AlexSchechter-Where Is The Reform?

Alex Schechter
11/11/15
International Relations



                                                              Where is the Reform?

In the United Nations, the Security Council is where all of the action takes place. The Security Council is comprised of 15 nations..ten nations that rotate, and five permanent nations. Interestingly, these five nations have not changed since post World War II. The authority, to cast vetoes for example, all comes from these five nations. These five nations completely outweigh the ten rotating nations in terms of the amount of power that they have. This is what I have noticed from l ectures, class discussions, and also this political cartoon.  The powers in this position are the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and lastly, China. Many people believe that this makeup of nations is extremely out of date. For example, nations like Germany, Brazil, and Japan have all gained economic strength. Why hasn’t the United Nations changed things around?

One of the most interesting lectures/discussions that we have had in class, in my opinion, was the one on the power of the United Nation’s Security Council. We discussed whether or not the Security Council is legitimate or not. It was interesting to hear everyone’s opinion of whether or not they believed the Security Council needed to be modified. I believe that these five permanent nations just have symbolic power. Other nations have to and have had to, “look up” to these powers for almost 60 years. With that being said, the current five nations do actually have legitimate power. That power can be seen in the political cartoon that I posted above. Despite a majority rule from other members in the Security Council, the five permanent nations are able to veto any vote. Therefore, no one in our class was right or wrong. The Security Council does have both legitimate and symbolic power.

The political cartoon that I have chosen perfectly describes how non-permanent members feel about the five permanent powers. They believe that (and they do) have too much power. Due to this, the non permanent members can not always have their ideas and plans passed. This is why non permanent members are constantly trying to become closer with permanent members or ask for reform. I personally believe that some sort of reform is needed at the U.N. It may be hard to introduce more permanent members to the current system or even replace the current members. Our world has changed...it’s time for the United Nations to do the same.

'Brain Drain' in How Soccer Explains the World

'Brain Drain' in How Soccer Explains the World

Globalization is controversial. Regarding economics, Globalization can be praised for drastically increasing the wealth of the world, while at the same time it can be blamed for outsourcing of jobs. Globalization can also be praised for the vast network of ideas that is responsible for so many of the important innovations in the world today. However, Globalization can also be blamed for brain drain --when a country's brightest and most qualified people immigrate to countries with a higher quality of life--, which effects many countries with a lower quality of life. Often times, these immigrants are received with disdain by the local populaces of their new countries. How Soccer Explains the World  accurately depicts the effects of 'brain drain' in the chapter about Nigerian immigrants playing soccer for the Ukrainian national team. 

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine became an independent state. However, because the Soviet Union's Soccer team represented all of the states under its control, Ukraine was left without a Soccer team after the Soviet Union dissolved. In addition to this, many of the best Ukrainians continued to play for Russia. Despite this, Ukraine founded its own national team in 1991, and they began recruiting the most talented players from Nigeria to play for their new national team. 

On the surface this appeared to be a very pragmatic solution to Ukraine's soccer woes; the thought was that all parties involved would benefit. These new Nigerian players contributed their talents to the national team, and they were paid very much. This situation, highlights the good aspects of brain drain, as it creates a conglomeration of the most talented people, while improving those people's quality of life. Because of this influx of talented players, the Ukrainian national team thought that more Ukrainians would watch and support the team. However, this was not the case.

The influx of Nigerian players on the Ukrainian national team actually created many problems. The play style of the new Nigerien players did not work well with that of the Ukrainians. Here another parallel can be drawn with 'brain drain,' as often times different cultures--even when both are extremely skilled at completing a task--don't always work well together due to a conflicting process. In addition to this, Ukrainian players were displaced by the new Nigerian players, which enraged nationalists, sparking a racist reaction. A common issue with immigration is the local backlash, due to the locals fear that they will lose their jobs to the new immigrants.

How Soccer Explains the World portrays globalization in light that is both good and bad, which is important, while this concept is more complicated than it may seem. Globalization may break down old stately boarders, but in doing so it simply can just create new and often times more boarders. For this reason, globalization cannot be forced. Therefore, state officials and the leaders of international businesses need to realize how delicate the world is, and that the frivolous mixing of cultures often times causes more problems than it fixes.  

The Pros of Globalization

Amara Rojo

November 11th, 2015

International Relations 170

      The Pros of Globalization

                  After discussion in class on Tuesday, I found myself seeing less of the negatives of globalization and more of the positive attributes that come with expanding international horizons. The expansion of knowledge and information across the globe is a major win for many nations and their citizens.

New forms of medicine and cures can now be shared; in a recent case the fact that Cuba has been able to relations between Cuba and the United States has allowed for medical advances to become available n the United States, such as a lung cancer vaccine and an advanced wound care for people affected by diabetes. Without globalization as a catalyst for the spread of this information, it would have hindered the treatment of several afflicted people.

In addition to the positive medical offers more perspectives can allow for more dialog in nations that until more recent times were isolated by either censorship or geography. The evolution of technology beginning perhaps as far back as the printing press to modern day internet access, these means of communication were and are incredibly powerful at shifting established ideologies and institutions. If women in Middle Eastern nations did not find out through some form of communication that their basic human rights as women were being violated by their governments then they would not have found the courage to oppose these principles. Because there is contrast, another way of living that is presented to them, there is the possibility for change, when otherwise there would be the continuation of a degrading cycle--a girl now has the chance for something more. Now this statement alone could just be considered westernization, but this goes both ways.  Women in western countries are now able to see issues in a broader sense and are perhaps even more grateful for the opportunities they previously took advantage of.

 Now, I'm not saying that one culture is superior to another, and that western nations have it right and the rest of the world is wrong. But the fact that we can understand or at least even see how other cultures operate--for better or worse-- is a positive. This isn't however, to imply that what occurs after this knowledge is transferred is positive.  When longstanding cultural institutions and beliefs are challenged, backlash is a natural side-effect. But, I would rather know that there is something more out there, another way to live, whether it's something as vital as water sources, the contrast to the availability where I live to places in Africa, or trivial such as Europeans tend to eat French fries with mayonnaise as opposed to ketchup-- what I'm getting at is globalization can give you something to compare your surroundings, your lifestyle, your culture to. You can question, reason, defend because you now know there is another way of living, there are other opinions and systems that could be better than yours--or perhaps not. You can now try to understand how a society grew to function the way that it does and then go from there. Globalization challenges and in some cases advances. What could be more positive than that?

Sustainable Globalization

In international relations, we have talked at length about globalization and globalization's effect on the sovereignty of nation states. In particular, I read the recommended reading by Opello and Rosow that analyzes globalization in civil society. This reading was very interesting for me because it made me take into account the ways in which globalization is actually harmful to nation states. The belief that technological advancements and new innovations make the world more interconnected and globalized is often toted as a positive characteristic. New advancements in technology undeniably have positive effects on the overall quality of life that citizens of many nation states feel around the globe. For example, refrigerators, polio vaccinations and hair curlers are amazing things that have definitely made life easier for many different people. However, one of the downsides of this is that new technologies don’t actually benefit everyone in a global market environment. In fact, they can often hurt nation states, especially the states that supply the raw materials used to make new consumer goods. While economic globalization might sound like it is beneficial for all, it has the ability to create unemployment in certain nation states and it can deplete resources and cause irreversible environmental damage.

Another negative characteristic of globalization is that corporations have the ability to disassociate themselves away from their nation states and move the production of their goods overseas. That action is problematic because there is always a marginalized group of people within other states that are oppressed because of the movement of corporations to states with less stringent work standards. Women and children are two marginalized groups in third world states that are forced to work in unsafe conditions, and they also receive incredibly low wages. The Opello and Rosow reading points out that if corporations disassociate with their home nation states and move their manufacturing plants overseas to countries with less work laws, then there is really no institution that can hold these corporations responsible for the mistreatment of individuals. The nation state in which the corporation originates from then loses a substantial part of their sovereignty because they can’t effectively govern their corporations anymore.

Despite the negative aspects of globalization, I do believe there is a way in which globalization can make a predominantly positive impact on states. This can happen through sustainable globalization. The Opello and Rosow reading is very informative, but it neglects the impact that sustainable thinking has had on the global market. Although there is still quite a long way to go before the global market is entirely sustainable, there is an undeniably stronger effort to supply and consume sustainably produced goods. For example, it is now possible to purchase ethically sourced, sustainably produced goods like coffee, argon oil, bracelets, and so on whereas sustainability wasn’t really an important way of thinking fifty years ago. Globalization is primarily the globalization of capitalistic markets across the world, and capitalism and don’t really coincide very well. However, if there is a larger effort to think more sustainably and engage with the world around us in a more sustainable manner, then there is no reason why globalization couldn’t make the world more prosperous overall. Sustainably is not limited to being environmentally conscious either. Instead, thinking sustainably means answering questions about quality of life in general. It makes states analyze their nation’s wages, living conditions and education standards so that they can be prosperous for years to come, which is what sustainability is all about.

Globalization has many rewards, but there are also many fundamental problems with globalization, like how it depletes resources, hurts marginalized people, and decreases states sovereignty. However, globalization can be more effective if the global market becomes sustainable.

Jon Stenger

Globalization and Soccer

            In the second chapter of How Soccer Explains the World, Franklin Foer discusses the intense soccer rivalry between the Irish Celtic team and the Scottish Rangers team. The intensity of this rivalry originates from the religious backgrounds of the Catholic Celtic team and the Protestant Rangers team. Both fan bases are incredibly hostile towards each other, and their interactions sometimes lead to serious injuries and even deaths. However, even though there is violence between these two groups, it is nowhere near as bad as it would be if this religious conflict were fought on a battlefield compared to a soccer field. Therefore, the globalization that has come from this soccer rivalry, allows for a metaphorical war between these two groups, without an actual serious conflict like some of the religious wars happening in the Middle East.

            With religious extremists like ISIS and Al-Qaeda before them, it is clear that religious conflicts can be extremely violent and deadly. The groups that are “fighting” in Ireland and Scotland, the Catholics and Protestants, have a fairly violent history themselves. But, unlike some of the extreme groups in the Middle East, the religious groups who support these two soccer teams have found an outlet; soccer. They metaphorically battle as they watch their respected teams go at it on the field. They sing chants of violence and death, but in support of their teams and not as they march to battle against the other. Although globalization has brought together two groups that do not agree with each other, it has also provided them with an outlet to channel this aggression. The positive of giving these opposing groups an outlet to channel the violence between them, out ways the negative of bringing these groups together in potential conflict.

            The game of soccer, which is recognized worldwide, unites fans from around the globe to support their teams. Also, lately, both the Celtic team and Rangers have begun signing players without any sort of religious affiliation. Although the fan bases remain mainly Catholic and Protestant, the change from purely religiously biased team building has lessened some of the violence as emphasis on religion has dropped off a bit. This is largely due to globalization. As teams want to compete and win games, they must reach out to other areas; South America, Central America, Africa, where some of the religious ideas are much different than that of the traditional Celtic and Rangers teams. With this change, it forces the focus on the differences in religion to be lessened, as many fans just want to see the teams win games, regardless of what religion is on the field.

            Through globalization and soccer, the violent religious conflict between the Celtic and Rangers soccer teams has been given a metaphorical battlefield for these respected groups to settle their issues on. These people can unleash some of their anger and frustration towards the opposing group through a soccer match, instead of in a full-blown conflict. This would not be possible without globalization, which is why I believe globalization can be a huge factor in helping to solve some crisis around the world.

Caroline Snyder

International Relations

Professor Shirk

11 November 2015

The United Nations

           

            I return to my interest in political cartoons for this blog post. In this cartoon, we see the five permanent members of the UN Security Council on the right represented by large animals. On the left, the smaller animals are presumably the nonpermanent members of the Security Council. In the middle is the former Secretary-General for the United Nations. The cartoon is arguing that the amount of power in the Security Council is uneven between the permanent and nonpermanent members. I agree with what the cartoon is saying. I think that it is time for a change in how the UN Security Council works.

In the article “Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life of the UN Security Council”, Hurd talks about how nonpermanent member countries are constantly trying to become members of the Security Council. They do everything and anything it takes to become one. In the 1998 election for the new nonpermanent members, many states engaged in lobbying and gift giving. The need to be part of the Council comes from the “Council membership confer(ing) status and recognition on a state and (it) allows the state to appropriate some of the authority derived from the legitimacy of the Council” (Hurd). This could be seen as normal for a branch of the UN that is the most powerful. However, the only reason why states work so hard to become members of the Council is to get closer to the “Permanent Five”. This proves that the permanent members have to much power. The nonpermanent members want to make sure that their agenda is carried through and the best way to do that is to get close with the permanent members.

In class we talked about whether the Security Council has legitimate or symbolic power. I think that it is a mix of both with the permanent members having the most. They have symbolic power because they are looked at as the “popular kids” of the United Nations. The permanent members are like the big jocks of high school. This is portrayed by the rhino, bear, dragon, elephant and hippo in the comic. All of these animals could take on any of the others on the other side of the boat and crush them. No one dare messes with the “big kids on campus”. The legitimate power of the permanent members being able to shoot down any idea with a veto even if there is the majority supports it.

The possible solutions for the unbalanced power are a mix of restructuring the Council with new permanent members or no permanent members at all. I believe that the permanent members should at least be re-evaluated. The five countries in the seats now have been there for seventy years. A lot has changed since then; the world is no longer in a post world war situation.