justice at the local level. It is possible for one to make a difference. It must begin with one vision to make a change. Another issue which was particularly unnerving was the constant debate over the necessity of choosing between an environment that was safe for the indigenous people and monetary gain. Of note is that the environment that multinationals continue to abuse and pollute for their own profitability affects not just the underdeveloped nations in which these toxic wastes are dumped but it ultimately affects every human being under the sun. Perhaps it is time that the ‘uneducated’ enlighten the powers that be about the far reaching effect of pollution in one tiny spot of the earth (Kirsch 2007 p. 307). What is more, this issue of environment versus money is the question of whether it is possible to have one’s cake and eat it too. In the case of Ok Tedi it was definitely obvious that you cannot have monetary gain without a total destruction/ depletion of your resources. Similarly, one cannot maintain what is considered to be a pure environment and still have access to money for use of its resources. It is one or the other; consumers worldwide are charged with the responsibility of choosing between the environment and the negative effects of globalization. The cry of a local organization is not as effective as the cry of an entire body whether it be indigenous or otherwise for their voice and their choice to be valued in the international arena. Works Cited Kirsch, Stuart. “Indigenous movements and the risks of counter globalization: Tracking the campaign against Papua New Guinea’s Ok Tedi mine.” American Ethnologist 34.2 (2007): 303-321 O’Rourke, Dara. “Nongovernmental Organization Strategies to Influence Global Production and Consumption.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 9.1–2 (2005): 115-128. Slaughter Anne-Marie. “Disaggregated Sovereignty: Towards the Public Accountability of Global Government Networks.” Government and Opposition Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Read More