Why Global Problems Require Global Solutions - Essay Example

International Political Economics Name Course Tutor Date International Political Economics Introduction “Global problems require global solutions. We are faced with an environment where unilateralism often prevails, yet we face a conundrum in that all aspects of economic policy require collective action in order to be effective.” With competition increasing in every sector of the economy, businesses have realized they can no longer rely on domestic markets. As such, globalization has increased tremendously. Similarly, not every country can provide every needs of its people so they have to depend on exports to satisfy the need of its people (Mohammed, 2011, p.308). Some countries within have realized they can only solve economic challenges when they come together. Therefore, countries have formed economic blocks to reduce trade barriers and enhance economic activities (Feffer & Ehrenreich, 2003). This essay therefore, supports the statement stating that global problems need global solution. Countries experiencing economic challenges such as unemployment, poverty, poor infrastructure, etc. may not embrace unilateralism. For that reason, this essay will also argue for multilateralism. Multilateralism: Why the global problems require global solutions Based on International political economics, Multilateralism is defined as an economic policy involving more than two nations (Todd, 2004, p.318). Multilateralism, in the membership form in an alliances situation or in global institutions, is essential to unite the great power, put off unilateralism, and bestow a voice and voting powers to developing countries that they would not have. On the other hand, unilateralism is an agenda or agenda which supports one-sided activity (Leigh & Debra, 2002, p.8). Such activity could ignore other parties, or as expressions of a dedication towards a direction that other parties could find good. According to Feffer & Ehrenreich (2003) Unilateralism has its long history in the US. This doctrine has been criticized for being bringing divided countries which make economic policies which suit them alone. Ezeani (2013, p.274) argues that one of such economic policy is the US protectionism which created tariff and differ tarries to trade with other countries. However, increased world economic problems increased need for multilateralism. In that way, International trade has become common in the current business environment. No nation can fulfill everything of its citizen’s needs because of lees capabilities and limited resources (Keohane, Macedo & Moravcsik, 2009, p.7). The global shortage of capabilities and resource need global solutions. There is a need for collaborations between countries, particularly in this globalization era. A nation can export and import its goods or services to other nations or from other nations. Leigh & Debra (2002, p.11) claims that this can be conducted through multilateral trade agreements in which by two or more nation agrees on trade on trade issues despite of their developmental level. These forms Agreements aim to remove trade barriers and enhance the movement of the factors of production, including persons, services, goods and investments in these countries (Arndt, 2013, p.13). These two methods have aninfluence on trade when developing countries get into trade agreement with the EU nations. Ezeani (2013, p.227) contends that in the globalization era that people live in, it is irrational to think that a country can independently undergo the complex diplomatic problems which exist. One of the major multilateral economic agreements is World Trade Organization (WTO), which succeeded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which forms the major forum by which governments can agree and can settle rows concerning trade. Ezeani (2013, p.276) argues that this organization was formed so as to get rid of quotas and reduce tariffs. The fundamental principle of WTO was to prevent any form of unfairness which takes place when conducting trade by making every member countries to uniformly open its market places to each member country. For instance, in most cases, developed countries take advantage of the developing nations; WTO was set up to remove this economic unfairness and increase global economic productivity (Mohammed, 2011, p.309). The WTO set rules and structures of global economic policy, offering stability for its members’ commerce (Todd, 2004, p.319). Russia offers a great example of the economic and political considerations countries face that desire to join the economic bloc. The last great economic factor to join World Trade Organization, which it achieved in 2012; the reality is that Russia spent nearly two decades bargaining its accession into this organization (Mylonas & Yorulmazlar, 2012). Moscow adopted essential custom reforms rather fast when it initially started it negotiations in 1993; however the government was hesitant to lessen state control of the gas and oil sector. The WTO report of 2013 claims that insufficient intellectual property rights protection, also harmed its candidacy (Arndt, 2013, p.13). Cha (2010, p.166) asserts that even though, the U.S. presidents employed a built-in waiver to stand in a way of the regulation from 1994 until 2012, the Congress revoked it, a new step was introduced which intended to deny human rights violators in Russia the opportunity. Still, the economic reasons won out, and Russia's membership is projected to promote the nation's GDP by 3.3% ($49 billion) within medium-term and 11% in a long-term (Cha, 2010, p.167). The global economic crisis of 2008 witnessed a regeneration of multilateral doctrines. First, it worked as a medium for reinvention of G7 to G20, which saw a transformation in its membership numbers and its shift from a meeting of central bankers and finance ministers to include heads of states (Mohammed, 2011, p.309). The International Monetary Fund was also restructured to better echo changes in the international economy. Equally, regulators from the 27 nations created new rules, referred to as Basel III, in an attempt to stop the same crises in the future (Mylonas & Yorulmazlar, 2012). However, despite these endeavors, reducing financial risk and managing international economic policy still remains a concern. Arndt (2013, p.15) posits that the global economic crisis solidified the idea that current’s problems cannot be tackled without the creation of multilateral agreement and without involvement of rising markets, and hence the G7 was developed to comprise some major emerging markets, consisting of China, Brazil, South Korea and India. Although the G20 has not been able to tackle destabilizing forces in the international economy, like global imbalances created between deficit and surplus nations, the G20’s restructure however has been a positive move for global economic policies (Arndt, 2013, p.16). In the period of the global economic crisis between 2007 and 2009 economic policy was comprehensively employed as a tool of stabilization (Ezeani, 2013, p.281). Policymakers permitted a great increase of public debt, emerging from both discretionary and automatic expansionary steps. All through the 1990’s, the US depended basically on foreign policies anchored in multilateral endeavors; however, indications of unilateralism started to come up in 2002 when they started planning of war in Iraq (Todd, 2004). This weakened their economic policy with the east since they began looking at the US as aggressive towards the region. In a structure of the US national security approach, the current government made it obvious that it was not bound by current international agreements, and they felt it was prerogative for them to defend itself from identified threats even though the international community and social groups did not trust such threats were genuine to call for such action (Herald, 2003). Back to G G20; this group was primarily helpful in getting together the major economies of the world to offer coordinated economic stimuli to their different economies, which stopped the getting the 2008 crisis deeper. This group also minimized beggar-thy-neighbor practices in currency and trade, even though Global Trade Alert exposed G20 member countries in taking part in trade protectionism (Keohane, Macedo & Moravcsik, 2009, p.12). Additionally, at the time of crisis, the IMF’s members, with the leading committee of G20, reached an agreement to increase the lending capacity of IMF by nearly threefold. In the same way, member countries increased the World Bank’s capital by means of both selective and general capital (Mohammed, 2011, p.309). These were inadequate and imperfect reforms, but they eventually demonstrated the need for depending on multilateralism concepts as platforms for exchange and knowledge generation and as lenders of last resort. (Mohammed, 2011, p.308) claims one of the major cases of the economic crisis of 2008 was that recoiling to isolationism and lack of collaboration can enable things to get worse. Some scholars argue that due to the US unilateral nature, it has lost a lot of funds and resources fighting in Iraq; the resources and funds that would have been were committed global humanitarian organizations looking to enhance the standard of living globally. The experts maintain the US could have fully funded global anti-hunger activities for six years. Such action would have eventually benefited the US interests in decreasing terrorism by assisting to eradicate the economic and social reasons which inspire dispossessed young people to go violence. It is indisputable that poverty holds a major role in creating breeding grounds for the terror organizations, particularly when people are faced with the unbelievable excesses of the US (Kippner). In Dude Where’s My Country, Michael Moore claims this point brilliantly, stating that, “Effective security comes from making sure that every person, in their surroundings and around the world are capable of meeting basic needs (Moore, 2003). At least, other countries must persuade the US to embrace multilateralism to stop robbing youth that dream (Moore, 2003). Unluckily, this is an idea which the Bush Administration did not grasp. According to Keohane, Macedo & Moravcsik (2009, p.21) Economists at argues that whilst war spending could assist the economy at first, eventually will probably lead to a period of economic challenges entailing a high inflation and expanded trade deficit. Coupled with The US government tax cuts, the cost of the Iraq war had considerable long-term negative impacts on the economy of the government (Cha, 2010, p.167). Despite of less support for the multilateralism, the Obama government has assumed bold steps to improve its relations with the emerging markets. Emulating multilateralism can help solve the world problem of unemployment. Just as mentioned before, this concept promotes cooperation between member countries, remove movement barriers and one door for people of one country to go look for employment in another country (Arndt, 2013, p.14). The US government has been criticized for adopting unilateralism, creating protectionist yet some of its citizens are suffering from unemployment. Ezeani (2013, p.283) affirms that even in the period of the boom years in early and mid 1980s, the US economy had complexity creating 2 million jobs annually. Globally, in 30 years the number of jobless people in the developing countries stands at 1.1 billion and is projected that it will similar to the population of the developed countries (Mylonas & Yorulmazlar, 2012). If the emerging powers are to incorporate the born new children into the labor force, they will be forced to create 40 million jobs every year averagely for the predictable future against an entire labor force of nearly 2 billion presently and 3 billion in the next 10 years (Mylonas & Yorulmazlar, 2012). The US past regimes has been disparaged on for being self-centered and with no regard for various factors affecting different countries. For instance, the past Bush administration refused to shift from its unilateralist “our way or highway” stand on economic issues which results to social problems (Mohammed, 2011, p.308). Despite or perhaps owing to its stance as the basic generator of greenhouse gases in the world, the US criticized the reality behind the policy set by Kyoto Protocol (Cha, 2010, p.167). Whilst 160 officers from different administrations met to strategize towards the solution of global warming, the US government, publicly doubted the risk of climate change, and never supported the Kyoto Protocol or did not plan on, believed in its objectives agreed upon (Cha, 2010, p.167). In fact, then executive director of Environmental Defense, Ken Krupp, stated that, "The Bush government's strategy on oil and gas exploration and ignored the effects industries smoke and global warming; a situation which left the U.S. more and more isolated from the united world against the problem (Diamond, 2004). When campaigning for presidency in 2008, Obama promised to restore the deteriorated multilateral structure the US had created after on several economic, social and political issues. Conclusion Even though, sovereignty as unilateralism, no country can survive on its own in the face of global problems. Overall, the global problems have ring bell on the eyes policymakers of the significance of multilateral support to govern and solve world problems, including economic crises, poverty and unemployment. All these challenges call for the need of countries and global organizations to enable that cooperation. This is not a light issue, as history hark back at us that the options of isolationism or withdrawing from multilateral blocs has several disadvantages. Numerous friendly nations that the US arrogantly disparaged and ignored have demonstrated a readiness to welcome back the US with openness. As several European leaders have steered clear, they understand the significance of multilateralism, as the only way most global problems can be solved. References Arndt, M. (2013). India's Foreign Policy and Regional Multilateralism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Cha, V.D. (2010). Powerplay: Origins of the US alliance system in Asia. International Security 34(3):, 166-167 Diamond, T. (2004). US unilateralism fuels great power rivalry in Central Asia. Retrieved 20th April 2013 from www.eurasianet.org Ezeani, E. (2013). WTO post Doha: trade deadlocks and protectionism. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 12, 272-288 Feffer, J. & Ehrenreich, B. (2003). U Power Trip: U.S. Unilateralism and Global Strategy After September 11. Seven Stories Press. Herald, K. (2003). UN Relevance and US Unilateralism. Retrieved 20th April 2013 from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.kashmirherald.com/f eaturedarticle/unrelevance.html Keohane, R.O., Macedo, S. & Moravcsik, R. (2009). Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism. International Organization 63, 1–31. Leigh, D. & Debra, J. (2002). Multilateralism, bilateralism and unilateralism: a critical commentary on the EU’s triple-track approach to the international dimension of competition policy. European Business Review, 14, 7-19 . Mohammed, E.S. (2011). Developing Countries and the Multilateral Trade Regime. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 1(3), 308 – 309. Moore, M. (2003). Dude, Where’s My Country? New York: Time Warner Book Group. Mylonas, H. & Yorulmazlar, E. (2012). Regional multilateralism: The next paradigm in global affairs. CNN. Todd, D. (2004). Taiwan's Application to GATT/WTO: Significance of Multilateralism for an Unrecognized State. International Journal of Social Economics, 3, 318 – 320 Read More