Political and Geo-Political Controversies of the Modern World - Assignment Example

Is globalization changing world politics? Inevitably. The most significant effect of globalization is the free flow of capital across national borders. As a result, there is greater collaboration among business corporations across the world. And the prevalence of corporate-government nexuses has inevitably led to a perceptible change in the nature of political diplomacy and policy initiatives. In many capitalist countries (including the United States), the government is seen as an extension of business, and globalization has made this reality more stark. In terms of political power, the world is seeing the emergence of a new order, with China and India gaining prominence. In fact, these two nations have benefited the most due to globalization, as many jobs in the manufacturing and services industries are outsourced to these destinations due to the cost advantage they provide. How does neo-liberalism build on classical liberalism? The term neo-liberalism is closely linked with the phenomenon of globalization. Classical liberalism is a comprehensive political philosophy that advocates certain forms of social, economic and judicial arrangement of society. Neo-liberalism on the other hand is almost exclusively confined to economic aspects of liberalist philosophy. While classical liberalism originated during the 18th century, neo-liberalism as a world economic phenomenon is seen only during the last few decades. While the origins of neo-liberalism could be traced back to classical liberalism, the connection is not profound. While free-market capitalism is central to both systems, classical liberalism extends much beyond the purely economic realm of neo-liberalism. Is ‘National Interest’ a useful concept for understanding the actions of states? While the term ‘National Interest’ features regularly in political rhetoric, its actual meaning is vague and misleading. To cite an example from contemporary politics, the American led invasion of Iraq is projected by the Bush Administration to be in the interests of Americans and their security. This is not congruent with the fact that American citizens overwhelmingly opposed the war even before it was initiated. The Iraq quagmire has had no beneficial influence for a large majority of American citizens. But certain business corporations, especially those related to the energy industry, including Chevron, Halliburton, Carlyle group, etc have attained record profits. So what was projected as ‘National Interest’ was in reality ‘Corporate Interest’. So, the actions of states, military or diplomatic, are seldom the result of democratic thrust. To the contrary, they tend to be based on ‘Elite Interests’. What are the key causes of war? The most common cause for war is territorial violation by one nation-state on another. It could be less formally termed as invasion, aggression and occupation of another sovereign nation’s territory. But this is a simplistic answer based on technicality. In a much broader sense, nations can engage in war for ideological reasons. For example, from the point of view of Allied powers, the Second World War was a mission to quell the ideology of Fascism. While this particular example is a noble and just cause for war, nations have engaged in war for gaining economic and strategic advantage as well. After all, historically, the notion of war was first conceived by prehistoric tribal communities as a method of usurping and plundering wealth. Is terrorism best described as ‘a tactic of the powerless against the powerful’? Kegley and Wittkopf are quite right in describing terrorism such. If we take instances of acts of terror over the last century, we find that it is inevitably perpetrated by a smaller group/organization/political entity against a much stronger geo-political entity. The Palestinian resistance against Israeli military, the activities of the IRA, the actions of groups such as Al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiah, Hezbolla, etc support the theory that it is a tactic of the relatively powerless and loosely organized group against a better organized and more powerful geo-political entity. It should also be pointed out that terrorism is usually resorted to only when all diplomatic and democratic modes of redressing genuine grievances of the group/community have failed to bring about suitable resolution. In what ways do ‘non-state’ actors represent a challenge to the state system? We are immediately reminded of former American President Eisenhower’s reference to the ‘military-industrial complex’ during his farewell address to the nation. While military is a state actor, industry is largely privately owned. The powers wielded by industries/business corporations can at times match or even overwhelm the constitutionally assigned powers of the Executive branch of government. In this respect, ‘non-state’ factors do present a challenge to democratic governance. It is common knowledge that business corporations fund election campaigns (including here in the UK too). As a result, when a political party comes to power, it is obliged to return favour, which undermines the will of large majority of the population. For example, when the Labour Party won the general election of 1997, Tony Blair’s first foreign visit as Prime Minister was to Australia, which was planned so that he can meet and negotiate with Rupert Murdoch, who is a key media baron in the UK. What is the best explanation for the persistence of income and power gulf between the Global North and the Global South? The Global South comprises of South America, Africa and South Asia. Australia and New Zealand can be treated as exceptions and can be grouped with Global North. What becomes apparent with this classification is that Global South is essentially the ‘Third World’ and historically has taken a backseat to the power struggles between nations in the North. Colonialism is the best explanation for the economic and power disparity between the two geo-political hemispheres. For example, Most of the African continent, the Indian Subcontinent and Latin America were ruled by European imperial powers such as Britain, Spain, Germany, etc for most part of last three centuries. Only after the Second World War has a re-alignment in world power order taken place with erstwhile colonies gaining independence and sovereignty. The period under imperial rule had depleted natural resources and thwarted development of human capital in the Global South, and it will take many more decades to set right the existing power and economic gulf between the two hemispheres. Why is ‘human security’ in tension with ‘national security’? Human security is not always compatible with national security for the primary reason that nation-states are artificial constructs while universality in humanity is a natural concept. Further, actions of government which are in national interests may not necessarily be in the interests of ordinary citizens. Given the looming threat of nuclear warfare, the whole human race could be annihilated if two powerful nations engage in war for ‘national security’. The ineffectiveness of organizations like the United Nations to create conditions of peaceful negotiation between nations has also aggravated the threat to humanity at large. How does the metaphor of the commons explain the global ecological situation? The world today is confronted with an environmental challenge of unprecedented proportion in the form of global warming. The present state of Commons serves as an apt metaphor for the rest of the global ecology. As a result of habitat changes induced by human activity and settlement, the ecological balance everywhere is undermined. As is happening with Commons, when the dependencies manifest in food chain is threatened, it can ultimately lead to the extinction of several species and even the entire ecology. The threat posed to the survival of Bears is an apt metaphor for the global ecological situation. Why is it so difficult to measure power in international relations? Power is a very broad term employed to denote strategic advantages of nation-states in a given world order. Parameters such as military capability, economic strength and geographic location are factored into the measurement of a country’s power. But these parameters don’t remain fixed but rather fluctuate. For example, a nation’s economic prospects could face a setback when it goes through a period of recession. Similarly, with technological advancement of other nations, their military capability also increases. For example, with India and Pakistan making their own nuclear weapons, the balance of power between nations has undergone a change. Hence, due to the dynamic nature of global politics, it is difficult to measure power in international relations. ‘The rise of US hegemony may in time create a more prosperous and peaceful world order. Discuss with reference to geo-political, geo-economic and cultural forces in world politics. The trust and respect for the United States government is steadily on the decline all across the globe. The policies of the present Bush Administration have proved to be highly unpopular both domestically and internationally. The following passages try to analyze the reasons behind such a loss of confidence in the American government and goes on to suggest how this might ultimately lead to a more prosperous and peaceful world order. A few important foreign policy cases are taken to support arguments. The history of American diplomatic and military interventions over the last half a century has led to situation where political stability across nations is at its most fragile. Right through its recent history, America has not hesitated to use force under the pretexts of principles, sovereignty and justice, however questionable these claims might be. American military intervention in world affairs has risen drastically since the end of the Second World War. The period following the Second World War saw America assume the role of a superpower that headed the western coalition in what was a bipolar world. In a way, the cold war period brought an element of balance to world affairs. But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no other power to check American hegemony. This situation has made other nations to increase their expenditure on defense as a measure to counter American military might. We already have Asian countries such as India, China and Pakistan possessing nuclear weapon technology. Iran and North Korea pose a valid threat to American security. These developments can be construed as signs of an emerging world order, where American monopoly on world affairs would be challenged by rising powers in the East. Such an eventuality might provide the necessary counterbalance to American authority and may make the world more peaceful. The European Union is another emerging power conglomerate. Political analysts forecast a tri-polar world in 10-20 years, where Asian and European blocs would grow to challenge American hegemony. In this new world order, the United States would no longer be able to carry out actions of unilateral military aggression without facing counterattacks. The ease with which the United States and its allies invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003 is impossible to conceive in this possible tri-polar world. There are already signs of this emerging reality in the ongoing crisis in Georgia. While American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a token statement condemning Russian aggression against Georgia, no substantial diplomatic efforts were initiated by the American foreign office to mitigate the situation. This is because, the United States needs Russian support in several impending United Nations resolutions and it cannot afford to antagonize this key member of the U.N. Security Council. The sentiments of people outside of the United States in this debate are understandable. For example, there are widespread concerns regarding American hegemony in general and its foreign policies in particular. The adoption of a philosophy of unilateral action made the concerns all the more real. American policies tended to focus heavily on its security. The rationale was that if the only superpower in the world were to be secure, world security as such will advance. This sounds reasonable at a theoretical level. But the actual results tell a different story (Allen, 2003). On the global economic front, there is a perceptible change in power toward developing economies. The Global South, which had wriggled free of European imperialism after the Second World War, has started giving expression to its potential. The World Social Forum, which is representative of the Global South, has been a huge success. The Global South has started asserting itself in negotiations with the Global North. Leading this refreshing change in world polity is such leaders as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Venezuela and Iran being the key to world oil resources, the dominance of the United States is under serious threat. India and China, with their huge human capital, are also joining the chorus against American hegemony. China had historically been immune to American imperialist designs, but its position on the world stage had not been more secure. The relations between the United States and India were not strong during the Cold War period. But ever since, we have witnessed a marked shift in Washington’s policy toward India. It is no coincidence that this political realignment had given birth to a thriving Information Technology industry in India. The economies of both nations are dependent on each other and this is a positive development for world polity. The rise in Islamic fundamentalism is an apparent response to the nihilistic tendencies in American culture. The Middle-East region is the battle ground for this cultural conflict. But, with a Shia Muslim dominated Iran-Iraq-Saudi Arabia coalition looming large, Washington’s control over this strategic region is bound to weaken. So, what we have is the rise of military capability and economic prosperity of erstwhile subordinate regions of the world. The balance of power is still in favour of the United States. But if the present trend continues, the European Union and the Asian bloc will eventually displace America from its superpower status. This would lead to more equitable distribution of wealth across nations. Unilateral acts of aggression, such as the Iraq war of 2003, will also be inconceivable. So, a more peaceful and more prosperous world order is a real possibility in a decade or two. Additional References: Chomsky, Noam., What Uncle Sam Really Wants, First published in 1993. Richard Jackson, “Writing, The War on Terrorism…”, Manchester University Press, published on August 11, 2005, ISBN-10: 0719071216 ISBN-13: 978-0719071218, 240 pages. Hope, David., "Torture" International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53.4 (Oct 2004): 807-832. Chomsky, Noam., Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for Global Dominance., published in 2003. Nye Jr., J S (July-August 2006). Transformational Leadership and U.S. Grand Strategy., Foreign Affairs, 85, 4. p.139. Library of Congress Archives, accessed on 26th August, 2008, from Anderson, R D (Spring 2005)., Lessons from history on the limits of imperialism: Successful small state resistance to great power aggression., Journal of Third World Studies, 22, 1. p.21(20). Daalder, I. H., The Preemptive-War Doctrine Has Met an Early Death in Iraq, Los Angeles Times, 2004. Palmer, Alasdair. "Is torture always wrong? Alasdair Palmer says that our absolute ban on all forms of torture is inconsistent with our acceptance of shoot-to-kill." Spectator 299.9242 (Sept 24, 2005): 40(3).  Harnden, Toby. "Hoping for the worst: Toby Harnden talks to an anti-war journalist who wants to see more Iraqis die--so that Bush will be thrown out in November." Spectator, 295.9171 (May 15, 2004): 26(2).  Cohen, E A (May-June 1994). Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War, Foreign Affairs, 73, n3. p.141(7). Allen, T. (March 1, 2003). Perception is everything: the West talks of a moral case for war, yet Iraqis believe the US has committed grave crimes against them. Terry Allen looks at the battle for truth. (Comment and Analysis)., New Scientist, 177, 2384. p.25(1).  Mould, D H (June 1996). Press pools and military-media relations in the Gulf War: a case study of the Battle of Khafji, January 1991. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 16, n2. p.133(27). Read More