I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies.

I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies.

Book Review of POWERSHIFT by Alvin Toffler

I. Summary

“Powershift” is the culmination of twenty-five-year effort to make serve of the astonishing change propelling us into the 21st century. It is the third & final volume of a trilogy that opened with “Future Shock”, continued with “The Third Wave” & is now complete.

The Book entitled “Powershift” by Alvin Toffler has six parts. Part one is the new meaning of power. Part two is life in the super-symbolic economy. Part three is the information ways. Part tour is power in the flex-firm. Part five is powershift politics. Lastly, part six is planetary powershift. Violence, wealth and knowledge are the sources of power in today’s powershift. It is a triad.

In PART ONE, its theme was all about the New Meaning of Power. With regards to The Powershift Era, the nature of power is changing. The entire power structure that held the entire world is now disintegrating. Moreover, it talks about power changes from one empire to another empire, and that results to the end of empire. The power shifts. The god-in-white-coat was a doctor who highly respected and high in authority. The doctors were considered god but because of their malpractice, the knowledge of monopoly of the medical profession has been thoroughly smashed. And the doctors are no longer a god. The substitution of information or knowledge plays also an important powershifts. 

This brought trouble to General Motors (GM) & the rise of Japan. It concluded that knowledge ways the key to economic growth in the 21st century. Considering family, as an institution, was transformed its social power to other institutions-education to the school, for example. Knowledge is the most versatile source of power.

With regards to Muscle, Money, & Mind, the westerns consider this as violence, wealth, & knowledge, while Japanese considers this as sacred objects to their sun goddess-Amaterasu-omi-kami. These are the sword, jewel, and the mirror. Violence is low-quality power. Wealth is a far better tool of power, and knowledge is the highest-quality power. The military uses computerized knowledge-“expert systems” in missile defense. Knowledge is the most versatile source of power. “The control of knowledge is the crux of tomorrow’s worldwide struggle for power in every human institution.” The changes are seen from homes to supermarkets, from churches to workplaces, and from Berlin to Washington. “A powershift does not merely transfer power. It transforms it.”

In PART TWO, its theme was all about the life in the Super-Symbolic Economy. With regards to Beyond the Age of Glitz, knowledge is a key weapon in the power struggles that accompany the emergence of the super-symbolic economy. The business commandos are the ones who seize power in the super-symbolic economy. With the consultant’s hidden mission, it provides that power is not the only goal. It anticipates the deep changes soon to strike looking the role of all three – violence, wealth, and knowledge.

With regards to Force: the Yakuza Component, it entails the “secondary enforcement system” which operates around the edges of the formal, official law-enforcement system. Violence has been used to produce wealth. Just like what happened to Japan, violence has been contained, transmitted into another form - & hidden. Knowingly, the government tries to monopolize violence in its soldier and police that are the only ones legally permitted to exert violence. “And every law, good or evil, there is a hidden gun. In sum, the rise of the industrial nation-state brought the systematic monopolization of violence, the sublimation of violence, and the growing dependence of the population on money. These three (violence, wealth, & knowledge) changes made it possible for the elites of industrial societies increasingly to make use of wealth rather than overt force to impose their will on history.”

With regards to Wealth: Morgan, Milken and After, “Morganized” industry creates a hierarchically ordered, finance-driven system which essentially controlled the main flows of capital whereas X-shaped trading desk reshaped modern American Industry with Milken and his team. Moreover, Milken’s junk bond insight opens the gates of capital – Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s – that frees thousands of companies. Morgan & Milken changed American finance in contrary ways.

With regards to Knowledge: a Wealth of Symbols, if the shift toward knowledge-capital is real, then Capital itself is increasingly “unreal” – it consists largely of symbols that represent nothing more than other symbols inside the memories and thoughtware of people and computers. Capital has therefore gone from its tangible form, to a paper form that symbolized tangible assets, to paper symbolizing symbols in the skulls of a continually changing work force.  Finally, the electronic blips symbolizing the paper. Capital is fast becoming “super-symbolic.” Salt, tobacco, coral, cotton cloth, copper, and cowries’ shells are useful things that served as money. However, paper money dominated the industrial society – the civilization of the Second Wave. Today, as a more advanced Third Wave economy emerges, paper money faces near-total obsolescence. Not a single coin or piece of paper money is exchanged. The “money” here consists of nothing more than a string of zeros and ones transmitted by wire, microwave, or satellite. In brief, the rise of electronic money in the world economy threatens to shake up many long-entrenched power relationships. At the vortex of this power struggle is knowledge embedded in technology. It is a battle that will redefine money itself. Moreover, the rise of the super-symbolic economy compels us to reconceptualize the entire problem of unemployment from the ground up. “Mind-work” is range of “mixed” jobs – tasks requiring the worker to perform physical labor, but also handle information. Since the inception of the Industrial Revolution, big smokestack companies have held a great control on the economy. But today, a shift of power from smokestack companies to the retailers and customers is apparently now beginning. Moreover we are also witnessing a change to a “super-symbolic” economy. In the super-symbolic economy, “wealth creation is increasingly dependent on the exchange of data, information and knowledge.”With these changes, there are now growing conflicts between the “highbrow” or knowledge-base and the “lowbrow” or muscle-base businesses.

With regards to The Ultimate Substitute, it is today’s gigantic upheaval in the knowledge base of society – not computer hype or mere financial manipulation – that explains the rise of a super-symbolic economy. Knowledge – in principle inexhaustible – is the ultimate substitute Knowledge is a substitute for both resources and shipping. In addition to substituting for materials, transportation, and energy, knowledge also saves time. Space, too, is conserved and conquered by knowledge.  Because it reduces the need for raw materials, labor, time, space, and capital, knowledge becomes the central resource of the advanced economy. In this Third Wave system, “knowledge is the key weapon in the struggles that accompany the emergence of the super-symbolic economy.”

In PART THREE, its theme is all about the Information Wars. With regards to The Checkout Battle, today the supermarket is still there, but, largely, unnoticed by the public, it has become a battlefield in the information wars – one of many raging throughout the business world today. From the 1950s into the 1980s, the balance of power, with the giant manufacturers at the top and the wholesalers at the top and retailers at the bottom, remained essentially unchanged. One of the reasons for manufacturer-power was control of information. The weapon used by retailers to hurl the big manufacturers back on their heels is a small black-and-white symbol. There are two common supermarket problems: long checkout lines and errors in accounting that retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers met for discussion with the IBM, National Cash Register, and Sweda. Since the inception of the Industrial Revolution, big smokestack companies have held a great control on the economy. But today, a shift of power from smokestack companies to the retailers and customers is apparently now beginning. For example, in a world in which money is “informationalized” and information “monetized,” the consumer pays for every purchase twice over: first with the money and a second time by providing information that is worthy money. Consumers may soon find themselves in supermarkets lined with so-called “electronic shelves.” However, like Japan, retailers are now dominant force within the distribution of industry, while the manufacturers have to rely increasingly on retailers to interpret the needs of the marketplace.

With regards to Extra-Intelligence, the networks form the key infrastructure of the 21st century, as critical to business success and national economic development as the railroads were in Morse’s era. Some of these are “local area networks,” or LANs, which merely hook up computers in a single building or complex. Networking has spread down to the smallest businesses. The result is that airlines, car makers, and oil companies are all engaged in a many-sided war for control of the emerging communication systems. Until now, the smartest networks, including the neutral networks, had only what might be called “intra-intelligence.” Today, we are reaching beyond intra-intelligence toward networks that might be called “extra-intelligence.” These are so-called “Value Added Networks,” or VANs.

With regards to Net Power, Electronic Data Interchange (IDE) simply permits the electronic exchange of documents between companies or business units. Companies are forming into what might called “information-sharing groups.” The super-symbolic and the spread of extra intelligence also shake up the transportation sector – railroads, shippers, and truckers. Information is the most fluid resources, and fluidity is the hallmark of an economy in which the production and distribution of food, energy, goods, and services increasingly depend on symbolic exchange.

With regards to The Widening War, charges and countercharges blare from full-page ads in The Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times as the battle over computer operating-system standards heats up. Once more the fate of giant corporations and whole industries hinges on a war over standards. Thus, on every front – scientific, political, economic, and technological – the battle over standards can be expected to intensify as the new system for wealth creation replaces that fast-fading smokestack world of the past.  

With regards to The Executive Thought Police, “Chief Information Officers” (CIOs) are the men – only a few, so far, are women – who are responsible for spending the huge budgets corporations now allocate for computers, data processing, and information services. Because of this day they find themselves at the hot center of the info-wars.

With regards to Total Information War, the info-wars cast the corporations – and the work that goes on in it – into a new light. But total information war might not end with passive information collection. The temptation to engage in “commercial covert action” is growing. We are surrounded by info-war and info-warriors fighting to control the most crucial resource of the Powershift Era.

In PART FOUR, its theme is all about Power in the Flex-Firm. With regards to Cubbyhole Crush, any bureaucracy has two key features, which can be called “cubbyholes” and “channels” – is in the hands of two types of executive: specialist and managers. Bureaucracy is also a ways of groupings “facts”. A firm neatly cut into department according to function, market, region, or products is after all a collection of cubbyholes in which specialized information and personal experience are stored.  The vaunted “rationality” of bureaucracy goes out the window. Power, always a factor, now replaces reason as the basis for decision. The power structure based on control of information was clear, therefore: While specialists controlled the cubbyholes, managers controlled the channels.

With regards to The Flex-Firm, the flex-firm concept does not imply structurelessness; it does suggest that a company, in being reborn, may cease being a mule and turn into a team consisting of a tiger, a school of piranhas, a mini mule or two, and who knows, maybe even a  swarm of information-sucking bees. The family firm is the only one of a host of colorful formats that shifts power away from manager-bureaucrats in the year ahead.

With regards to Tribal Chiefs and Corporate Commissars, power – the control of company money and information backed by the force of law – is shifting out from under those with legal or formal position and towards those with natural authority based on knowledge and certain psychological and political skills.

With regards to The Autonomous Employee, there are two imperatives make its largely unstoppable. The first is the “innovation imperative”. It also implies totally different power relationship between employer and employee. The second imperative is Speed. Advance economies are accelerated. This accelerated pressure also shifts power by undermining the fixed, bureaucratic chain of command. “Today we are living through the next power shift in the workplace. It is one of the grand ironies of history that a new kind of autonomous employee is emerging who, in fact, does own the means of production.”

With regards to The Power-Mosaic, the hierarchical monoliths control the power economy. “When we create profit centers, flatten the hierarchy, and shift from mainframes to networked desktop computers, linked both to mainframes and to one another, we make power in the company less monolithic and more mosaic.” To understand power in the business world of tomorrow, therefore, forget fantasies of near total concentration, a world dominated by a few mega-firms. Think, instead, about power-mosaics. Management theorists are belatedly beginning to speak of “organizational capital” But there is also what might called “positional capital” – the strategic location of the firm in the overall web-work of mosaics and meta-mosaics.

In PART FIVE, its theme is all about Powershift Politics. With regards to The Decisive Decades, the age of mass democracy was also the age of immense concentrations of power at the level of the nation. Thus concentration reflected the rise of mass-production technology and national markets. The “politics of levels” can be expected to split voters into four distinct groupings: globalists, nationalists, regionalists, and localists. Mass democracy is the most significant contribution of the Second Wave industrialism and it implies the existence of the “masses” or homogeneous mass society. But with the rapid changes, diversity and heterogeneity in the labor force and the economy, mass democracy is under resistance. The economy base on interchangeable labor force has caused the de-massification of the society.  As such, people’s needs and demands to the government have diversified and brought the beginning of “mosaic democracy” as it replaces “mass democracy.”

With regards to The Invisible Party, according to Atwater, highly placed leader is a captive of the “system.” This system is not capitalism nor socialism, but bureaucratism.  For bureaucracy is the most prevalent form of power in all smoke-stack states. Invisible Party holds massive power over people’s lives, irrespective of whether their governments are “liberal” or “conservative,” “right-wing” or “left-wing,” “communist” or “capitalist.”

With regards to Info-Tactics, according to President Lyndon, “Freedom of information is so vital that only the national security, not the desire of public officials or private citizens, should determine when it must be restricted.” “Secrecy Tactic” is the first, probably oldest and most pervasive info-tactic. Secrecy is one of the familiar tools of repressive power and corruption. “Guided Leak Tactic” is the second most common info-tactic. Some secrets are kept; other leak. Such leaks drive official into deep dementia. Any data, information, or knowledge that is communicated requires (1) a source or sender; (2) a set of channels or media through which the message flows; (3) a receiver; and of course (4) a message. Power players intervene at each of these points. “Masked Source Tactic” is so frequently used. It can take many forms, in different settings, from business boardrooms to prison cells. “Back-Channel Tactic” helped prevent World War III. “Double-Channel Tactic” entails sending of alternative or contradictory messages through different channels to test reactions or to sow confusion and conflict among the recipients. “Need-to-Know Tactic” entails data, information, and knowledge are compartmentalized and carefully kept away from all but specified receivers with a validated “need to know” which is contrary to “Need-Not-to-Know Tactic.”Other tactics are omission tactic, generality tactic, timing tactic, dribble tactic, tidal wave tactic, vapor tactic, blow-back tactic, big lie tactic, and reversal tactic.”

With regards to Meta-Tactics, along with changes in the general population, therefore, fed by the shift to the new wealth-creation system, comes parallel upgrading of the tools of manipulation used by politicians and government officialdom to hold on to their power. That is what mete-tactics are all about.

With regards to A Market for Spies, the US has CIA or The Company, the Soviet Union has KGB, the British has GCHQ, and France has DGSE. All these companies are part of a massive information marketplace.  As new system of wealth creation intensifies priorities of the main spy services. Three specific topics will command top-level attention from spies in the future: economics, technology, and ecology. The growing privatization is occurring not on earth but in space. Five nations – Unites States, France, Japan, India, and Soviet Union – now peddle data collected by their space satellites.

With regards to The Info-Agenda, the new super-symbolic system of wealth creation thrusts a wide range of information-related issues onto the political agenda. Because of the growing global character of technology, environmental problems, finance, telecommunications, and the media, new cultural feedback systems have begun to operate that make one country’s information policies a matter of concern for others. The info-agenda is going global.

With regards to The Image Makers, the new economy is tightly tied not only to formal knowledge and technical skills but even to popular culture and the expanding market for imagery. “For better or worse, the old lines between show business and politics, leisure and work, news and entertainment, are all crashing, and we are exposed to a hurricane of often fragmented, kaleidoscopic images.

With regards to Subversive Media, the new overarching media system is a cause of the rise of the new, knowledge-based economy, and it represents a quantum jump in the way the human race uses symbols and images. The new media system is a power accelerator. There are three media modes of communication. The First Wave is the communication passed mouth-to-ear and face-to-face. The crowd was the first mass medium. The Second Wave was based on factory mass production, needed more communication at a distance and gave rise to pst office, telegraph, and telephone. The Third Wave reflects the needs of emerging post-mass-production economy like he “flexible manufacturing” plants.

With regards to The “Screenie” Generation, there are six distinct features of electronic infrastructure of the advanced economies. These are interactivity, mobility, convertibility, connectivity, ubiquity, and globalization. Moritz used the term screenie to describe the video-drenched generation, which has digested thousands of hours of televisions imbibing its “video-logic.”  In a knowledge-based economy the most important domestic political issue is no longer the distribution of wealth, but of the information and media that produce wealth. Social justice and freedom both now increasingly depend on how each society deals with three issues: education, information technology, and freedom of expression. The link between education and the six principles of the new media system - interactivity, mobility, convertibility, connectivity, ubiquity, and globalization – have scarcely been explored. The second priority involves the speedy universalization of access to computers, information technology, and advanced media. A key objective of those who want an advanced economy, therefore, should be to accelerate the workings of the Law of Ubiquity – that is to make sure that all citizens, poor and rich alike, are guarantees access to the widest possible range of media. Finally, the essence of the new economy is knowledge, the democratic ideal of freedom of expression becomes a top political priority, rather than a peripheral matter.

In PART SIX, its theme is all about Planetary Powershift. With regards to The Global “K-Factor,” the transformative advances, seemingly remote from the worlds of diplomacy and politics, are in fact inescapably linked to today’s geopolitical eruptions. Knowlegde is the “K-Factor” in global power struggles. The K-factor helps explain the fragmentation of the “developing countries” and the rise of three distinct groupings among them.

With regards to The Fast and the Slow, the speed of exchanges of data, information and knowledge will be the new criterion that will divide the world. They will be divided into the fast and slow countries. In addition, less developed countries (LDC) should plug into the fast economy in order to attain technological advances and close the information and electronic gap which are vital for the new system of wealth creation. With the Soviet Union’s fall, Japan, Europe and the USA will reshape the global power structure because of their ability to generate, manipulate and control the sources of power especially knowledge in the global level.  The “gap” that must be closed is informational and electronic. It is a gap not between the North and South, but between the slow and the fast.

With regards to Socialism’s Collision with the Future, just as feudal “social relations” once hindered industrial development, now socialist “social relations” made it all but impossible for socialist countries to take advantage of the new wealth-creation system based on computers, communication, and above all, on open information. A single obsolete assumption about knowledge: the arrogant belief that those in command – whether of the party or of the state – know what others should know. State socialist nations guaranteed economic stupidity and derived from the concept of the pre-cybernetic stupidity machine as applied to society and life itself.

With regards to The Power of Balance, diplomats like to talk about the balance of power. The poweshift principle helps gauge not only the balance of power but the “power of balance.” Nations can be divided into three types: those whose power is based predominantly on a single leg of the violence-wealth-knowledge stool, those whose power rests on two legs, and those whose global clout is balanced on all three of the main sources of power. By contrast, Soviet power was, and remains, totally unbalanced. Its claim to superpower status derived exclusively from its military. Its economy counted for little in the world system. While R&D was excellent in a few dense-related sectors, its general technological know-how was backward, cramped by paranoid secrecy. Its telecommunications were abominable. Its education system was mediocre, its centrally controlled media, tightly censored backward.

With regards to Triads: Tokyo – Berlin – Washington, Japan today is pursuing the power of balance. Japan has recently needed little prodding to expand its armed forces.  The world’s largest banks and securities firms are now Japanese. Japan, as a nation, has been enrolled in one big juku for decades, working overtime to expand the country’s ultimate power source-its knowledge base. As with military matters, Europe’s key financial decisions will once more be made in Berlin, in the German finance ministry and the Deutschebank, a dominance reflecting economic realities.  The emergence if this Germano-centric system is, however, only part of an unfolding Ost-Strategie of breathtaking scope. Europe has a grand, overarching strategy that aims at shifting regional and world power. This strategy –reborn, rather than freshly invented – is to control what the geopoliticians of the past called the planet’s “heartland.” The wounded giant is the United Sates. The United States cannot police the entire tumultuous and highly dangerous world, on either its own behalf or anyone else’s, but its unique capability suggests that it may, in alliance with other nations or international organizations, squelch regional conflicts that threaten world peace. More serious than America’s much-lamented “twin deficits,” both likely to decline, are the institutional obsolescence and social instability eroding American society and threatening to tear families, communities, and ethnic groups apart, and the spread of drugs in a society whose members are alienated from the state and from one another. Far more vital for US power over the long run than its mass manufacturing base is its knowledge system or info-sphere.

With regards to The Global Gladiators, “Global Gladiators” will also shape the global landscape. These are the global corporations, international criminal organizations and religious institutions that are “already sharing de facto power with the nation-states.”

II. Discussion

Points of Agreement 

The new concept of powershift introduced by Toffler provides a new façade on the nature of power. In his book, he has pointed out some inferences in the nature of power in 21st century that, I believe, should be given importance and scrutiny.

Foremost, knowledge is the highest quality of power. In this age of information, knowledge plays a crucial role in the society. Every economy and government in the world relies its operation on how knowledge is being generated, manipulated and controlled in the local to the global levels. Other sources of power will depend largely on knowledge. I agreed to the adage that “knowledge is power.”

Second, capital is fast becoming “super-symbolic”. Electronic money now replaces, but not totally, paper money as the medium of exchange. With this transformation of money, capital also is being transformed.

Third, workers become less and less interchangeable. During the Second Wave industrialism, workers depended on muscle power to do work of any sort. But now, a more specialized type of worker that depends on critical and irreplaceable knowledge is proliferating in the workforce.

Fourth, the democratic ideal of freedom of expression becomes a top political priority. As we advance towards a super-symbolic economy, it is imperative to permit an extremely wide range of free expression. If the government intervenes in the free flow of knowledge, it is hindering itself the benefit and advances of the new economy.

Finally, a revolutionary form of education must be undertaken. Most educational systems in the world are highly centralized and subject to the dictates of a national ministry or department of education which limits innovation and experiment. Furthermore they are still patterned, with slight variation, to the factory system of education in the Second Wave system. As we approach to the Third Wave system, more innovations and experiments in the educational system should take place in order to generate more knowledge to cope with the transforming power structure in every level of human institution.

Points of Disagreement

There are also some points, however, raised by Toffler that needs to be taken into consideration. These are the following:

Foremost, revival of religious power is apparent. Although different religions still have stronghold on many of their subjects, there is now a rapid decline in the number of followers especially in Christian nations where people are freer. But as wrenching changes coming ahead, many religions, even stricter Islam, would eventually be affected and constantly under resistance.

Second, speed, or hyper speed, is desirable in the new system of wealth creation. The speed of exchange of information is one factor that differentiates the new system from the old one. Speed in business transactions, production and creation of wealth is imperative in the new system. But speed, I believe, poses a great impact in humans and in society in general. The reason is that it undermines the value of leisure. With the changing world, people now always run after time and sometimes forget to pause and rethink the value of traditional ways of having personal and family leisure.

Third, the rise of electronic money and transactions is convenient. This new innovation in the Third Wave system brought a sigh of relief and ease. But this also triggers the rise of new forms of fraud. Cyber fraud is one great problem that accompanies electronic transactions in the businesses and the economy. Although some remedies were done, cyber fraud is still the most elusive and hardest crime to caught and penalize.

Fourth, de-massification of society is the result of less interchangeable labor. The existence of the “masses” is the core essence of mass democracy. But with the emergence of the new economic system, less interchangeable labor, rise of computers, people have become more individualistic. People now seek their own diverse needs and desires. The bonds that connect every individual are also fast disintegrating. This could be one reason for the increase of individualism and self-centeredness of most people in the advance countries.

Finally the USA still holds the lead of any of the three great capitalist centers in the world. Undoubtedly she still has the monopolistic-like tendency on the power triad in the global scale. As such, the USA will still remain as the traditional “hegemon” as it was before. This is one paradox of the powershift that with the advances in technology, de-massification of society and emergence of a new economic system, the shift of power in the global level has not gone away from the USA. The world is not having a “true” powershift when still one has the control of the power triad in the global level.

III. Synthesis

The world now is witnessing a great upheaval. This is brought by deep changes in the nature of power. Alvin Toffler, the author, examines the nature of power in the 21st century. Power involves the use of violence, wealth and knowledge and its role and impacts in every human relationship and society. Knowledge plays a vital role in the power struggles in every human institution. With these profound changes, we are now in the dawn of the Powershift era.

Powershift provides us with a new look and understanding of the nature of power. It raises some important changes that have taken or will take place in the 21st century. These important changes are the use of knowledge as the highest quality of power; capital is becoming “super-symbolic”; workers become less interchangeable; the pervasiveness of freedom of expression; and as the new system begins, a revolutionary form of education is taking its course. These changes, however, are paralleled with consequences that would also affect every human society. There is now the revival of religious power; individualism permeates society; cyber fraud will be usual and rampant; less appreciation on traditional values especially leisure; and still the dominance of USA in the global level are some of the consequences that every one of us must face in the 21st century.

In this Powershift era, the control of the of the power triad especially knowledge poses a great impact to humankind in the 21st century. As we shift to the new economic system, power will also shift and be transformed in the process. The control of knowledge will be the crucial basis of power struggles in the local and global level. Hence, anyone who can generate, manipulate and control knowledge, and other power resources, will take a lead and reign supreme in the course of history in the 21st century.

IV. Recommendation

Powershift is a significant work by Alvin Toffler. It gives us a picture of the changes in the nature of power in the 21st century. However the book is still devoid of perfection and needs further improvements. The reader recommends that Toffler must view the world in a less America-centric. Although biases are sometimes important, he must also look the developments that are happening in some parts of the world. Then, the reader recommends that other resources of power should be included not only the power triad. Although he mentioned culture as an aspect of knowledge, culture still plays an important role in the analysis of power. Lastly, the reader recommends that the book must be updated. Many changes have done since the publication of the book. So it is essential to include such changes which affect the nature of power in the 21st century.

When I Was In Thailand

            

While we have our river rafting-"the Black Pearl," as the way we called our raft,-clamor different songs from Mongolia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Myanmar  and Philippines. We exalted as the victor of the rive rafting race. Captain Kublai Khan of Mongolia coordinated with Co-captain Sheik Abdul of Bangladesh.

This video shows a welcome presentation held at Thammasat University to us delegates of the 5th UNESCO Youth Peace Ambassadors. It was peaceful, simple, elegant and beautiful. 

This is what you call "Muay Thai" presented at Thai Diamond City.  These people are good combatants. 

The Sabah Claim

Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God. Give to Malaysia what belongs to Malaysia, and give to the Kiram what belongs to Kiram, The Sultan of Sulu and the Sultan of Sabah.

I would like to define national interest as state’s national interest for the integrity of the nation’s territory, of its political institutions, and of its culture. This definition connotes that the interest is not only vested for one sided interest of the government but also it entails interest of the people; either they are majority or minority such as indigenous people. I believe that the Philippines shall actively pursue the national interest in the Sabah Claim. To actively pursue our national interest is to passively pursue our national security. And there is a big difference between pursuing national interest and waging war.

However, other individuals have a different notion of national interest in relation to Sabah. For them, Sabah conflict is a matter of personal or interest of one political family, Kiram. But looking into consideration of the Transfer of Sovereignty participated with Former President Diosdado Macapagal only impart that Sabah is not a personal interest but a national interest to seek peace, equality, and justice.

Ladies and gentle, history tells us the true to life story written or oral of who really owns nationally, politically, professionally, and legally Sabah. In other words, history tells the truth. And truth must prevail.

Allow me to narrate a short story of the Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu and the Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sabah under the benevolent reign of HM Sultan Muhammad Fuad Abduall Kiram I, The Sultan of Sulu and the Sultan of Sabah, the 35^th Sultan.

The Kingdom of Sulu was founded in 1390 but became the Sultanate of Sulu in 1457 while Sabah, Palawan including Spratly islands, were annexed in 1658 as the gifts eternal of the Sultan of Brunei to the Sultan of Sulu bestowing lawful ownership to the Sultan of Sulu and the Sultanate of Sulu to this day.

The Royal House of Sulu and Sabah and the Royal House of Brunei are related by blood as one family. From 1521 to 1690, the Sultans of Sulu and Sultans of Brunei fought jointly the invasion and conquest of Spain in their dominions in Muslim Philippines to claw back Muslim territories conquered by force by Spain leading to the Muslim people being displaced, dispossessed and ejected from their lands and properties in the Philippines, till the Muslims only occupy a very small portion of Mindanao to this modern day.

The Transfer of Sovereignty happened on 12 September 1962, from the Sultanate of Sulu to the Republic of the Philippines conferred ownership of Sovereignty to the Philippines, and it also continued to enshrine the ownership of Sabah as the private property of the heirs of HM Sultan Jamalul Kiram II. However, the current Sultan, HM Sultan Muhammad Fuad Abdulla Kiram I, as the true and legitimate Sultan stated that "Sabah is not only the property of the heirs but all of the people of the Sultanate of Sulu -- who are entitled to receive benefits from the Sabah property recovery through economic developments in the Sultanate."

However, Sabah was illegally and unlawfully occupied by Malaysia since 1963 without the consent of the lawful owners namely the Sultan of Sulu and the good people of the Sultanate of Sulu.

As point of enlightenment, we have our constitution that facilitates our actions to deal with this scenario.

The most important provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which pertain to the framing of Philippine foreign policy found in, Article II, Section 2 which states that "The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, and justice." Also in Article II, Section 7 states that "The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination."

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s actively pursue our national interest hand-in-hand, by giving to Kiram what belongs to Kiram with policy of peace, equality, and justice. This is what history tells us and the constitution evidently shows how we pursue.

Thank You. 

Dear Kimai

Dear Kimai,

Happy 59^th Monthsary! Greetings of love and happiness!

I am writing you a simple letter to let you know that the time of love is eternal and everlasting. Amidst of love and care, one can’t deny that loving and caring are intrinsic nature of man and woman. Beyond the realms of physical matter engrained the metaphysical spirit of emotion such as animated love. And love is very beautiful as you are. Time consumed us eternally that both you and I can’t imagine the long road of life had driven us together.

Almost a half of decade, my love for you is fresh. It seems though it is, my love for you never dies. Other things may banish and vanquish either naturally or incidentally, love is magical. There is a very stagnant momentum of collision of our heart. You and I collide. From the rising of the sun to its setting, the ignition never stops.

My simple life became full of life. Rainbows are everywhere. Different colors of the twinkle stars beam its light underneath the misty night. Cold breeze runs along with the wind. Savoring the moment with you in my life is a wonderful and beautiful. Looking at the sky, I admit that world is beautiful and life is meaningful. You are a person of beauty.

Maybe the reason why we are here in this material world is to share, give, experience, and learn what love is and how to love. Providing explanation of this is not sustainable because it is beyond reason. Love is found in our heart.

As I put closure in this letter, I would like to send my love for my Love of my Life. I love you.

Your love,

Macoi

Personal Narrative

There is a saying, that “Education is a key to success.” Every one of us has been educated that started from the basic form of the society to the academic institutions of intellectuals.  I, on my part, learned so many things of the importance of academic institutions. This academic education facilitates to develop our knowledge, skills, and abilities that serve as the core of our gradual learning and experience process. There is a biblical phrase that states that many are called but few are chosen. This phrase does not apply to the religious sector of the society rather it also applies to development of one’s hidden potentials. Every one of us is called to leadership but only few have been chosen. And I am one those who was called and was chosen.

I was only eleven, but I remember it like yesterday. I was sitting in our Grade VI classroom of Sto. Niño Elementary School, when we are having our elections for our batch in a dynamic environment of loud voices; and I heard one of my classmates that said “I nominate Marc Christian Tangpuz for Vice-President.”

Those words ripped into me like a serrated knife into a crisp, cold apple. It was anunexplainable feeling that seemed to possessed my whole body – a feeling of a juvenile that carry the thoughts of question such as “Why me and why not they?” It was a feeling that I can’t reason out because I have no desire to be a prominent person. This was the starting point of my calling to leadership. I was elected and chosen as Vice-President of our batch.

My practice and experience of leadership was continued in my secondary education at Assumption Academy, a private and a Catholic institution run by the Religious Sisters of Mercy (RSM). I became active student having so many extra-curricular. I became a band leader which I don’t like to be. I became a sacristan whom they considered as the worst Christians which developed my calling to enter the seminary. Finally, I became the President of the Supreme Student Council Organization (SSCO) in our batch 2007. And being the president of the student organization is terrible. And based in my experience, the president should be both a leader and a manager. The president should always be ready and intuitive. This position enhanced my leadership and managerial skills.

After my secondary education,the story of Saul in the Holy Bible seemed to happen to me.  Almighty God called me to become a servant of God in the midst of my dream. I don’t know if it was either a sweet dream or a nightmare. I am just afraid to become a servant of God. Little by little, I was inspired to become a priest as I served as a sacristan in Our Lady of Assumption Parish. I entered Sacred Heart Seminary which has a unique and strange environment not only because we are all boys but rather the ambiance is different from the outside world. As a seminarian, I was molded to be mature person through the help of formations that are found in academics, community, spiritual, and pastoral. What happened here was another kind of process that I learned a lot such as time management, discipline, socialization, and developing spiritual life that cannot be easily acquired in the outside world. And all of these are my ace.

Spending two years in the seminary is enough. I am enrolled in the University of San Carlos taking up Bachelor of Arts in Political Science major in International Relations and Foreign Service. This course provides crucial knowledge of what is international politics and the importance of diplomacy and relations of one state to another state. It is in this institution that I was able to enhance or upgrade the level of my professionalism because of praxis, the practical application of theory. And this is the ground that I started to experience of what is to be Foreign Service Officer. I had my summer internship program at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Cebu Regional Consular Office that I had satisfactorily accomplished. Also as an International Relations and Foreign Service (IRFS) major student, I attended the 5^th UNESCO Youth Peace Ambassador Training Workshop Holistic View of Peace, Health, Development and the Environment held 6-14 November 2012 in Bangkok and Kaeng Krachan, Thailand where I met friends from Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and other delegates from another country that developed my communication skill and applications dialogue of substantive knowledge such as Islam, peace, and the like.

My experience has taught me a lot. I discovered that, in order to reach the top, you must learn to climb the mountain and, in order become a successful person, you need to face education.  It may be from day-to-day experience, or from the lectures of the teachers for education is a life long process. In a way I am thankful for my experience, because I learned a lot from it. Indeed, “Education is the key to success.”

5th UNESCO YPA Action Plan

Links:
http://www.unescobkk.org/rushsap/youth/youth-peace-ambassadors/action-plans-ypa5/
http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/shs/Others/YPA5APJenny_Marc.pdf

Realpolitik of Otto Von Bismarck and Camillo di Cavour

Define realpolitik and describe how this principle is evident in the strategies of Otto Von Bismarck and Camillo di Cavour.

The term politics is used in many ways in everyday language, often with a negative implication of self-interest, backstabbing, and trickery, such as in the phrase “office politics.” This characterization is not completely unfair; even in the government, politics often involve such intrigue. But one need not think of politics only as a negative endeavor. In fact, despite the common joke that word comes from “poly” (meaning many) and “ticks” (blood-sucking insects), politics is an essential activity for any sizeable group of people. As Aristotle put it in The Politics, “Man is a political animal.” Without cooperation and an ability to enforce the rules established to govern behavior, large groups would be subject to chaos and the will of the strongest to a much greater extent than happens in modern societies.

Realpolitik is defined as a set of activities that help organize individuals, systematically resolve disputes, and maintain order in society with the use of power. These actions include passing and enforcing laws governing individual behavior, mobilizing and channeling mass participation, and socializing individuals to support the political system and the values on which it is based. If politics involves “who gets what, when, and how,” then when and how people get what they want depends to a large extent on their power.

Realpolitik refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations. It is a power as influence and a power as capabilities. Power is influence: getting people to do what you want them to do. The concept of power as influence includes the idea that one person in a power relationship can overcome the resistance of another. Power is capabilities that focus on the characteristics that would give one the ability to influence important outcomes.

Also, realpolitik is characterized with both coercive and noncoercive power. Coercive power is getting what one wants through the use of rewards and punishments. In domestic politics, government leaders can pass laws that prohibit certain actions and come up with punishments for those who break the law. On the other hand, noncoercive power is getting what one wants because of legitimacy. Noncoercive power rests on a different foundation, one that does not involve rewards and punishments. In this case, power results from a sense of legitimacy.

The principle of realpolitik is evident in the strategies of Otto von Bismarck and Camillo di Cavour. It is the strategy of influence and capabilities of coercive and noncoercive power.

Otto von Bismarck

World War I brought the world's major nations into the war at one time or another.  It's the alliance system was as much at fault as anything in bringing about the scale of the conflict.  It's possible to delve deeply into European history in the quest to unearth the roots of the various alliances that were at play in 1914.  However, for our purposes it serves to date the origins of the core alliances back to Bismarck's renowned intrigues, as he set about creating a unified Germany from the loose assembly of German confederated states in the 1860s. The German statesman Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck (1815-1898) was largely responsible for the creation of the German Empire in 1871. A leading diplomat of the late 19th century, he was known as the Iron Chancellor. Bismarck, first Prime Minister of Prussia and then Chancellor of the German Empire (once he had assembled it), set about the construction of Germany through high politics judiciously assisted by war against Austria and France.

Strategically, Otto von Bismarck engineered war with Austria in 1866 over disputed territory in the duchy of Holstein as the first step to oust Austria as the prime influence among these German states in order to achieve the creation of the German Empire. The resulting war lasted just seven weeks which its common title “The Seven Weeks War” and ended with the complete dominance of the supremely efficient Prussian military. Bismarck extracted Austria not only Schleswig and Holstein, but also Hanover, Hesse, Nassau and Frankfurt, creating the North German Federation. Having assembled a united assembly in the north Bismarck determined to achieve the same in the south – and so unite all of the German states under the Prussian banner. Bismarck resolved that war with the French, a common enemy, would attain his aims. First, he needed to engineer a credible reason for war by a doctored version of a telegram ostensibly from the Kaiser to Bismarck himself, called the Ems Telegram that affected both insult France and Prussia over their inability to resolve the dispute over the Spanish throne.

Napoleon III, facing civil revolt at home over quite unrelated matters, and receiving encouraging noises from his military commanders, responded by declaring war against Prussia five days later, on 19 July 1870. Once again, as was the case against Austria, the Prussian military machine demolished the French forces. The consequences of the war were numerous. Aside from the usual territorial gains – France ceded both Alsace and Lorraine to Prussia and was forces to pay swingeing reparations – the southern German states agreed to an alliance with their northern counterparts, resulting in the creation of Bismarck’s cherished German Empire. Bismarck did not initially fear an alliance between France and Britain, for the latter was at that time in the midst of a self-declared 1870s policy of “splendid isolation”, choosing to stay above continental European politics.

For, having achieved his life’s aim, Bismarck’s expansionary plans were at an end. He had secured what he wanted, and his chief desire now was to maintain its stability. He therefore set about building European alliances aimed at protecting Germany from potentially threatening quarters. He negotiated in 1873 with the Three Emperors League which tied Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia to each other’s aid in time of war. However Russia withdrew five years later in 1878 leaving Bismarck with a new Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1879.

This latter treaty promised aid to each other in the event of an attack by Russia, or if Russia aided another power at war with either Germany or Austria-Hungary. Should either nation be attacked by another power, e.g. France, they were to remain – at the very least – benevolently neutral. This alliance, unlike others, endured until war in 1914. It was this clause that Austria-Hungary invoked in calling Germany to her aid against Russian support for Serbia (who in turn was protected by treaty with Russia).

Two years after Germany and Austria-Hungary concluded their agreement, Italy was brought into the fold with the signing of the Triple Alliance in 1881. Under the provisions of this treaty, Germany and Austria-Hungary promised to assist Italy if she were attacked by France, and vice versa: Italy was bound to lend aid to Germany or Austria-Hungary if France declared war against either.

Potentially of greater importance, Bismarck in 1887 agreed to a so-called Reinsurance Treaty with Russia. This document stated that both would remain if either were involved in a war with a third (be it offensive or defensive). However, should that third power transpire to be France, Russia would not obliged to provide assistance to Germany (as was the case of Germany found itself at war with Austria-Hungary).

The realpolitik of Otto von Bismarck is narrowed down to power and alliance. By all means, he uses his legitimacy to engineer war against Austria as the first step to have the German Empire. In order to secure the power held by the German Empire, Bismarck strategically called for alliance not only to avoid war but to preserve the power of the German Empire. He allied with the Austria-Hungary with the Dual Alliance and also with the Triple Alliance with Italy to avoid war in the south. One of the chief aims of the Triple Alliance was to prevent Italy from declaring war against Austria-Hungary, towards whom the Italians were in dispute territorial matters. Also he negotiated Reinsurance Treaty with Russia to avoid the possibility of the two-front war against France and Russia. Realpolitik as being defined above is indeed a set of activities that help organize individuals, systematically resolve disputes, and maintain order in society with the use of power may it coercive or noncoercive.

Camillo di Cavour

Count Cavour, as he’s often known, was the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Piedmont and Sardinia. He was largely responsible for creating the nation of Italy. He forged an alliance with France which meant that his kingdom got Lombardy as a reward for fighting along with the French against the Austrians. Then Garibaldi went into Sicily and overthrew the King of Naples. Because he was a radical and republican Cavour moved quickly to “welcome” the liberated lands into what he now called the Kingdom of Italy.

Strategically, the realpolitik of Camillo di Cavour was the same that of Otto von Bismarck which deals with power politics and alliance. Camillo di Cavour did his best to used Piedmont as the key to the unification of Italy same as Bismarck’s Prussia as the key to the unification of the German Empire. Camillo di Cavour accepted the alliance with Britain and France in order support Piedmont’s expansion in Italy.

Attempted assassination of Napoleon III brought strong bond between Cavour and Napoleon III. Cavour reluctantly agreed to cede Savoy and Nice to France and also arranged a royal marriage between Princess Clotide and Prince Napoleon to aid Piedmont by France.

On the other hand, Garibaldi was military dictator of southern Italy and Sicily, and he imposed the Piedmontese constitution but publicly demanded that Cavour be removed, which alienated him slightly from Victor Emmanuel.

Garibaldi was unwilling to stop at this point, and planned an immediate invasion of the Papal States. Cavour feared France in that case would declare war to defend the Pope, and would successfully stop Garibaldi from initiating his attack. Garibaldi had been weakened by the Battle of Volturno, so Cavour quickly invaded the Papal regions of Umbria and the Marches. This linked the territories conquered by Piedmont with those taken by Garibaldi. The King met Garibaldi halfway at Naples, where Garibaldi handed over control of southern Italy and Sicily, thus uniting Italy.

In 1861, Victor Emmanuel II declared the Kingdom of Italy, making Cavour officially prime minister of Italy. In this case, Count Cavour strategically used France to protect not only Piedmont but to attain the unification of Italy.

Realpolitik is power and alliance.

United Nations (UN) as World Government: A Realist Perspective

INTRODUCTION

International Organization (IO) is in an extraordinary period of transition. Organizations like the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) play important and often controversial roles in the governance of the international and domestic affairs of many societies. In this academic paper, the researcher examine theory and practice of international organizations, recognizing that international organizations are part of a complex web of relations that can have subnational, national, international and transnational ties. To trace the pattern of this complex web, the researcher employs theoretical framework – Realism – as a means of approaching the question on the United Nations as a world government. Technically speaking, a theory is a set of generalized principles that have descriptive, explanatory, and predictive value (Bennett 1995, 5).

The history of the organizations as a field of study suggests no clear answer. The analytical shifts from “formal institutions” to “institutional processes” to “organizational roles” to “international regimes” have expanded the concept of international organization to include almost any type of patterned, repetitive behavior (Kratochwil and Ruggie 1986, 753-775; Rochster 1986, 777-813). Traditionally, international organizations have been conceived as formal institutions whose members are state. Such organizations are called intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) because the government of nation-states voluntarily join, contribute financing, and make decisions within organizations. IGOs are easily identified because their purpose, structures, and decision-making procedures are clearly spelled out in a charter or treaty. Example of IGOs includes the UN.

All IGOs have governmental as their formal members and can be further categorized by rules of membership. IGOs may have universal membership whereby all states are allowed to join. For example, all states may become members of the UN, at least in principle. Chapter II, Article 4 (1), states that UN membership is open to all peace-loving states “which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter, and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.” State seeking UN membership must petition of the UN Security Council, which then makes a recommendation to the General Assembly. The General Assembly then makes the final decision. While membership decisions can be quite political, the UN has, for the most part, practiced an open-door policy.

IGOs may also have limited membership. Participation in IGOs is restricted by some objective criteria. The Arab League, for example, is a voluntary association of states whose people mainly speak Arabic. This association seeks to strengthen Arab ties and promote common political and economic goals. NATO, a security alliance, limits its membership, restricting it by a combination of specific political, geographic, and military considerations.

One such actor is another kind of international organization, the non-governmental organization (NGO). NGOs are essentially nonprofit, private organizations that engage in a variety of international activities. They can be oriented toward single issue or can have a multipurpose agenda. NGOs participate in international politics defining goals, providing information, and giving expert advice. They also pressure governments and IGOs through direct and indirect lobbying techniques. NGOs such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and the International Committee for the Red Cross are instrument in setting international norms and executing international policy. While most NGOs receive some funding from the governments, their activities can be autonomous and are often coordinated with IGOs.

Another important kind of international organization is the multinational cooperation (MNC). MNCs are for-profit firms that have subsidies in two or more countries and engage in transnational production activities involving the movement of goods and services across national boundaries. IGOs, NGOs, and MNCs are the kinds of international organizations that are examined extensively in regime analysis. Regime analysis delves into the tangible principles and rules that are codified in charters, treaties, and international law. Informal principles, rules, norms, and decision-making procedures are also examined even though they are not spelled out in any formal sense. Regime analysis seeks to explain and model the complicated nature of international relations in which multiple actors engage in a variety of international and transnational activities. It seeks to understand the very complex web of international relations that invariably develops through any kind of international organization.

Hence the term “international organization” may refer to many different entities. IGOs (e.g., the UN), NGOs (e.g., Greenpeace), and MNCs (e.g., General Electric) are types of international organizations. International organizations also refer to the institutions, processes, norms, laws, and regimes that consist of state and nonstate actors. All this is part and parcel of global governance. Global governance refers t the latest research into the study of international organizations. Global governance focuses on how state and nonstate actors define and address global problems absent a world government. Global problems include war and other forms of violent conflict, economic stability, poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and human rights abuses. Global governance also involves making and sustaining the rules and the norms of world order (Held 1999, 50). The “nature” of global governance, however, remains contested.

In this text, realism is used as mental map that help make sense of contemporary international relations and international organizations. Then the paper applies this theoretical approach to substantive issue areas addressed by international organizations – security, trade, development, and human rights.

Realism

Realist theory discusses which, as a worldview, conceives of world politics as essentially conflictual. World politics center on sovereign states seeking power and exercising power against each other. States exist in a hostile and dangerous world that forces them to be prepared for war and other forms of violent conflict. This general worldview informs the realist theoretical framework. For realists, the state is the principal unit of analysis. While realists recognize that nonstate actors do exist, nonstate actors are not as important as important because ultimately, nonstate actors are responsible to the state or, at least, are vulnerable to state action. Relations between states are “international relations” for realists. Moreover, the state is assumed to be a unitary rational actor, meaning that it behaves as if it were a single entity capable of engaging in a cost-benefit analysis when selecting courses of action or policy. The state seeks to survive and maximize its national interest. International relations are essentially conflictual. The darker side of human nature and the constant threat of a attack guarantee that the relations between states will be contentious.

The concept of anarchy is critical to an understanding of the realist view of international relations. Anarchy is defined as the absence of a higher authority or world government. The international system is organized around sovereign states. Sovereignty means that the state, or its representatives (the government), has the final say within its territorial jurisdiction. This means that in international relations no higher authority exists above the state. This condition requires states to engage in “self-help” in order to secure their security and other national interests. International relations are essentially conflictual because states, each pursuing a particular self-interest, often collide with each other. This collision can very easily, and often does, result in violence. With no world government, no referee exists to settle disputes or prevent war. States, therefore, must seek power because it is through power that states can maximize their interests and guarantee their security under the condition of anarchy.

The realists’ emphasis on anarchy does not mean that they see the international system as chaotic. On the contrary, they point to the distribution of capabilities, or the balance of power, as a source of order in the international system. While there is no higher authority in international relations other than the state, there is hierarchy of power. Through this hierarchy, realists explain the creation international organizations and their role in maintaining international order and cooperation. According to the proponents of hegemonic stability theory, world order is established by a single, dominant power that creates and administers international organizations. These organizations serve the interests of the hegemon and legitimize its dominant position. The hegemon will maintain and support international organizations as long as the gains outweigh the costs. Other states join these organizations even though they serve the interests of the hegemon because the hegemon, through its power, is able to provide positive incentives and inducements. The hegemon also bears the costs of maintaining international organizations. International organizations, therefore, are created by and serve the interests of the dominant states. State will belong to and use international organizations if it is in their interest to do so. However, they will also ignore or even undermine them if that interest is in their self-interest.

Order and stability in international relations are based on a hegemon’s power. As that power declines, so do the world order and the international organizations that provide the foundation. Hence, most realists are very pessimistic about the independent role of international organizations in fostering cooperation among the sovereign states. Rather, it is the hegemon’s power reflected in international organizations that facilitates international cooperation. Realists tend to view international organizations as extensions of the great powers or as great-power directorates. The interest and behavior of international organizations must be understood in the context of the interests of dominant states. Conceptually, international organizations are IGOs, which are no more than the sum of their member states. For realists, global governance is a great-power concert facilitated by international organizations.

FIGURE 1: REALISM/NEOREALISM

REALISM/NEOREALISM
Key Actors	International System, States
View of the Individual	Power-seeking, Selfish, Antagonistic
View of the State	Seeks power; Unitary Actor; Has a national interest
View of the international system	Anarchy; Stability in balance-of-power system
Beliefs about change	Change potential is low; Structural change is low

chapter 1: united nations

Historical Antecedents

The idea of international organizations has probably been around since the advent of the first governments. From the writings of ancient Greek philosophers, for example, we learn of military alliances and international trading agreements. The Greek city-states Athens, Sparta, and Macedonia once employed a common currency, which required a high degree of international cooperation. Most contemporary scholars, however, point to the Congress of Vienna (1815-1822) as the earliest modern precedent to today’s IGO. The Congress of Vienna was a forum for international collaboration on European security and commerce. It also strengthened the Rhine Convention (1804), a bilateral IGO between France and the German confederation. This Commission established navigation rules for the Rhine River and an adjudication board to prosecute individuals accused of violating those rules. Similar river commissions were subsequently created for the Danube and Elbe rivers in Central and Eastern Europe.

League of Nations

The first global IGO was the League of Nations (1919-1939), and it had universal membership. The League, created after the World War I, was recognized around three bodies: the Council, the Assembly, and the Secretariat. The Council was the chief executive organ of the League. It consisted of the victors of the World War I, together with any four lesser powers that they chose to invite. The Council was mainly responsible for addressing issues relating to international war and threats to international peace. In addition, according to the League’s Charter, the Council could “deal at its meetings with any matter within the sphere of action of the League” (Article 4, Section 4). The Assembly functioned as a quasi-legislative body; it, too, was entitled to address any matter within the purview of the League. All members of the League of Nations belonged to the Assembly, and each member could have up to three representatives. The Secretariat served as the League’s bureaucracy, which was responsible for carrying out the League’s policies and mandates.

In addition to the League’s three principal organs, several autonomous and semiautonomous organizations were established under the League’s Charter. The Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Labor Organization (ILO) were created to help member states meet their obligations under the League’s Charter. Article 13 committed members to submit any matter unsolved by diplomacy to international arbitration or judicial settlement. The Permanent Court of International Justice was established to consider disputes that might arise regarding treaty interpretation or breaches of international obligations assumed under international law. The ILO was created, in part, to help member states meet their social responsibilities. Article 23(a) stated that members of the League “will endeavor to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labor for men, women, and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relation extend, and for that purpose will established and maintain the necessary international organizations.” The ILO, one of the few surviving League institutions, remains the central IGO responsible for setting and preserving international labor standards.

The League of Nations, although widely considered a failed experiment, was based on three important principles, which have since been incorporated by its successor, the United Nations (UN). First, the League of Nations embraced the idea of collective security where international security is directly tied to the security of member states. Second, the League established as a norm the peaceful settlement of disputes through such nonviolent measure as mediation, negotiation, arbitration, and adjudication. Third, the League was founded to foster international cooperation in the economic and social realms. The ideals of the League were both novel and innovative. They were also heavily influenced by American values, as one of the principal architects of the League was President Woodrow Wilson. Ultimately, however, the U.S. government chose not to join the organization – a decision that is widely considered to have compromised the League’s effectiveness during the interwar period. The League was politically challenged by the Japan-China conflict in Manchuria (1931) and the Italy-Ethiopia conflict (1935). The outbreak of World War II spelled the demise of the League as a viable international organization. However, its legacy lives on.

United Nations

The UN system was created in 1945 following World War II. The founder of the UN, meeting in San Francisco, sought to strengthen the idea of the multipurpose, the universal IGO first envisioned by the League of Nations. The UN was designed to be center of multilateral diplomacy in postwar world politics. Its central purpose is manifold: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to address economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems; and to promote respect for universal human rights. The UN retains the age-old principle of the sovereign equality of all states; however, it also commits members to the nonuse of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

FIGURE 2: PRINCIPAL ORGANS OF UNITED NATIONS

The UN is a comprehensive IGO to which, effectively, any state can belong. The UN system is structured around six principal organs – the General Assembly, the Security Council, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Secretariat, and the Trusteeship Council. These organs serve as an umbrella to other UN agencies and autonomous bodies. The six principal organs of the UN, together with its several agencies and autonomous organizations, compromise the UN family of IGOs; collectively, they address just about to every conceivable global issue, including war, civil disorder, arms control, trade, development, the environment, and human rights.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY The UN General Assembly serves as a quasi-legislative, deliberative body. Its principal functions, de jure functions are assigned by the UN Charter (Chapter IV) and are fivefold. First, the General Assembly may deliberate and consider any issue or questions that may rise under the Charter. While its resolution are nonbinding, the General Assembly may address issues that relate to the international peace, security, and disarmament, and it may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter that may cause a breach of the peace. Second, it is responsible for initiating studies and making recommendations for promoting political cooperation and progressive development of international law. Third, it is responsible for promoting international cooperation in the economic, social, cultural, educational and health care fields. Fourth, it is charged with drafting and approving the UN budget. And fifth, it oversees the UN bureaucracy.

The General Assembly is based on the liberal democratic principles of political equality and maturity rule. It is a plenary book, meaning that all member states may attend and fully participate in General Assembly meetings. Originally, the General Assembly consisted of 51 nation-states. Today, 193 states are represented. Decisions are made on a one-state/one-vote basis, with a simple majority deciding most issues. A qualified majority of two-thirds is required for important questions, such as recommendations made with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security or the election of the nonpermanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly operates much like a congress or parliament, although it does not produce binding law. Rather, the General Assembly resolutions functions as an expression of general legal principles, often forming the basis of the “hard” international la, which is created through treaties. The General Assembly, through its activities and its resolutions, best approximates the priorities and sentiments of the “international community.”

THE SECURITY COUNCIL The UN Security Council is the organ whose primary responsibility is maintaining international peace and security. This task is quite complicated because it involves in identifying threats to international peace and security, crafting an appropriate international response, building consensus, and carrying out collective security actions. Unlike General Assembly resolutions, Security Council decision are binding on member states, and member are obligated to abide by and help carry out these decisions. It should be noted that not all Security Council resolution are binding, but only those in which a formal “decision” is issued.

The Security Council has limited membership. It is composed of both permanent and nonpermanent, elective members and headed by a president, an office that rotates among all members. The permanent members include the five great-victors of the World War II, while ten elected members are selected form and by the General Assembly. Each of the Security Council’s permanent members possesses an absolute veto over substantive Security Council decision. This veto allows one member to kill Security Council actions, and it cannot be overridden. Absent a veto, Security Council resolutions are passed by an affirmative vote of nine members.

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE The ICJ is also known as the World Court and was created to be the principal judicial organ of the UN. Incorporating much of the statute of the League’s Permanent Court of International Justice, the ICJ has semiautonomous status within the UN family. Chapter XIV of the UN Charter authorizes the ICJ to adjudicate disputes arising under the Charter and international law. The ICJ statute mandates that the court consists of fifteen justices, no two of whom may be may be nationals form the same state. The justices of the Court are elected for nine-year, staggered terms by the General Assembly and the Security Council through a complicated nomination and selection process. These justices hear cases submitted to the Court by member states and, and decision are reached through a majority vote. A quorum of nine justices is required for the Court to hear a case; however, the Court does not have compulsory jurisdiction over all cases. Article 36 of the ICJ statute, often referred to as the “Optional Clause,” allow parties to decide whether they want to give the Court blanket jurisdiction over their current and future international legal disputes. Very few states have given the Court this kind of jurisdiction; thus, states usually consent to the court’s jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. Access to the ICJ is also limited to states. That is, only states may be parties in cases before the court. Private individuals are barred from bringing cases to the ICJ, and the court has refused to consider private petitions and requests. All the states involved in a legal disputes must be willing to have the ICJ hear the case before the Court will consider the merits. As a result, the ICJ hears only one or two cases a year, and it is generally considered an ineffective mechanism of international adjudication. The ICJ remains “marginal to most of the structural issues of international relations” (Forsythe 1998, 385).

The ICJ can, however, influence world politics as it is also responsible for providing advisory opinions on legal questions for the Security Council or the General Assembly, upon their request. Other agencies of the UN, when authorized by the General Assembly may also request advisory opinions on any legal question that may rise in the scope or course of their activities. The ICJ has issued advisory decisions for a variety of UN agencies ranging from the ILO to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). In 2003, the UN General Assembly (ES-10/14) requested an advisory opinion on the legality of the separation barrier being built by Israel in occupied Palestinian territories. The opinion, issued in 2004, held that the construction of wall violated international law and the human rights of Palestinians living in the occupied territories. This opinion generated considerable controversy as it called into question a key element of Israeli security strategy and complicated the “roadmap” to peace. Its effect also gave the legal and moral high ground to opponents of the barrier and strengthened the Palestinian’s bargaining position in any future peace negotiations.

THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL The ECOSOC was established under the UN Charter (Chapter X) to promote economic and social cooperation among member states. It is actively involved in the substantive issue areas of economic development, human rights, and social welfare. The ECOSOC consists of fifty-four members elected by the General Assembly for three-year, staggered terms. Each member has one vote, and decisions are based on majority rule. Retiring members are eligible for immediate election.

The ECOSOC has several important functions and powers. First, it “may make or initiate studies and reports with respect to international economic, social, cultural, educational, and health and related matters and may make recommendations with respect to any such matters to the General Assembly, to the Members of the United Nations, and to the specialized agencies concerned” (Article 62, Section 1). Second, the ECOSOC may make recommendations for promoting and protecting human rights. Third, the ECOSOC may prepare draft conventions relating to economic and social issues. Finally, it may call international conferences on matters falling within its competence.

THE TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL The Trusteeship Council was created to oversee the transition of colonies into self-governing territories. Its mandate is to ensure that the interests of the inhabitants of these non-self-governing territories are placed at the forefront of the decolonization process. Among the members of the Trusteeship Council are UN member states that administer trust territories. These members take an oath to respect the cultures of the people involved and to respect their political, economic, and social development. The Trusteeship Council also includes permanent members of the Security Council that are not administering trust territories. In addition, the Trusteeship Council is balanced; it must consist of “as many other members elected to ensure that the total number of the Trusteeship Council is equally divided between those Members of the United Nations which administer trust territories and those which do not”. Decision making is based on a one-member/one-vote, majority-rule arrangement.

The Trusteeship Council, while pivotal in the 1960s, is largely obsolete today. All the original UN trusts have become autonomous or self-governing, and there is little left for the Trusteeship Council to do. Its historical legacy is its over sight of the volatile decolonization process, a process for which there have been as many critics as champions. The Trusteeship Council’s role in this process has been to debate and deliberate different strategies of decolonization, as well as to monitor the effects of the process on trust populations. It has also supervised the process by issuing binding decisions on member states that were not permanent members of the Security Council and making recommendations to those that were. At the 2005 UN World Summit, the heads of the member states agreed to wind up the business of the Trusteeship Council, reflecting the completion of the role of the Trusteeship Council and the UN in decolonization.

THE SECRETARIAT The Secretariat serves as the UN bureaucracy. It consists of the Secretary-General and the bureaucratic staff necessary to carry out the UN’s complex task and functions. The Secretary-General is the chief diplomat, whose task is to present the UN to member states. The staff of the Secretariat is supposed to be recruited on the basis of efficiency, competence, integrity, and geographic diversity, although political patronage is not unknown. The bureaucratic agencies of the Secretariat are created by the General Assembly; however, both the ECOSOC and the Trusteeship Council are explicitly assigned their own staffs. The size, expense, and priorities of the UN bureaucracy are widely criticized today; yet, most agree that some kind of bureaucracy is necessary to carry out the large, complex tasks that characterized today’s global issues.

Management reform has been a high priority for the UN and its largest contributors, the United Sates. Member states have agreed in principle to strengthen the UN’s oversight capacity, especially in relations to the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the new Ethics Office. They have also agreed to overhaul policies relating to budgets, finance, and staff to streamline UN activities. The United States has demanded that the UN change the way it does business and the scandals involving corruption relating to the “Oil-For-Food” program and the procurement office accentuated the need to reform. The specifics of these reforms are currently being fleshed out and remain contentious at the UN.

The Principles of the United Nations

The United Nations is based on several complementary principles. First, the UN is founded on the principle of the sovereign equality of all members. This simply means that each state, at least in legal theory, retains the right to determine its own internal and external affairs. Second, UN members voluntarily accept responsibility to carry out certain international obligations upon joining the UN, one of which is to abide by Security Council decisions. The third founding principle of the UN is the peaceful settlement of disputes. Fourth, member states agree not to threaten or use force in their international relations. Fifth, the UN is enjoined from the intervention in the domestic jurisdiction of the member states. The principle of sovereign equality, the peaceful settlements of disputes, nonuse of force, and nonintervention are companion principles critical to maintenance of international peace and security.

The UN Charter attempts to strengthen international peace and security by permitting regional arrangements. Chapter VIII recognizes that regional and local solutions to regional and local problems are often preferable to UN attention. However, the UN Charter does require that the UN be kept informed of regional activities and events that may threaten international peace and security. Furthermore, the Charter seeks to restrict regional enforcement activities by stating “no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council” (Article 53). The architects of the Charter wanted to balance the benefits of regionalism with the need for universal approaches to international problems.

chapter 2: security

Security means different things to different people. Traditionally, the orthodox notion of security has centered on the security of the state and the perennial problem of war. War has ended lives of hundreds of millions of people and left once thriving societies in ruins. With respect to the central issue of international security, then, it is legitimate to ask how and international organizations respond to war and threats of war. Diplomatic euphemisms aside, the causes of war are numerous and intertwined. Societies fight to tangible reasons – territory and resources. They also fight for intangible reasons – ideology, nationalism, and religion. Yet the solutions to war are few and frustratingly elusive. A true balance of power might deter aggression; but if history is any indicator, a straight balance-of-power approach is flawed and prone to failure.

The cause of war have become increasingly complicated and its effects ruinous. Contemporary wars tend to have both internal and external sources, and sophisticated weapons are readily available to any party with money or credit enough to buy them. And though fighting itself may be confined within states, its consequences are felt elsewhere, often having international repercussions. International organizations and member states attempt to manage the ill effects of war and seek mechanisms that may prevent war in the future.

In the past, international security generally meant the security of states; however, many international organizations have sought to reconceptualize security in terms of “human security” (MacFarlane and Foong Khong 2006; Oberleitner 2005, 185-203; Ogata and Cels 2003; Paris 2001; Peou 2002; Pettman 2005; Wedgewood 2002). Human security is a people-centered approach that focuses on physical threats to individuals. Such threats include not only war and other violent conflict but also hunger, disease, environmental disaster, or extreme poverty. Physical threats to individuals may emanate from their government or from other groups within a society.

PERSIAN GULF CRISIS The idea of collective security experienced a rebirth during the Iraq-Kuwait of 1990. In August of that year, Iraq invaded Kuwait, quickly occupying and annexing that tiny, oil-rich kingdom. Several factors made this crisis unique among those generated since World War II. First, the Iraq invasion was a textbook land grab, a kind of aggression not witnessed since the World War II. The Korean War could be interpreted as civil war or a war of national liberation. Other invasion involving force has occurred, but they were for reasons other than the occupation and annexation of territories legally belonging to another sovereign state. In this case, however, the Iraqi use of force clearly violated Article 2(4), the key UN provision designed to thwart efforts to change territorial boundaries by force. This kind of “naked” aggression occurred during a period of transition in world politics. The USSR had national affairs under Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev. The warning of East-West relations and the clear-cut nature of the Iraqi aggression enabled the collective security arrangements of the UN to function in the manner originally intended.

On the date of invasion, the UN Security Council met in emergency session; it condemned the invasion as an unlawful use of force and demanded an immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces. Iraqi forces quickly entrenched themselves in Kuwait, fortifying their position along the Saudi Arabian border. The United States immediately moved rapid-deployment combat forces into the region to help defend Saudi Arabia and its strategic oil fields. The forces deployed were not sufficient to repel an Iraqi onslaught, but they did make the Iraqi leader think about the possibility of engaging U.S. forces in combat. The United States informed the UN that it was deploying its military in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter, permitting the use of force for collective self-defense. Moreover, both the Kuwaiti government and the Saudi Arabian government have requested U.S. military assistance.

On August 6, 1990, the Security Council passed Resolution 661 calling for mandatory economic sanctions against Iraq. The sanctions were comprehensive although humanitarian and medical supplies were exempted. The UN members, bound under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to abide by Security Council decisions, were obligated to honor this resolution. In the past, however, such economic sanctions had not always been enforced; and in this case, supplies and arms continued to flow to Iraq, especially from Jordan and Turkey. On August 25, 1990, the Security Council authorized the use of force if necessary to implement the economic sanctions-this, to ensure the isolation of Iraq and to remind members of their UN obligations. While the UN was applying diplomatic pressure on Iraq, the United States was putting together a “multinational” force dubbed Desert Shield. Although composed largely of U.S. army, air, and naval forces, Desert Shield also included military units form the Arab League, Great Britain, and France. On November 29, 1990, the Security Council passed Resolution 678, authorizing “all means necessary” to extract Iraq from Kuwait and setting a deadline of January 15, 1991, for the Iraqi withdrawal. On January 16, 1991, the Operation Desert Storm, a U.S.-led, UN-sanctioned military response, was launched to force the Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The Iraqi invasion was effectively reversed on March 16, 1991, when Iraq, having been driven from Kuwaiti territory, agreed to a cease-fire.

THE REALIST PERSPECTIVE Recall that realists tend to see international organizations like the UN as tools or extension of great powers. They are usually created by a hegemon or formed through the cooperation of great powers. According to realist theory, international organizations either serve the interest of the great power or are bypassed in favor of unilateral action if great-power consensus cannot be reached. The Persian Gulf Crisis exemplifies why power politics will always take precedence over, and shape the actions of, international organizations. Realists urge that Persian Gulf Crisis is a classic lesson in power calculation and miscalculation.

For realists, the Persian Gulf Crisis was the consequence of a very risky Iraqi gamble, one that Iraq lost and continue to pay for today. Iraq has always been a strategic power in the Middle East, playing a balancing role between the East and the West during the Cold War. A virtual client of USSR and France, Iraq has historically played a central role in the Middle Eastern politics. As an oil producer and a long-time adversary of Iran, Iraq’s strategic value was not lost either on the United States or the USSR, both of whom provided arms and assistance to Iraq.

The mainstream U.S. media have largely interpreted Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait as the folly of a madman. But, form a strategic point of view; it was a gamble that could have paid off handsomely for Iraq. Consider the decision to invade from Iraq’s position. In the twentieth century, Iraq has been a second rate power at best. First as a colony and then as an independent state, Iraq was overshadowed commitments. Worse, Iraq’s devastating war of attrition with Iran had drained its treasury and left its army demoralized. Meantime, right next door was Kuwait, an unpopular neighbor with impressive oil reserves, a lot of money, and no defense worthy of the name. Many in the Arab world viewed Kuwait as an arrogant puppet of the United States. During the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait had reflagged its oil tankers with the U.S. flag and repeatedly exceeded its Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries OPEC quotas, lowering the price of oil in global markets. A successful takeover of Kuwait would make Iraq the power in the Middle East, controlling the largest standing army in the region together with more than a third of the world’s oil supply. A quick military action would present the world with a fait accompli, which few states could do anything about. And once entrenched, Iraq could be extracted from Kuwait only under very difficult conditions and at extreme cost. The inly state capable of such a task was the United States, whose forces in the region were negligible. By Saddam Hussein’s calculations, then, a successful military action would raise Iraq to great-power status with one quick relatively cost-free stroke.

But the UN, and particularly the Security Council, had its own calculations. Its role and behavior can be explained by the interests of the status quo great powers. The Security Council did not ignore the Iraqi invasion; it reacted because it directly threatened the interest of many of the permanent members. If Iraq’s aggression were not reversed, there would be a permanent shift in the balance of power in the Middle East, and perhaps the world. Iraq was perceived as dangerous because its population was Muslim, its nationalist leaders, and its agenda aggressive. Middle Eastern oil is crucial to the military and economic security of world supplies was an unacceptable risk as it could manipulate oil prices or impose a boycott during times of conflict.

Mere dependence on oil is not sufficient reason for the great powers to intervene militarily. Iraq was challenging the status quo order. It challenges US leadership. US hegemony has depended, to a large extent, on its ability to provide the world with access to oil relatively low prices. Iraq threatened that ability. The shift in the balance of power would destabilize the Middle East and weaken US leadership capability. Hence, US interests were more directly engaged than those of other powers dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Realist sees international organizations as arenas that reflect the existing balance of power (Mearsheimer 1994/1995). At the time of the Gulf Crisis, the West, led by the United States, was able to exercise its power within and outside of the UN, bringing significant force to bear against Iraq. But despite the “global community” and “new world order” rhetoric, the military actions against Iraq were far from unanimous. Both France and the USSR were reluctant to authorize military force and hesitate up to and perhaps beyond, the January 15 deadline. They argued that the sanctions had not enough time to work and that more time was needed to compel Iraq’s withdrawal. Several nonpermanent members of the Security Council, China, and Yemen either abstained or voted against economic and/or military sanctions. Yemen was punished for its abstentions by the United States., which cut off a planned aid package (Weston 1991, 524).

The Security Council could only authorize the use of force; it had no military forces it could deploy itself. As long as the UN must rely on the armed forces of member states, then only member states that have a compelling interest are likely to volunteer to participate in the enforcement action. Thus, in crisis situations the UN response will always be politicized, reflecting the interest and power calculations of leading member states. In other words, either the UN will behave in a manner consistent with the interests of the great powers, or it will be marginalized. If great-power interests happen to be congruent, the UN can play a leading role because it will represent those interests. But if great-power interests conflict, the UN will be marginalized, and states will act unilaterally or in concert with its allies.

The UN was just one of the many tools in the statesmen’s toolbox. The UN provided legitimacy to the largest deployment and use of force since World War II. Yet, it was the United States that provided military capability, controlled the use of military, and made all of the command decisions. Several observers have indicated that UN approval ha enabled the United States to escape condemnation for the excessive loss of Iraqi life and the destruction of Iraqi infrastructures. The extensive levels of destruction, along with the high civilian casualty rates, raise important questions as to whether the UN response was proportional and whether all nonforcible means had been exhausted before military force was applied (Gardam 1993; Weiss, Forsythe, and Coate 1994, 70; Weston 1991).

chapter 3: trade

One of the oldest and most controversial features of international relations is trade – seemingly simple act of exchanging goods and services between societies. On the one hand, international trade yields mutual benefits: It increases the diversity and quality of consumer goods and services, facilitates the diffusion of technology, provides jobs, and promote efficiency. On the other hand, trade can also destroy national industries, displace workers, and threaten national culture and identity. Thus, international trade has been, and continues to be, a force that produces both cooperation and conflict between societies. The controversies generated by trade make it one of the leading issues in contemporary international affairs.

The World Trade Organization (WTO)

The difficulties in liberalizing the agriculture and service sectors, together with the increasing use of NTBs, prompted GATT members to form the WTO. The GATT was considered to be inadequate for several reasons. First, the GATT was fundamentally a provisional international agreement. When it became clear that the ITO would never get off the ground, negotiators were forced to develop ad hoc procedures for setting disputes. This made the dispute process chaotic, complicated, and inconsistent. Second, the GATT’s jurisdiction was quite limited. Technically, only tariffs and quotas on manufactured and industrial goods fell under the purview of GATT. However, with the globalization of production, the need for further liberalization and the removal of NTBs increased in urgency. Third, GATT as an organization had questionable legal status; it needed to become both more impartial and more authoritative to tackle the volatile issues of contemporary trade. Often deprecated as the “General Agreement on Talk and Talk,” the GATT had no mechanisms for authoritatively and systematically resolving disputes. Thus, as the last order of business during the Uruguay Round, GATT members voted the WTO into existence.

The WTO touts itself as a member-driven, consensus-based IGO. That is, the WTO tries to reach decisions through decision. When consensus is not possible, its voting procedures demand either a two-thirds or three-fourths majority rule, each state having one vote. The WTO is organized around four levels. At the top is the Ministerial Conference, which is attended by all member states. The Ministerial Conference, which is attended by all member states. The Ministerial Conference must meet at least once every two years and is responsible for the long-term strategic planning of the organizations. While the WTO encourages consensus, four situations are likely to trigger a vote of WTO members. First, a vote may be required for interpretation of existing multilateral trade agreements. Second, a vote may be necessary to waive an obligation assumed under trading agreements. Third, amendments to existing multilateral agreements require ministerial approval. Finally, the admission of new members to the organization must be approved by WTO members. Since its inception, no WTO decision or ruling has required a vote of the Ministerial Conference.

The WTO is supported by a small bureaucracy (500 people) called the Secretariat. The Secretariat leadership consists of the Secretary Director General, staffed by trade experts and economists who review the trade policy of members and provide the General Council with expertise, training, and technical support. The Secretariat, which provides the “expert panels” that adjudicate unresolved disputes, is part and parcel of the appeal process. The function of the Secretariat is to denationalize multilateral is designed to take politics out of trade.

Depoliticizing and denationalizing trade is a formidable task. Politics is about determining who gets what, when, how, and why. Trade involves the global distribution of resources and wealth, and governments are reluctant to practice protectionism for many, interrelated reasons – reasons that may have little to do with efficiency or comparative advantage. They may, for instance, seek to protect certain industries or restrict trade in certain technologies for or sophisticated war-fighting technologies are critical to a state’s security.

The WTO faces an uncertain political and economic future as trade talks have stalled and the international community is experiencing an unprecedented and far-reaching global financial crisis. The financial crisis, which began in the subprime mortgage market in the United States, quickly spread around the world in part because of the liberalization of the financial services that took place under the auspices of the WTO. In 1997, the WTO and its member states reached a historic financial agreement that would allow multinational banks and insurance companies to operate globally and in many emerging markets. The initial international response to the WTO-sponsored agreement was mixed.

THE REALIST PERSPECTIVE Traditional realists and economic nationalists see the WTO ruling as an unacceptable erosion of state sovereignty. They fear that the WTO will undermine governments, compromising their ability to regulate the domestic economy. The capacity of WTO officials to review government policies and declare them “impermissible” effectively means that the WTO has the final say regarding policy and regulation. This interpretation of WTO sovereignty over the U.S. government is rather extreme; the United States can, in fact, withdraw fro, the WTO or simply ignore its decisions. Criticisms of the WTO as a threat to sovereign prerogatives make good press for conservative politicians, but do not translate into any measurable loss of sovereignty. As Clayton Yeutter, the trade representative during the Reagan administration, said, “The sovereignty argument is pointless, for every trade agreement we’ve signed in the past 200 years has in some way infringed on our sovereignty” (cited in Crow 1996, 37).

In deciding to abide by the WTO ruling, the United States made a shrewd political move. The WTO nullifies a law that sets environmental standards too high for domestic and foreign producers of gasoline alike. Meantime, the United States publicly sacrifices its sovereignty for the “collective good”, thereby setting the precedent for WTO authority internationally. The United States gains additional suppliers of reformulated gasoline while simultaneously strengthening the organization it has wanted to create. A robust WTO is necessary to root out and eliminate trade discrimination, the vast majority of which is against US products and services (Buckley 1996, 70). Thus, the United States sacrifices little and gains a lot. National government want organizations like the WTO to support their policies, share the blame for unpopular measures, and increase their access to markets and resources (Bayne 1997). The WTO decision in the Clean Air Act case fits the bill. Since this case, the WTO has often ruled in favor of the United States against some of its more intractable ruling against the EU in an important computer networking case (Sanger 1998, C1). The WTO will also be extremely useful to the United States in trade negotiations with Japan (Lincoln 1997). For neorealists, the issue turns less on sovereign and more on security. The United States can certainly ignore any WTO decision that genuinely threatens its security – and WTO officials know it. Therefore, they are not likely to issue any such decision.

chapter 4: development

Development represents one of the principal challenges of twenty-first-century international relations. Chronic poverty, malnutrition, and disease characterized most of the developing world and are creeping into segments of the developed world. Economic stagnation and rampant inflation cripple economies, causing high levels of debt, unemployment, and underemployment. The economic disparities between rich and poor continue to widen at an accelerated pace. The disparities between rich and poor are contributory causes of war both within and between nations. In the view of many, development is the best strategy for avoiding violent conflict and averting political upheaval in the future. Unfortunately, no consensus exists as to the causes of poverty or the meaning of development. As a result, development issues remain controversial in international forums.

MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS Multilateral approaches to the issue of development involve activities that extend beyond the IMF and the World Bank. At the 2000 World Summit, the members of the UN set ambitious development goals that require extensive international cooperation among all UN members and agencies. The MDGs blend both orthodox and critical approaches to development and employ a more people-centered approach to development. The interrelated goals are ambitious. The first goal is to eradicate extreme poverty by halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day and who suffer from hunger by 2015. Success in reaching MDG 1 is conditioned on the success of MDG 2, which is to provide universal primary education to both boys and girls. MDG 3 is to promote gender equality for women, which involves giving girls and women equal access to education at all levels. MDGs 4 and 5 center on reducing, by two-thirds, the child mortality rate and improving maternal health care, respectively. The first five goals need to be pursued simultaneously along with efforts to combat AIDS and other infectious diseases-MDG 6. AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis are debilitating preventable diseases that have a direct impact on the quality of life for millions of people. Prevention requires education and improved status of women. MDGs 7 and 8 focus on sustainable development and building a global partnership for development. Each goal is accompanied by concrete measurable targets.

The ambitious goals set at the Millennium Summit reflect the UN’s concern for meeting the basic human needs of the world’s population by 2015. Economic development must go hand-in-hand with human development in order for either to be successful. While a great deal of consensus exists that these goals are both necessary and, with proper attention, attainable, divisions remain on the appropriate strategies. The 2005 World Summit illustrated some of the disagreements surrounding how best to achieve the MDGs. Initially, the United States sought to remove any mention of the MDGs from the agenda in part because the MDGs involve international and governmental interventions in the world economy; however, international protest caused it to back down. President George W. Bush included the MDGs in his speech to the General Assembly but provided few specifics as to the role of the United States. Progress toward specific targets has been slow; however, the largest creditor nations did agree to forgive approximately $20 billion of debt owed by the poorest nations in October 2005, demonstrating their commitment to removing one of the principal obstacles to development.

Progress toward meeting the MDGs by 2015 has not been altogether promising. The UN Human Development Report (2005, 8) states the following:

• The MDG target for reducing child mortality will be missed with margin equivalent to more than 4.4 million avoidable deaths in 2015. Over the next 10 years, the cumulative gap between the target and the current trends adds more than 41 million children who will die before their fifth birthday from the most readily curable disease – poverty. This is an outcome that is difficult to square with the Millennium Declaration’s pledge to protect the world’s children.
• The gap between the MDG target for halving poverty and the projected outcomes is equivalent to an additional 380 million people in developing countries living on less than 1$ a day by 2015.
• The MDG target of universal primary education will be missed with 47 million children in developing countries still out of school in 2015.

The MDG initiative has met with some success in large part because of the progress of China in terms of poverty alleviation, primary education, and gender equality. Its double digit economic growth and increases in international trade have improved the lives of millions of Chinese and have had a significant impact on MDG statistics. However, sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia have actually gotten worse.

In 2008, rising fuel and food prices exacerbated the living and working conditions of the poor around the world. With the accompanying inflation, those living in poverty and extreme poverty faced difficulty meeting subsistence nutritional needs. The global financial crisis has meant that wealthy states are less generous in their ODA. Since 2005, ODA has declined and, with the financial instability in the advanced industrialized countries threatening to take down the global financial system, increases in ODA are not likely. The global financial crisis is unprecedented on several levels, and the turmoil is reshaping the nature of financial regulation and international development.

THE REALIST PERSPECTIVE As an international initiative, the MDG strategy is well-intentioned but insignificantly is measured by the extent that states, which comprise international community, are willing to devote their scarce resources. While absolute cost of meeting all of the MDGs remains in disputes, this international community has largely agreed that if the richest countries in the world would devote 0.7 percent of their gross national income, then the international community could eliminate extreme poverty globally. That is, the world’s richest states need only devote $0.70 of every $100.00 they earn to development in order to lift the rest of the world out of extreme poverty. To date, only a few countries such as Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, and the Netherlands have met this benchmark. That so few states are willing to commit what seems to be such an insignificant amount demonstrates that alleviating extreme poverty around the world is not a particularly high priority for states.

From a realist perspective, international aid actually does more harm than good (Easterly 2006). UN efforts at developing and attempting to fulfill the MDG are laudable, but such grand plans usually fail. International institutions are inefficient and too removed to effectively administer a grand plan. Infusion of resources leads to corruption and mismanagement at the UN and for aid recipient states. States seeking to assist others in meeting the MDGs would do well to devote aid bilaterally to insure proper management.

chapter 5: human rights

International organizations play crucial roles relating to human rights and humanitarian issues. IGOs like the UN, EU, and the Arab League promote human rights and deliver emergency assistance to societies in crisis. NGOs work with IGOs to provide food aid and health, education, and legal services. Human crises are intertwined with political violence, environment degradation, and gross violations of human rights.

RWANDA In April 1994, the tiny country of Rwanda took a disastrous turn toward genocide that would claim more than 800,000 lives in mere 100 days. The victims were members of the Tutsi minority and moderate Hutus who were murdered with machetes and small arms in just a few weeks. The perpetrators of the genocide were roaming gangs of the ethnic majority Hutus consisting mostly of men; however, large numbers of women and children also took part in the carnage.

The genocide killing began on April 6 after the airplane carrying Rwanda Hutu President Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundi President Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down by a surface-to-air missile on its approach into Rwanda capital, Kigali. The two leaders had been attending a peace conference that was geared toward building a lasting peace in the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa. This region has experienced wide-scale political unrest and violence, most of which stemmed from the ethnic conflict between Tutsis and Hutus. In 1993, the UN Security Council created and deployed a small, lightly armed peacekeeping force called the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR). UNAMIR’s mandate was to help implement the cease-fire between the Hutu government and Tutsi rebels as part of the Arusha Peace Agreement. UNAMIR’s 2,500 blue helmets represented the international community’s commitment to the peace process and consisted of troops from Belgium, Ghana, and Pakistan. Within hours after the downing of President Habyarimana’s plane, the Rwanda presidential guard began hunting down the Tutsi and Hutu opponents of the president and killing them. On April 7, Rwanda’s first female Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana (and Habyarimana critic) was raped and murdered. The ten Belgian peacekeepers assigned to protect her were tortured, brutalized, and killed.

Hutu government insiders informed the UNAMIR commander that Hutu extremists intended to kill all the Tutsis. UNAMIR commanders wanted to move quickly to seize weapons that had been stockpiled, but were told by the then head of UN peacekeeping Kofi Annan that weapons seizures would not be supported and that UNAMIR was not to take any action without further authorization. In the meantime, Hutu gangs were on the move, committing mass murder of the Tutsi minority. Rwanda radio incited the violence by directing killers to where Tutsis minority. Rwanda radio incited the violence by directing killers to where Tutsis were hiding and filing the airwaves with hateful propaganda. More moderate leaders were murdered, as UN peacekeepers stepped aside. Thousands of Tutsis, fleeing the machetes, went to UN camps for protection.

The Tutsi rebel force, known as the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF), launched an offensive to seize power and stop killing. The approaching Tutsi force caused hundreds of thousands of Hutus to flee Kigali, the Rwanda capital. The mass movements of Tutsis and Hutus created a humanitarian disaster in the border regions, especially in Tanzania. The UNHCR and the WFP struggled to avoid famine and disease. Several Western countries also sent special forces to Rwanda. The Tutsi employees of the Western embassies were not evacuated even though they faced certain death. On April 22, the UN Secretary-General recommended that the UN Security Council either beef up and heavily arm UNAMIR or withdraw the peacekeepers from harm’s way. The Security Council voted to reduce UNAMIR to a token presence of 270 people. As the UN withdrew from Rwanda, Hutu extremists overran the camps and slaughtered the inhabitants.

By July, Kigali fell to the RPF and over one million Hutus fled to neighboring countries. A new coalition government was formed with Tutsis prominently represented. The genocide was effectively ended. In November, the UN Security Council announced the creation of an international criminal tribunal to try the Rwanda “war” criminal. In November 1996, he UNAMIR mission was officially concluded.

THE REALIST PERSPECTIVE The end of the Cold War effectively signaled the demise of the great powers’ engagement of the Great Lakes Region and their interest in Africa in general. During the Cold War, the outcomes of political and ethnic conflicts in the region were of strategic importance to the superpowers in their ideological and territorial battle. The United States, European states, and the former Soviet Union meddled in Africa wars of independence, each trying to influence events in their favor. The end of the Cold War greatly diminished the strategic importance of Africa, and the African states were left to themselves to solve their political and ethnic conflict that had been inflamed and exacerbated by years of Cold War tension. In short, by 1994 the great powers had no compelling national interests in Rwanda.

Unfortunately for the Rwandans massacred in the genocide, the UN’s first post-Cold War foray into Africa was a disaster for US armed forces. The US-led UN intervention into Somalia in 1992 was to deliver humanitarian food and medical aid to millions of Somalis at risk. Once that mission was accomplished, US forces began the difficult task of state-building by trying to create a coalition government among hostile warlords. US forces had to track down renegade warlords and attempt to disarm exceptionally well-armed militias. Nineteen US “peacekeepers” were brutally killed, and their bodies were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia. The US peacekeepers were on the same kind of mission that UNAMIR initially requested to undertake in Rwanda as the genocide began to unfold. With that experience, the United States was reluctant to expand UNAMIR’s mission because it would likely have involved a commitment of US troops in another remote region of Africa. As a result, UNAMIR wad denied the authorization to take decisive steps to seize the weapons that could have at least stalled the genocide. The United States had a policy not to intervene in Rwanda and, therefore, the UN did not intervene (Forsythe 2000, 15). US Department officials were instructed not to use the word “genocide” even though it was clear to officials that the genocide was occurring (Frontline 1999). Rwanda even had a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council, but no one asked the Rwanda representative to explain what was happening or even to assure Security Council members that the activities merely amounted to a “breach of the peace.” Neither the United States nor the UN would use the word “genocide” because genocide demands a response and the United States was committed to nonintervention (Lewis 2001, A5).

conclusion

Realists predict continuity, both in international relations and in the nature of global governance. States remain the principal and most important actors in international relations, and international organizations are subordinate to the dominant powers of the day. The international system will still be defined as anarchy characterized by some kind of balance of power. International organizations will continue to play secondary roles in the management of international affairs. War, violence, and conflict will remain at the forefront of the international stage. What will change, according to realists, is the distribution of capabilities among states. There is nothing inevitable about the world order created under US hegemony. The values, norms, and rules regarding state behavior in the year 2025 will be decided by the powerful. The behavior and interests of IGOs will reflect that underlying balance of power.

If the UN remains a viable organization, collective security will continue to be a politically motivated and power-driven endeavor. Collective security will be triggered only when the geostrategic, military, and economic interests of all the great powers are engaged and those interests are congruent. A congruence of great-power interests will be just as difficult to achieve, if not more so, in 2025 as it was during the twentieth century. Liberal principles of justice and international law will not prompt UN action, rather only great-power interests. Whether or not the UN will continue to exist will be determined in large part by the answers to two questions:

1. Can war between the great powers be avoided? The historical record suggests that war is an inevitable part of international relations. States that want peace must always be prepared for war. Nuclear weapons may create a particular kind of balance of power that renders war between the great powers obsolete, but that is no guarantee against devastating terrorist attacks. War remains a likely possibility, particularly if the current international order experiences a crisis or some kind of breakdown. A global depression or a regional conflict that spins out of control could erode US leadership capabilities to the extent that a revisionist challenger will seek to change the system. The United States could fight or abandon its leadership role. A new world leader, possibly China, may create international organization that institutionalize its dominant role and legitimize its leadership position. The UN may meet the same fate as the League of Nations, finding itself on the trash heap of failed experiments. Even if global war can be averted, the United States or some other state (or a group of states) must be willing to commit the resources necessary to keep the UN operating. Chances are that great-power indecision and neglect will marginalize the UN.
2. Can the UN adapt to the changing power distributions among states? If nuclear weapons generate an effective stalemate among the great powers, then the UN must change to reflect the shifting distributions of conventional military and economic capabilities. The original composition of the Security Council reflected the balance of power after World War II. However, after the Cold War, the permanent members of the Security Council have resisted reforms that would include rising states and states from the developing world on the Council. The permanent members have rejected any change in the veto provision or other substantive decision-making procedures. The Security Council will likely remain a great-power concert in that the members will balance each other but will permit the great powers to intervene militarily in their own spheres of influence. The great-power cooperation that occurred during the 1990s was more an aberration than the birth of true collective security.

The Security Council will be just as paralyzed as it always has been. The optimism of the 1990s quickly eroded as its collective security initiatives in Somalia and Rwanda proved disastrous. The sobering conflicts of interest and power realities have prevented effective collective security. As an institutional framework, collective security does little to curb unilateral uses of force by the permanent members. These states will continue to use violence to secure their national interests, which include forcibly changing the governments of other states and carrying out military reprisals. The proliferation of nuclear weapons will create multiple “cold wars” as adversaries stand off. The Security Council will like remain paralyzed, unable to act.

The nature of conflict in the twenty-first century does not lend itself to traditional collective security of the kind envisioned by the UN architects after World War II. Collective security in the twentieth century was designed to guard against the traditional landgrab and the territorial expansion of states through force. International conflict in the twenty-first century has internal sources and is low in intensity but prolonged. Terrorism is also a persistent threat. International conflict occurs in the marginalized areas of the world, where the permanent members have few interests. Marginalized states have disintegrated along ethnic and religious lines. Only strong states continue to survive internal and external challenges. International security between strong states will be achieved through a balance of power.

IGOs that relate to trade will meet the same fate as security IGOs. The WTO, which is based on free trade principles, will be effectively only as long as the major powers stand to benefit from free trade. States will ignore any WTO decisions that go against their important national interests. And they will abandon free trade if they begin to lose significant national wealth. States will erect barriers to trade in order to arrest their decline or to maximize economic advantages. States that engage in managed and strategic trade will take advantage of those that pursue free-trade policy.

Economic development in the Third World is likely to undergo a crisis. Developing countries realize that the nature of economic relations is, in many respects, a zero-sum game, and they are on the short end of the stick. Developing states need to take responsibility for their own national development and not rely on foreign capital and foreign assistance. Economic development in the Third World has been arrested by ballooning external debt and currency crises. Free flows of capital have created speculative bubbles that can burst, taking entire economies with them.

The protection, promotion, and enforcement of the human rights remain in the realm of low politics in the twenty-first century. States will remain appalled by gross violations of human rights in other countries, but they are not likely to intervene unless significant national interests are at stake. Hence, international enforcement of human rights is a politically motivated endeavor - a noble mask for the not-so-noble interest of the intervening states.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bayne, Nocholas. 1997. What Governments Want from International Institutions and How They Get It. Government and Opposition 31 (summer): 361-380.

Bennett, A. LeRoy. 1995. International Organizations: Principles and Issues. 6^th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Buckley, William F. 1996. Has the WTO Threatened U.S.?” National Review 48 (February 26)” 70-71.

Crow, Patrick. 1996. Defending the WTO. Oil & Gas Journal 94 (March 18): 37.

Easterly, William. 2006. The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin Press.

Forsythe, David P. 1998. The International Court of Justice at Fifty. Pp. 385-405 in The International Court of Justice. The Hague: Kluwer Law International

Gardam, Judith Lewis. 1993. Proportionality and Force in International Law. America Journal of International Law 87 (July): 391-413.

Held, David. 1999. Global Transformation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kratochwil, Friedreich, and John Gerald Ruggie. 1986. International Organizations: A State of the Art or an Art of the State. International Organization 40 (autumn): 753-775.

Lewis, Neil A. 2001. Papers Show US Knew of Genocide in Rwanda. New York Times (August 23): A5

Lincoln, Edward J. 1997. A US-Japan Trade Agenda. Brooking Review 15 (summer): 32-35.

MacFarlane, S. Neil., and Yuen Foong Khong. 2006. Human Security and the UN: A Critical History. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press

Mearsheimer, John. 1994/1995. The False Promise of International Institutions. International Securiy 19 (winter): 5-49.

Oberleitner, Gerd. 2005. Human Security: A Challenge to International Law? Global Governance 11 (April-June): 185-203.

Ogata, Sadako, and Johan Cels. 2003. Human Security – Protecting and Empowering the People. Global Governance 9 (July-September): 273-283.

Paris, Roland. 2001. Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air. International Security 26: 67-102.

Peou, Sorpong. 2002. The UN, Peacekeeping and Collective Human Security: From an Agenda for Peace to the Brahimi Report. International Peacekeeping 9 (summer): 51-69.

Pettmann, Ralph. 2005. Human Security as Global Security: Reconceptualizing Strategic Studies. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 18 (April): 137-150.

Rochester, J. Martin. 1986. The Rise and Fall of International Organization as a Field of Study. International Organizations 40 (autumn): 777-813.

Sanger, David E. 1998. Trade Arbiter Favors US in Key Ruling. New York Times (February 6): C1.

Wedgewood, Ruth. 2002. Gallant Delusion. Foreign Policy. 132 (September/October): 44-48.

Weiss, Thomas G, David P. Forsythe, and Roger A. Coate. 1994. The United Nations and Changing Politics. Boulder, CO: Westiew Press.

Weston, Burns H. 1991. Feminism and International Relations: Toward a Political Economy of Gender in Interstate and Nongovernmental Institutions. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press.