International Relations - Essay Example

? GOVERNANCE, S AND THE GLOBAL POLITICAL ECONOMY CRITICALLY ASSESS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AND SOCIAL JUSTICE AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE FEB 7TH 2014 Introduction International relations have evolved systematically over the past century. At the end of the 19th Century, most nations in Europe and North America were organised into individual states that had various imperialist ideologies and desires (Watson, 1989). Based on these foundations, nations sought to fight to keep their interests and protect their desires and expectations. The division of the modern nations in the early 1900s laid the foundations for the most extensive and most destructive wars in history – the two World Wars. After the World Wars, the United Nations emerged as the main custodian and authority for the attainment and protection of human rights and regulation of affairs between nations (Robbins, 2012). The new world order after 1945 led to the rapid decolonisation of nations in the developing world – Africa, Latin America and Asia that were under the rule of the imperialist powers. After this process, most nations had issues and problems with their nations and their economies because they lacked the capacity and competency to build important and relevant systems that ensured continuous prosperity amongst their citizens (Watson, 1989). These nations in the southern continents were kept stagnant with little or no development during the colonial days. Thus, after independence, most of these nations had major challenges with a huge number of unskilled people, illiteracy and a general lack of infrastructure (Watson, 1989) Generally, the new world order that was put in place after the Second World War provided unprecedented prosperity to the highest numbers of people around the world. This has led to massive prosperity amongst rich industrialised nations. Other nations, particularly in Asia and Latin America like South Korea, Singapore, Israel and Argentina have emerged from ‘backwardness’ and poverty into modern nations that have structures that can rival the international successes of powerful imperialist nations like Britain and France. In spite of the benefits that the new international order has brought, there are some nations that have moved in the opposite direction in terms of economic advancement. This includes some nations that have waxed poor over the past decades and this reflects a high degree of contrast that exists between the nations. An example of such nations is Ghana which was fairly prosperous under British rule but fell into the stray-jacket of the Cold War and became a virtually failed state (Watson, 1989). This indicates clearly that most nations that have the highest levels of poverty have some structures and systems that are not working right. These nations had major issues and problems with governance, corruption and control of assets in the mostly welfare-oriented nations (Wade, 2010). This implies that the governments and internal structures have major issues that need to be resolved. There is therefore the need for the international community to play an active role in promoting some kind of social justice and demand an equitable distribution of wealth throughout the world. This paper discusses the relationship between social justice and global governance with a specific emphasis on poverty reduction. This will involve a critical review of the elements of global governance, the identification of the ideal methods of dealing with poverty through the international community and the realities that make it difficult. This will culminate in the identification of recommendations for the improvement of the global governance. Global Governance Global governance is deeply rooted in its institutions through which the global administration and operations are projected. Such institutions range from local, regional to international entities that operate across borders (Calinicos, 2009). This involves a network of state actors and non-state actors that work together to attain the best results to preserve the international global order (Calinicos, 2009). After the 1st World War, the creation of the League of Nations triggered the necessity of global governance. The failure of the League brought about many others that operate across boarders: namely the United Nations (UN), which formed the umbrella body for entities like the International Monetary Fund (IMF); World Bank; World Trade Organisation (WTO); Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); G8; G20; EU, AU, etc. All these institutions influencing global governance through which it is expected to pursue social justice, of which poverty reduction is a major aspect(Watson, 2010). There are different facades through which the concept of globalisation can be analysed and critiqued. Basically, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991 led to a unipolar global order that was centred on the values of the United States and the West. This includes a tilt towards a Western-model democracy where rule of law and free and fair elections were the norm and the fundamental approach for running the state and changing governments (Hansen, 2010).. “Globalisation can be perceived as an economic, ideological, political and institutional project facilitated and enabled through a technological evolution, an ideological and policy shift and a strengthening of the role of international financial institutions and changing geopolitical landscape” (Kenneth, 2009, p4). This implies that globalisation reflects the changes that have influenced and affected nations around the globe including the fast disappearance of national boundaries and absolute national sovereignty. Globalisation reflects the fact that nations are shifting towards a more cooperative and more flexible system of interaction at the inter-state level. This is mainly influenced by the distribution of resources and financial injections and influences that come into nations from outside the local and national borders. Global Political Relationship Globalisation, through global governance influences the movement of capital and aid as a means of linking and connecting nations around the world. Thus, with such a situation in check, there is an opportunity in this decade than any time in history, for richer and more powerful nations to help poor nations as a means of social justice and the reduction of poverty. “Globalisation brought shifts within nations than replacements of underlying social structures” (Scholte, 2010, p310). This means there is an issue with neoliberalism and there is a post-bureaucratic system that has put down the number of modification of businesses and governments around the world. Through this, there is the possibility of the global order dealing with poverty as a system of social justice or exploiting the disadvantaged and gaining more benefits from them. This presents a paradox that requires critical review and analysis to deduce the extent and scope of this balance and identify the right method of attaining optimal results. Weiss ( 2013: p132) perceives global governance as “... the sum of the informal and formal values, norms, procedures and institutions that help all actors including states, intergovernmental organisations, civil society, transnational corporations and individuals – to identify, interact and address trans boundary problems and issues” This implies that international global governance is a system through which all members of the society in all local and international contexts to deal with their problems by integrating elements and aspects of the international order. Global governance therefore, is expected to provide global solutions to local problems and issues. And this involves the distribution of power to the less powerful and the inclusion of different people and different stakeholders in the society (Hansen, 2010). Hence, global governance with its globalisation phenomenon has a power that overrides absolute national sovereignty and this could be a force for the improvement of the standard of living in poor nations or it could be abused by some dominant parties who might seek their own interest at the expense of the vulnerable populations. Hence, there is the need for a careful and conscious planning to ensure that issues are not localised or isolated. Rather, matters must be given a conscious international attention that will ensure that people who are disadvantaged in the global order get the chance to deal with their issues through the global governance. The impact of global governance is that organisational focus is based on global administration. Nations also seek to utilise elements of the post-1991 unipolar global order which include rule of law, administrative rules, bureaucracy and implementation, political administration and hegemony of public service entities to improve the lot of their citizens (Osborne, 2010). Most public sector entities are also integrating elements of private sector management to ensure better production and optimum results from their activities and operations (Osborne, 2010). Global Social Relationships “Public policy is located within an increasingly complex, multiple and overlapping network of contracts which are embedded in a transnational and subnational polity and economy... in the context of globalisation and the reconstitution of the state” (Kenneth, 2008, p3). This implies that public policy is now a hodge-podge of international and local matters and issues that work together to define the systems that define the lives of ordinary people in a given state or nation. This means that civil society in a given nation is strongly influenced by the activities and requirements of dominant and important stakeholders in the international community. Wade (2010) identifies that in providing economic policy, equality is not very realistic because in cases and situations where different people with different capabilities are brought together to undertake economic activities, there is a challenge in ensuring that all parties are treated equally. This is mainly because different parties in the international community have different economic and political powers. And in that situation, nations and communities that are perceived to be weaker are prone to be treated with a high degree of contempt in relation to powerful and dominant nations. Some nations also have to use insensitive and apparently selfish approaches to deal with their needs and expectations at a given point in time. In buttressing this point, Wade ( 2010) identifies that in a situation like the credit crunch, where European and North American nations were regaining their economic losses, such nations could not be stopped from seeking their targets and were bound to make their economic gains at the expense of poorer and weaker nations . However, in general, social order is developed on the basis of economic contributions made by a given state or community (Turner and Khondker, 2010). This is because the Bretton-Wood system that was put in place after the Second World War sought to get nations to work hard and justify their inclusion in international matters on the merit of what they do, rather than on the basis of human rights. In spite of this reality, there is the need for some kind of social organisation and distributive justice to ensure that some people and some members of the international community get some kind of sensitive support and assistance (Turner and Khondker, 2010). There is therefore the growth in the view that the state has lost its power and the international community decides for all nations and their people through globalisation and international interactions (Weiss, 1998). On the other hand, Kjaer (2004) argues that justice is a part of global governance and governance in the international context can best be done if the best interests of individuals in the various nations including weaker nations are met. This is because there are factors like decentralisation, plurality of action, democracy and wealth distributions which define the framework within which individuals in nations can get the best lives possible in order to live within the very basic framework for the protection of human rights (Kjaer, 2004). Global Economic Relationships It is clear that there is the need for social justice to ensure that basic and minimal human rights are guaranteed. This is the only way that some negative trends like poverty, hunger and diseases amongst the poorest people in the world can be dealt with. Without such elements of social justice, it will be difficult for the international community to meet their expectations of human rights and increased prosperity amongst individuals. In spite of this general view, the reality on the ground indicates that there is no equality and there is a high degree of exclusion and harsh difficulties amongst certain people in the poorest nations in the world (Held and McGrew, 2007). The explanation put forward for this trend lies in the fact that the logic of capitalism does not favour social justice (Held and McGrew, 2003). Although the speed in technology indicated that nations and communities will be able to bridge the gaps of wealth and income distribution. However, in reality, most elements of international trade, aid and investments boil down to profitability and the ability of nations to reciprocate the capital injections that are made into their economies (Held and McGrew, 2003). Critics like Rodrick (2012) indicate that the economics of free trade in international trade involve meeting the interests of powerful nations and imperialist nations. These nations might not be so much interested in distributive justice and putting aside the profit motive to seek the welfare of people in foreign and faraway lands who can give them nothing. Thus, the free trade mentality seems to move international players in the global system to pursue selfish interests. In practice, the nations that lead the system of international law do not seem to give any gifts without seeking any benefits from the gifts. The United Nations system put five nations (Britain, China, France, Russia and USA) at the head of the international order. Thes enations sit on the UN Security Council as permanent members (Watson, 1989). These nations might seek to expand their vision and increase their benefits and this forms the theme of most of the trading and international transaction system of these powerful nations. China is known to support oppressive regimes including the Khmer Rouge regime of Cambodia which put in place brutal policies that led to massive poverty. However, due to China's interest of protecting their ideology and maintaining ties with Cambodia, the leaders of the regime survived for years without being questioned for their acts (Scott, 2012). Through this model a lot of people suffered whilst the perpetrators of these acts were not held accountable in any way or form. Another element of the current global order is that dominant nations seek to protect their interests. This includes the security interest of nations like the United States who provides arms and ammunition to nations that support them in fighting terrorism (Garrett, 2004). Other nations like China only invest and provide funds to nations that provide them with their best and most important raw materials and energy needs like oil. In spite of this, these superpowers do not do much about the plight of the masses in the nations they trade with. These socially excluded persons end up facing harsh circumstances. Social justice will therefore need to be invoked to get nations to act in the right way and manner to ensure that a basic life of dignity that is rid of poverty and hardship is guaranteed for all peoples (Barlow, 2007). The concept of free trade is steeped in utilitarianism which involves providing the best results for the highest numbers of people (Garrett, 2004). Thus, the concept of free trade seeks to get a few people to become richer whilst the poor and helpless people become poorer and life becomes more challenging for such persons in their approach to life. This perpetuates the cycle of difficulty and hardships. “The financial markets themselves provide the mechanism needed to measure the credibility of policy in real time and in an accurate manner” (Bilbao-Ublillos, 2010, p15). In other words, the financial markets and the free market system provide a framework through which nations and economies define the important sectors and activities through the interaction of the forces of demand and supply. This way, efficient sectors grow and inefficient sectors become redundant. This system seems to have become the popular means of allocating resources. This has become accepted in richer Western nations and more advanced economies. However, this process causes major problems and hardships for poor nations. This is confirmed by Weiss who states that “... many now believe that the free market policies have produced rising poverty and inequality” (1998, p154). This indicates that there is an empirical basis to believe that excessive adherence to free market economy trends and processes causes severe hardships for poorer and weaker nations. However, this subsists because the empire concept of nations still exists and nations continue to demand their interest in international affairs and manner (Callinicos, 2009). Today, the same model used by the Marxist and Imperialist forces has led to a trend that is being replicated by the new political and national entities that have replaced the superpowers. This includes the United States, European Union, China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa which expand with the view of improving profits and pursuing expansionist ideas and concepts (Callinicos, 2009). Players in the international community like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and others have not helped in the process of promoting equity and fairness through social justice in international affairs (Stiglitz, 2002). These organisations seek to promote the distribution of aid with strings attached and a limited presentation of international investments to nations that will only promise higher returns. Due to this, there is a limit on the kind of opportunities nations and states grant to poor people who can do little to help nations and economies (Stiglitz, 2002). Thus, globalisation is fuelled by capital, competition, demand and profitability (Jessop, 2002). This involves the exploration of resources and the promotion of the profit motive with limited protection for the welfare of ordinary citizens who do not provide economic promise as other projects and other income generating activities. Global Poverty Reduction and its Failures There have been various attempts by the international community and global governance to deal with poverty and reduce disease and other health challenges of people in less privileged parts of the world. This “global public policy operation was encapsulated in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) which have sought to reduce poverty and enhance the earning capacity and quality of life of people who live in widespread poverty and hardship” (Kenneth, 2008, p147). However, Most of these attempts have yield very limited results as extreme poverty persists in the lives of around 1.4 billion people in the world ( Hulme, 2010). Global governance has faced several challenges that have stood in the way of poverty reduction. These resistances range from internal to external. The Internal factors in terms of the inherent local problems and external referring to the global policies of aid, unparalleled trade conditionality and the “one size fit all” approach.” (Stiglitz, 2000). Also, the urgency of poverty as a problem and an issue leads to major problems and issues for the global order (Scholte, 2010). This includes the problem of poor migrants who move to other nations and other communities where they export poverty and hardships. Thus, the urgency of poverty reduction became an agenda and a priority for some Western nations to halt migration. However, this has not yielded so much of positive results (Scholte, 2010). The demand to earn more from limited resources has caused many nations to be deprived of their best and most important and productive people (Stiglitz, 2002). This involve export led growths and exploitation of poor and weaker nations as well as the use of cheap labour and cheap raw materials to further the interests and expectations of richer and more dominant nations (Stieglitz, 2002).Thus, in cases where the nations have some extra money, they inject it into development programmes in poorer nations. The international community has been involved in various capacity building activities and research and development for poor nations around the world (Stone, 2009). The DFID, UNDP and other developmental agencies have spent millions of Pounds funding research and capacity building activities with limited successes (Stone, 2009). This has been worsened by the lack of governmental capacity and the lack of infrastructure and basic things necessary to build a life in most developing and poor nations around the world. Rodrick (2012) identifies that there is a vicious cycle of poverty that affects these poor and makes it difficult for their citizens to make money and become economically liberated states. In these poor nations, there is low earning capacity amongst most migrants. This is due to the lack of technology, infrastructure and skills (Rodrick, 2012). Due to the low earning, the majority of people in these countries have low savings and since there is no savings, there are low investments. And due to that, the economies are stunted and there is little the nations and their governments can do to break this cycle, since the states do not have what it takes to educate people and get the people to utilise better technology and become better people. The vicious cycle of poverty involves a major trend and a negative system that creates serious issues that most governments cannot deal with. The integration of funds into these economies by international development partners has not been able to meet their primary objectives. This is because there are inherent problems that can only be resolved over the long-term and not in the short-run (Turner and Khondker, 2010). Thus, there are inherent, internal and external factors that cause poverty and keeps the cycle of poverty going on perpetually. In other situations and in other circumstances, poor local and global governance and negative governance practices like corruption causes the injection of funds into foreign economies to be misapplied and embezzled in the negative way and manner which prevents the eradication of poverty. Conclusion and Recommendations It is apparent and clear that the global order is influenced by the personal interest of rich and powerful nations. It would seem at first sight, that the global institutions are in crisis for not meeting its goals to eradicate poverty. It only takes an in-depth study of their ambitions and operations that one would conclude that the global governance is in crisis in terms of global social justice and especially poverty reduction. It can then be contended that the trend seems to be one that will continue into the foreseeable future since all nations will continue to have interests and desires that they will seek to attain and to achieve. Corporate entities and banks and other financial institutions will always have their personal desire and expectations to exploit poorer and less powerful nations. This has culminated to global governance failing the poor. This is what Richard (2003) refers to the three main global institutions of the world as the “Unholy Trinity” (IMF, WTO, World Bank) because of their seeming failure and undesirable approach to meeting the needs of the poor nations. In order to provide a system of dealing with poverty and hardships in poorer nations there must be a method of providing some degree of basic human rights guarantees and expectations of nations and communities. This can be done by the creation of democracy and the promotion of rule of law in poor nations around the world. It is observed from the study above that the international community and global order needs to have a system of checks and balances that will control local governments in developing countries and poor countries. Media development and the improvement of control and guidance in poorer nations will hold leaders more accountable in poor nations. With this infrastructure in place, there must be a proactive system through which the international community will create some checks and balances and ensure that the right global institutions are consolidated and are operational in poorer nations around the world. When this is done, there must be some kind of monitoring to ensure that development is monitored and controlled in these countries. Through this, poor people will be able to improve their skills and also improve their earning capabilities. After the stage of getting skilled and empowered people, the tradition of savings in poorer nations and improving trade and investments must be enhanced. This will help the people in poor nations to get their desires and expectations and also build strong and powerful economies that will be improved over time. Through an empowered system, the international community will supervise poorer nations and get them to build the right institutions and structures. These institutions and structures can ensure that the international community can put pressure on local leaders and also empower ordinary poor people to get the economic earning capability and provide a system of building a strong private sector and system. References Barlow, A. L. (2007) Collaboration for Social Justice New York: Rowman and Littleman Bilbao-Ubillos, J. (2012) The Economic Crimes and Governance in European Union London: Routledge Callinicos, A. (2009) Imperialism and Global Political Economy Cambridge: Polity Press. Garett, G. (2004) “Globalisation's Missing Middle” Foreign Affairs November/December, 2004. Hansen, B. (2010) Unipolarity and World Politics London: Taylor and Francis Held, D. and McGrew, A. (2003) A Global Governance Reader London: Polity Held D. and McGrew, A. (2007) Globalisation/Anti-Globalisation: Beyond the Credit Divide London: Polity. Hulme, David (2010) Global Poverty – How Global governance is Failing the Poor New York: Routledge Jessop, B. (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State Polity Press Kenneth, P. (2008) Governance, Globalisation and Public Policy Surrey: Edward Elgar Kjaer, A. M. (2004) Governance Cambridge: Polity Press. Osborne, S. P. (2010) The New Political Governance? Abingdon: Routledge. Peet, R. (2003) Unholy Trinity: The IMF, World Bank and WTO London: Zed Books, Ltd. Robbins, N. (2012) The World After 1945 Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rodrick, D. (2012) Globalisation Paradox New York: WW Norton. Scholte, J. A. (2010) Globalisation: A Critical Introduction London: Palgrave Macmillan Scott, M. W. (2012) Pol Pot's Cambodia New York: Twentieth Century Publishing. Sliglitz, J. E. (2002) Globalisation and its Discontention New York: WW Norton Stone, D. (2009) Knowledge Actors: A Transnational Governance London: Palgrave Turner, B. S. and Khondker, H. H. (2010) Globalisation: East and West London: SAGE Wade, R. (2010) “Is Globalisation Consensus Dead?” Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography 4(1) pp142 – 165 Watson, B. World History after 1945 London: Murray Publishing. Weiss, G. (1988) Globalisation and the Myth of the Powerless State London: Polity Press. Weiss, G. (2013) Global Governance: What? Why? Whether? London: Polity Press. Read More