The article, “The Future of Peace” was written by Annabel Hertz for the huffingtonpost.com on February 26th, 2015. It analyzes the various conflicts that are going on around the globe and the trends towards the future they represent. Hertz argues that a shift has occurred from trying to promote peace to a goal of conflict management. Governments are not looking for ways to promote peace as much as they plan what their responses will be if and inevitably when conflict breaks out. Media attention is much more heavily focused on wars rather that movements toward peace and this Hertz believes is a big part of the problem. The article portrays conflict in the world as something that is unavoidable and has been constant in the world throughout history.

While there is still conflict in the many corners of the world, I believe that it has gone on a downward trend. There has not been a major conflict between two of the world powers since the last world war and the introduction of nuclear weapons has significantly stabilized world politics. No nuclear country wants war with another nuclear country.  While conflicts involving third world countries still continue to happen all over the globe as these countries keep advancing and modernizing less and less of these conflicts will exist. With consolidated states there may never be a time when no conflicts exist, the trend has been toward fewer and smaller scale conflicts throughout the world.

Greece is the Word

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gqiyqu1GVE
This political cartoon was first published back in 2010 during the Greek financial crisis. Each pillar represents a country that had a financial issue inside of the EU. The first country to have issues was Greece and it became the worse off. After Greece, it appeared there was a domino effect as more and more countries in eurozone seemed to come forward and say they too were having issues. Greece was a catalyst as more countries like Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Ireland admitted they too were having issues. All of these pillars are holding up the euro representing the dependency of the euro on each of the member countries. One countries problems have a profound impact on holding up the euro. Each pillar needs to be stable or the entire system has a chance of falling down and crumbling. Meanwhile, the tourists on the side represent America and its Recovery from the 2008 recession. America is concerned about the impact this will have on the recovery efforts.

This relates directly to class. The BBC News article shows how this problem is still relevant today and just how interconnected the European Union is. This is related to globalization. One aspect of globalization is that with the linking of economies and growing inter-connections it creates linked problems. In class we discussed how the world financial crisis and recession that began in 2008 had a negative effect on Greece's economy. Along with many other factors include tax evasion, corruption, and autonomy that was given up to the European Union. Due to globalization and an increase in trade and interaction that is caused by globalization, issues in one country have spread to many. These countries are holding up the euro, this shows that when one country struggles the others have to come to the rescue of the whole euro will crumble. In the BBC article it debates what it would mean if Greece left the eurozone. I think if one country leaves the eurozone it will create some instability and the other countries will be forced to pick up the weight.

Is The World Getting Flatter or More Rounded?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/business/economy/us-manufacturing-is-back-not-so-fast.html?_r=0

The article above, "Globalization Is in Retreat? Not So Fast" discussed a very compelling argument as to whether globalization is beginning to decline. The author argues that the low costs of energy prices in places such as the United States has allowed for global powerhouses to become more competitive and return as centers of investment (rather than outsourcing to other countries). The article discusses that since the Great Recession, trade has slowed as countries tried to stimulate growth internally. Technologies have also made the use of certain external resources irrelevant. This being said, the author does say that although it may seem like globalization is in decline, there is no true halting of the process. Many countries such as the BRICs, continue to grow and become centers of industrialization (albeit at a slower rate than before). The author also shows the economic convergence of currency has a major impact on globalization. Although numbers may seem down, this article shows that despite its decline in recent years, globalization is still present.

This article directly correlates to our discussion of whether the world is becoming more flat or not. The author does show points that globalization is in decline thanks to the growing competitiveness of global powerhouses, but does admit that there are some countries that are still being exploited because for cheap labor. I think that the lower costs of oil and natural gas have had a major impact, even in the last six months since this article was written, that have allowed the powerhouses of outsourcing (such as the U.S.) to regroup and bring jobs back domestically. However, I do think that this does not mean a reverse of globalization. Through the importance of trade, economic interdependence, and technology, the world is going to continually be intertwined. The article even states that there are no significant numbers to show that globalization is in reverse. Despite a slow growth in "globalization numbers" (which, as we have contested in class, are slightly ambiguous in nature), I think the world is still at an age where it is progressing towards being more "flat".

Economic Globalization- Specifically Free Trade

In this political cartoon you could see the opinion of some when it comes to economic globalization. This cartoon depicts how the big and wealthy "Corporate American" man is thankful for free trade while hold a whip in one hand with NAFTA labeled above it and a chain with WTO above that. On both sides of the big "Corporate American" man are two smaller men that look miserable, one labeled "U.S. Workers" and the other "Workers Abroad." Each man had a ball and chain attached to them. For the abroad workers the ball and chain was labeled "slave wages, no workers rights" and for the U.S. worker the ball and chain was labeled "massive layoffs vanishing worker rights." This cartoon portrays the negative aspects of economic globalization and the transformation of the international world economy. The U.S. is well know for wanting to spread free trade agreement and as U.S. citizens we are reassured that it is a positive thing for all however this cartoon chose to illustrate some of the more negative consequences. Some consequences including increasing layoffs and outsourcing to outside nations. However this outsourcing may have positive and negative effects on citizens of those nations. Overall this cartoon is depicting how corporate America will ultimately do what will be better for the economy but not necessarily the people.

In the reading "The Architecture of Globalization: State Sovereignty in a Networked Global Economy" by Stephen Kobrin the author emphasizes that as a world we are in the middle of a huge qualitative transformation of the international world economy. By this Kobrin means that with the rapid increase in not only technology but the scale of different technology and their availability in numerous industries there is also a dramatic rise in cost, risk, and complexity. Just as the cartoon portrayed some of the negative affects of free trade and how it could be harmful domestically and internationally Kobrin attempts to show that though we are going towards an open international world economy the re-precautions must be considered as well. Kobrin also explains that the international economic transactions are being changed because of the transnational strategic alliances. These alliances could be military alliances or trade alliances, such as a free trade agreement which would intensify the organization of international markets and hierarchies and move them more towards global networks. This cartoon depicts outcomes of a free trade agreement for every day workers whereas Korbin explains the outcome of a free trade agreement on the organizational of international markets.

The Irony of Anti-Globalization

This picture portrays a satirical irony in that the man using the Internet is trying to start an "Anti-Globalization" movement by using one of the tools of globalization. When people discuss globalization, one of the key tools of globalization is unquestionably the Internet because it provides the ability for people all over the world to connect with one other nearly instantaneously. In the reading for class on Tuesday that was cancelled, Stephen Kobrin argues that globalization exists especially in cyberspace where geographic borders cannot prevent the spread of ideas, influence and culture. Though he uses this idea to argue that the state has become relatively less important and may continue to decline in an increasingly globalized world, his ideas still apply to this picture as the world is becoming increasingly connected through cyberspace. The picture shows the interconnectedness of the world through tools such as the Internet. In some ways the man can be seen as a state trying to argue against globalization to maintain sovereignty, while at the same time directly benefiting from it. 

 This picture, in essence, shows that, although some people may be against globalization for whatever reason, they ultimately still use its benefits. The man using the Internet to argue against globalization fails to recognize that without globalization, he would never have had the Internet in the first place and thus could not have reached all the people who he is trying to recruit to his movement. It is one of the great ironies of globalization that people who are against it generally directly benefit from it each and every day, assuming they live in one of the more powerful and wealthy countries.

Does Globalization Cause War?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-malcomson/globalization-cause-war_b_6548864.html


Article taken from the The World Post.


My article brings up an interesting question. Does globalization cause war? Before going any further I believe globalization does cause war, but so does isolation. My explanation follows:

The author of this article, Scott Malcomson, says that, "the interdependence feeds the insecurity." I believe this to be true. I think of a very simple example when considering countries interacting with one another. Think back to growing up and being on a playground with other school children during recess. It may be funny to think of, but have you ever once thought, 'wow I want what that kid has' or 'why is my friend hanging out with that kid more than me?' Still sounds funny to think of. Now think of countries interacting. Countries get suspicious of trade agreements amongst other countries when they are not involved. Many times countries see the military capacity of other countries and increase military training and presence in regions to "show off." My point is to think of all the good that has come from globalization. Trade, medicine, military assistance, humanitarian aid, culture, science, and technology are just a few of the many benefits of globalization. Now, think of all the negatives that have come about. Terrorism directed at multiple countries, military aid being given to countries with questionable ambitions, exploitation of less developed countries, and trade conflicts are just some of the negatives when everyone is involved.

On the other hand, I believe being isolated would ultimately lead to war. Eventually countries would dispute over land, natural resources, influence, or water ways. It simply would not work to be in isolation from one another. An example of this could be North Korea. It is simply a black spot on the map, and literally one at night from a satellite. Countries have no idea what North Korea plans to do or what their true capabilities are. The result is constant build of defenses and technology to always one up what they do not know.

My final and main point in simple terms is that globalization is natural, nobody wants to go stand in the corner at recess. Countries interact with one another, but there are still bullies, still thieves, and still those more fortunate or less fortunate than others. From time to time there will be fighting. Isolation would only lead to questioning of one another and violence from bumping into one another over time. There would be distrust and a build up of technology/weapons/economical capabilities to one-up the competition.

Globalization: Bombay Calling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRlYxIRU5YQ

http://www.popmatters.com/review/bombay-calling/

When many people pick up the phone and hear a telemarketer on the end their immediate reaction is to hang up or get angry. My roommate is known for yelling, “DO NOT CALL THIS NUMBER AGAIN!” when she receives a call from a telemarketer.  But how many people have ever thought about the person on the other end of the phone? With an increasingly globalized world, the operator may be in a different state or even different country.  I have attached the movie information and a short clip from a longer documentary titled "Bombay Calling." This documentary captures and explores the lives of workers that work in a call center, and the company has been outsourced to India. This movie paints a positive picture of the relationship between globalization and the modernization of India. This documentary highlights the opportunity for managerial positions, the average work day, an intense work environment, and payment opportunities.  This movie highlights the benefits on working in a calling center in India and points out the high wages they receive. Despite the odd hours, the workers documented seem to genuinely enjoy their jobs at the call center. This movie shows the voice on the other end of the phone having an actual life, with goals, and plans for the future. Bombay Calling illustrates the positive effects of a globalized world.

This movie relates to the general theme and discussion of globalization. This documentary shows the impact of globalization in everyday life. Globalization can be defined as an"inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before-in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach round the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before"(Shirk, Lecture 5). This documentary shows the globalized connection in both an economic and social manner. This movie is related directly to the article we read called, “Is the World Flat?” by Thomas Friedman. Both the movie and the article show the important role globalization has played when it comes to call centers. Both the movie and the article discuss the increased competition to land a great job with great pay. Like we started to bring up in class today, these sources show globalization in a positive light and fail to show any of the negative side effects. While globalization can help bring new opportunities to countries it can also hurt them by exploiting wage and labor laws, exploiting natural resources, creating environmental problems, and sometimes there is a decrease in the value of currencies in order to make the exports from that country more appealing. Either way globalization has an impact on our world.

Globalization is a Relative Process

The above cartoon (in case it doesn't show up or your eyes are malfunctioning) depicts someone with 'Egypt' written on their arm raising a flag that says "Freedom!".  The 'F' in Freedom is the ubiquitous logo of Facebook.

We are living in an increasingly globalized society.  That is, perhaps, the best way to answer the debate on Globalization - an absolute yes or no is far too simplistic.  While there may exist evidence to suggest that the world is not Globalizing, we must take a step back before deeming it evidence contrary to Globalization.  We must look at the big, historical picture because this kind of thing has happened before.  As Schwartz points out in "The Long View", international trade is not a new phenomenon.  "Imperial Rome traded with Ancient China 2,000 years ago" (Schwartz).  In an economic sense, countries, states, and groups of people have been exchanging goods, services, currencies and so on throughout history.  What has happened, however, is an evolution of international trade and commerce.  In the 15th and 16th centuries, the empires of Europe set sail for the New World, motivated by gold and spreading Christianity (the latter more than the former).  This idea of spreading influence, gaining access to new markets, and connecting to the rest of the world was just as prevalent then as it is now.  The Dutch East India Company wanted access to new markets in the 15th and 16th centuries just as much as oil companies do today.

When we examine a point in time in the Globalization debate, we can't be ignorant to history.  Even if currently only "5%" of our Facebook friends are in another country, the entirety of the world had ZERO Facebook friends whatsoever before it was launched in February of 2004.  We're witnessing and living through a trend line, not a coordinate point on the graph of life.  The fact that 10 years after its inception Facebook was the driving force behind the spread of political and social revolution in one of the most undeveloped and authoritarian region of the world is, quite frankly, amazing.

The Modern Day Empire: Would It Work?

This picture is a geographical representation of the Roman Empire's total land holdings at its heigh in 117AD. The Roman's had one of the largest land-based empires in the history of the world.

In class, we argued whether or not a modern day empire would be feasible/accepted. I believe that a modern day empire would be a practical means of living for the most people. In a successful empire, there is a strong sense of stability, and a fairly direct line of authority. Although each region is under its own separate governor's rule, all regions of the empire pledge fealty to the emperor. The Roman Empire lasted for so long because of its strong sense of commitment to the prosperity of the empire. Because there was such a massive land holding, there was limited conflict over land. With the world being in the hands of only a few major empires, there were few land disputes and peace was maintained for relatively long periods of time. I believe that if the world today were modeled in a modern empire style, there would be a few major empires that controlled the world (i.e. the U.S. controlling much of North/Central America, China controlling Asia, etc), which would limit the amount of land disputes and decrease the amount of war. Because much of the fighting in the world today is done between neighboring nations, this issue would be relatively eliminated.

Although a modern day empire might be optimal, there are some shortcomings to this idea. For starters, one of the oppositions brought in class was the issues of upward mobility. Because social classes are fairly set in stone in an empirical system, there is a limit on how much upward mobility there is. However, I believe that the stability of the most citizens would be preferable to the prosperity of few. Another major issue that is brought up is the lack of sovereignty of individual states that is enjoyed today. In an empirical system, there is a slight sense of sovereignty under the individual governors, but the fealty is ultimately sworn to the empire as a whole. The issue of putting so many people's hands in the fate of one person may be daunting. The Roman empire thrived for over 500 years, I believe with minor tweaks in today's society an empirical system could survive in the modern world.

UN Official wants to 'dismantle' the North Korean government

       This article revolves around some comments made by Marzuki Darusman, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea. In essence, Mr. Darusman said that North Korea needs to release the 80,000-100,000 political prisoners currently residing in prison camps immediately. He went on to say that the only way for this to be achieved would be for the “cult leadership system” to be completely dismantled which involves displacing and removing the Kim family entirely. The UN recently passed a resolution that would attempt to hold Kim Jung Un accountable for the crimes against humanity that have been committed under his rule. North Korea, meanwhile, has displayed a very aggressive response and has threatened to conduct more nuclear tests. Though the UN General Assembly passed the resolution to bring Kim before the International Criminal Court, the resolution is not likely to pass the Security Council as either China or Russia will likely veto it. North Korea has also strongly denied the existence of any political prisoner camps and has instead said that other nations have them while they themselves do not.

This article relates to what we have been learning in class because it is all about sovereignty and authority within a state’s boundaries. Though no one doubts that the North Korean government, led by Kim Jung Un, has committed horrendous human rights abuses, ultimately North Korea is a sovereign state and has authority over the people within North Korean borders. I thought that this was interesting because the UN attempts to assert some measure of authority across the world, however the current system of states says that each state must be sovereign in their own defined territory. Thus, the interesting question of whether the UN has any authority in North Korea, or any other nation for that matter, is still up in the air. If the UN does have the authority to intervene in countries that commit human rights violations, then we do not have a true system of sovereign states because each state would not have absolute authority within its own borders. In a sense it would be a quasi-state system in which each state has near full authority over the proceedings inside its borders, but the UN claims ultimate jurisdiction over the protection of human rights. In the future it will be interesting to see if we move towards a world state in which each country resembles states of the United States and the United States resembles the UN.

Eurasian Economic Union and Sovereignty

  Putin's Eurasian Economic Union starts 2015 with curtailed ambitions
^ link

The article ”Putin’s Eurasian Economic Union starts in 2015 with curtailed ambitions” by Michael Birnbaum, seen in The Washington Post explains details about the economic alliance that would center at the Kremlin and what is going on with that now. This article begins by explain that originally the Eurasian Economic Union was to be a “grand alliance to rival the European Union” and it would include numerous ex- Soviet Union nations, all the way from Ukraine to Belarus and Kazakhstan. Originally this alliance would have started at the beginning of this new year however now with all the conflicts in Ukraine with Russia it has been pushed back. Additionally, because of Russia’s treatment of Ukraine and the situation in Crimea leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan have stated that they have friendly relations with all countries and do not wish to make an alliance that will jeopardize those relations. Putin hoped that with this Eurasian Economic Union he could restore some of the former economic stability and glory that that region of the world once had. However, neighboring nations are skeptical of giving up their sovereignty to the Kremlin as European Union members have given some of their sovereignty to Brussels. Brussels is known as the administrative capital of the European Union and Putin had hopes that Moscow would be the same for the Eurasian Economic Union.  

This article relates so several things that we have discussed in class. Firstly, the issue of giving up sovereignty is something that we have discussed on numerous occasions. As discussed in class we have learned that a sovereign state is an authority that is supreme in relations to all other authorities in the same territorial jurisdiction and independent of all foreign authority. In class we examined how all of the nation’s part of the European Union gave up some of their sovereignty by giving up their own currency to establish the Euro. Also we have briefly discussed some of the history of sovereignty and have had several reading on it that discuss the Cold War and the breaking up of the Soviet Union. In class we looked at how boundaries changed after the Soviet Union dissolved and how boundaries help establish states and create sovereignty. This article discusses how after Putin annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, redrawing boarders once more, some of the worst tension erupted between the West and Russia since the Cold War. In my government 200 class we have discussed the usefulness of creating allies. However this article states that it may not be in Kazakhstan’s or Belarus’ and definitely not Ukraine’s best interest to become economic allies with Russia.