I would like to respond to Julie's blog about the bias in Western media when it reports on the 'Muslim World'. I agree that there is an inherent bias when we hear, see, or most rarely read about news events that take place beyond our borders in areas that are deemed to be different from us. I would recommend that anyone interested in looking at this issue read some of Edward Said's work, especially his "Orientalism".
I must also play devil's advocate. Who has the right to claim what is bias and what is not? Do we not all maintain our own bias? For me claiming bias against/for, etc. any one group is often an exercise in futility. I think we too often become engrossed in our zeal to understand the world, we instead end up becoming a party in bias ourselves. A liberal hears news of a domestic event such as welfare reform or an international event such as Western exploitation and is immediately blinded from examining all the facts. A conservative hears about social spending or a non-western country such as Venezuela exerting power and fails in the same way to examine the facts.
I know this may not seem overly important to globalization. I feel it is though because the new inter-connectedness brings all the new opinions to light. Instead we must first examine our own bias to ensure that efforts to understand all bias, western and non-western, are somewhat objective and thoughtful. Good night.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Empire and the Loss of Liberty
In my quest for a true understanding of 'empire' I came upon a very interesting discussion of the question most burning in the hearts of political minds today: is America an empire? Paul Schroeder, a history professor at the University of Illinois took this question in full stride, defining empire, hegemony, and imperialism in the process.
First a definition: empire means political control exercised by one organized political unit over another unit separate from and alien to it. Many factors enter into empire--economics, technology, ideology, religion, above all military strategy and weaponry--but the essential core is political: the possession of final authority by one entity over the vital political decisions of another. This need not mean direct rule exercised by formal occupation and administration; most empires involve informal, indirect rule. But real empire requires that effective final authority, and states can enjoy various forms of superiority or even domination over others without being empires.
Full Article
In contrast, a hegemon acts as "the first among leaders," influencing decisions where it sees fit, intervening in their best interest, and controlling the systems in which they are involved to assure a favorable outcome. However, an empire (according to Schroeder) is the final, ruling hand. They are inherently involved in every aspect of the land and the people they control, especially in the political realm.
One of the most interesting points Schroeder makes, concerns the common claim that America has and will continue to "bring freedom and democracy to the world" through the growth of the American Empire. However, "in principle and by definition, empire is the negation of political freedom, liberation, and self-determination," as the rights of those that fall under an empire's control are completely forfeitted to the mother country. Overall, I thought Schroeder's discussion of empire v. hegemony was extremely insightful and provided a much more concrete concept of both terms.
First a definition: empire means political control exercised by one organized political unit over another unit separate from and alien to it. Many factors enter into empire--economics, technology, ideology, religion, above all military strategy and weaponry--but the essential core is political: the possession of final authority by one entity over the vital political decisions of another. This need not mean direct rule exercised by formal occupation and administration; most empires involve informal, indirect rule. But real empire requires that effective final authority, and states can enjoy various forms of superiority or even domination over others without being empires.
Full Article
In contrast, a hegemon acts as "the first among leaders," influencing decisions where it sees fit, intervening in their best interest, and controlling the systems in which they are involved to assure a favorable outcome. However, an empire (according to Schroeder) is the final, ruling hand. They are inherently involved in every aspect of the land and the people they control, especially in the political realm.
One of the most interesting points Schroeder makes, concerns the common claim that America has and will continue to "bring freedom and democracy to the world" through the growth of the American Empire. However, "in principle and by definition, empire is the negation of political freedom, liberation, and self-determination," as the rights of those that fall under an empire's control are completely forfeitted to the mother country. Overall, I thought Schroeder's discussion of empire v. hegemony was extremely insightful and provided a much more concrete concept of both terms.
A Christian Jihad?
While perusing the NY Times Online, I came upon an article that shocked me. Apparently, three Christian men in Indonesia are sentenced to death by firing squad because they killed over 200 Muslims in a direct attack on Islam. The way in which the article is written, in addition to the headline, which read "Execution of 3 Christians Set For Tomorrow," completely caught me off guard. If 3 Muslim men had killed over 200 Christians in a foreign country, the American media would have extensive news coverage and constant updates of such a catastrophe. However, the NY Times reported this event from a highly Western perspective, not painting the men as "extremists" or "jihadists" as Muslims who kill for religious purposes are so often portrayed. In fact, the article also explains that the execution of these men was delayed due to a plea by the Pope, but in light of the Pope's recent anti-Islamic remarks, the executions will occur tomorrow.
Overall I feel as though the media coverage, bias, and conversation surrounding this article reflects the amazing double standard we place on non-Western thought. When our McWorld acts in a typically 'jihadist' manner, we do not pay nearly as much attention, and often support the same actions for which non-Western peoples are criticized. Globalization, then, seems to more represent the larger world meeting Western standards, rather than creating new international bases for political, economic, and social action. Could this be the source of many of the problems we associate with globalization? Has the Western world simply stated to 'inferior nations' that they must change their policies to meet our interests? Wouldn't a balance between the East and the West provide a much better solution? If so, we may come to realize that this extremist, jihad-driven behavior actually describes the actions of many different groups of people.
Overall I feel as though the media coverage, bias, and conversation surrounding this article reflects the amazing double standard we place on non-Western thought. When our McWorld acts in a typically 'jihadist' manner, we do not pay nearly as much attention, and often support the same actions for which non-Western peoples are criticized. Globalization, then, seems to more represent the larger world meeting Western standards, rather than creating new international bases for political, economic, and social action. Could this be the source of many of the problems we associate with globalization? Has the Western world simply stated to 'inferior nations' that they must change their policies to meet our interests? Wouldn't a balance between the East and the West provide a much better solution? If so, we may come to realize that this extremist, jihad-driven behavior actually describes the actions of many different groups of people.
One Definintion of Empire
Empire-
"Empire means political control exercised by one organized political unit over another unit separate from and alien to it. Many factors enter into empire--economics, technology, ideology, religion, above all military strategy and weaponry--but the essential core is political: the possession of final authority by one entity over the vital political decisions of another. This need not mean direct rule exercised by formal occupation and administration; most empires involve informal, indirect rule. But real empire requires that effective final authority, and states can enjoy various forms of superiority or even domination over others without being empires. "
-Paul Schroeder, "Is the U.S. an Empire?"
This definition is still quite vague (I had trouble finding others), but maybe there is no exact definition for empire? It probably means different things at different times...
"Empire means political control exercised by one organized political unit over another unit separate from and alien to it. Many factors enter into empire--economics, technology, ideology, religion, above all military strategy and weaponry--but the essential core is political: the possession of final authority by one entity over the vital political decisions of another. This need not mean direct rule exercised by formal occupation and administration; most empires involve informal, indirect rule. But real empire requires that effective final authority, and states can enjoy various forms of superiority or even domination over others without being empires. "
-Paul Schroeder, "Is the U.S. an Empire?"
This definition is still quite vague (I had trouble finding others), but maybe there is no exact definition for empire? It probably means different things at different times...
ZDF Mediathek
I think that basically the 9-11 ZDF "museum" is quite good and interesting, because it combines original material from 9-11 newsshows and eyewitness accounts from people with different nationalities and from different places and how they experienced 9-11 and its aftermath.
But I do not know if one could really speak of a "museum", because for me it lacks a lot of important information...
The "museum" only focuses on the actual 9-11 events and only aims at people's emotions, without looking for a more criticial approach why 9-11 might have happened. I would have liked a more impartial approach, because that is what I expect an impartial medium to be like...whether it is a museum or a TV station...
But I do not know if one could really speak of a "museum", because for me it lacks a lot of important information...
The "museum" only focuses on the actual 9-11 events and only aims at people's emotions, without looking for a more criticial approach why 9-11 might have happened. I would have liked a more impartial approach, because that is what I expect an impartial medium to be like...whether it is a museum or a TV station...
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
India's agricultural troubles
Nearly every college student today knows a little something about being in debt. Some students might only end up a couple thousand dollars in debt, while others may end up paying back a hundred thousand dollars or more by the time they graduate. We brush off this small debt like nothing, planning to pay the debt back over perhaps the next ten years. While paying back the loans for school, most will end up further in debt when they go to buy a house. It seems to be a big circle of borrowing money and paying it back.
Now consider people in other countries who borrow money. Take a look at the farmers of India (article), who borrow money to plant their crops and pray that the crop yields enough profit to pay back their loans (and sometimes 5% interest per month). Thats right, 5% per month for some of them. According to the article in NY Times, the average farmers' debt was $835. That is about what we pay for one credit at Virginia Wesleyan College. To us $835 is nothing, but to these farmers this debt is worth commiting suicide over. In 2003, there were more than 17,000 farmers who committed suicide.
The pressure of the farmers is finally forcing the Indian government to act. Part of the problem is also the insanely high interest rates that the private moneylenders are charging the farmers, which will hopefully end soon after the government steps in. They will begin by waiving the interest on current loans and by partly controlling what the private lenders can do.
I just find it intriguing that the average debt is only $835 and people are having trouble paying it back. My debt will be more than 40 times that amount when I'm finished taking loans out for school. This just shows how different the economies are, and how poor the agricultural economy is right now in India.
Now consider people in other countries who borrow money. Take a look at the farmers of India (article), who borrow money to plant their crops and pray that the crop yields enough profit to pay back their loans (and sometimes 5% interest per month). Thats right, 5% per month for some of them. According to the article in NY Times, the average farmers' debt was $835. That is about what we pay for one credit at Virginia Wesleyan College. To us $835 is nothing, but to these farmers this debt is worth commiting suicide over. In 2003, there were more than 17,000 farmers who committed suicide.
The pressure of the farmers is finally forcing the Indian government to act. Part of the problem is also the insanely high interest rates that the private moneylenders are charging the farmers, which will hopefully end soon after the government steps in. They will begin by waiving the interest on current loans and by partly controlling what the private lenders can do.
I just find it intriguing that the average debt is only $835 and people are having trouble paying it back. My debt will be more than 40 times that amount when I'm finished taking loans out for school. This just shows how different the economies are, and how poor the agricultural economy is right now in India.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Lead by Example?
In response to Evan's post, the first step, in my opinion should be complete respect for UN Declarations and decisions by the leading global powers. All to often, the UN has come to represent a mere suggestion to the global leaders as opposed to a greater governing body. As we saw in the weeks leading up to the U.S. attack on Iraq, the opinion of the United Nations often acts as just that, a simple opinion, to which leading world powers feel little loyalty. The key to ensuring the legitimacy of pre-existing policies developed by the United Nations is an increased global respect for the organization in general. Additionally, that respect will best come from world powers like the United States and England. If the leaders of our current global system do not follow an international governing body such as the UN, how can one expect other countries to adhere to its declarations?
In May of 2005, the UN presented a report (Full Text) to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations concerning reforms of UN procedure and management. In this report, the Chief of Staff of the Secretary-General of the United Nations explained an “ambitious agenda of reform for the United Nations” in the coming months. The plan calls for a complete “transformation,” in efforts to take the UN from “a conference-organizing, report-writing Organization, to one equipped to undertake large, complex, global missions.” Furthermore, this strengthened UN would be “action-oriented,” implying that the current system tends to be response based. The agenda clearly indicates that the UN realizes the need for reform, and by presenting this to the US House of Representatives, the UN seems to also understand that the US must play a major role in these changes if they are to be successful. These are two very important steps toward US respect toward the United Nations. However, the crucial concept is whether or not the US can bear forfeiting a bit of its complete global dominance for a stronger global governing influence. Is such a sacrifice even possible? Will the UN ever be truly influential without it? In a world where global leadership could provide essential action against genocide and war, I certainly hope so.
In May of 2005, the UN presented a report (Full Text) to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations concerning reforms of UN procedure and management. In this report, the Chief of Staff of the Secretary-General of the United Nations explained an “ambitious agenda of reform for the United Nations” in the coming months. The plan calls for a complete “transformation,” in efforts to take the UN from “a conference-organizing, report-writing Organization, to one equipped to undertake large, complex, global missions.” Furthermore, this strengthened UN would be “action-oriented,” implying that the current system tends to be response based. The agenda clearly indicates that the UN realizes the need for reform, and by presenting this to the US House of Representatives, the UN seems to also understand that the US must play a major role in these changes if they are to be successful. These are two very important steps toward US respect toward the United Nations. However, the crucial concept is whether or not the US can bear forfeiting a bit of its complete global dominance for a stronger global governing influence. Is such a sacrifice even possible? Will the UN ever be truly influential without it? In a world where global leadership could provide essential action against genocide and war, I certainly hope so.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
The spread of norms and human rights
Jacob asked "Just a quick question/comment on your terrorist/freedom fighter issue: I agree that anyone who kills thousands of civilians is a terrorist/criminal. Doesn't who/what you're fighting determine who gets "civilian" status in a war in which both sides (although I disagree with my own implication that there are only two sides) are fighting ill-defined enemies?"
I do not know if this is a direct response to the comment. I remember my IR class learning about norm diffusion in the area of human rights. The main point was that part of the liberal theory follows that the spread of capitalist markets with representative democracies will help propagate what we in the West view as human rights. The problem is that globalization has delivered benefits to the global South, but the benefits have so far failed to be reliable or widespread. One other problem that presented itself on 9/11 is how the West, an area that has a deeply entrenched belief in individual freedom and rights, can fight a war on terror within the bounds of its own moral conscience. We have unfortunate seen the decision up to now how to deal with our beliefs and that is to forget obligations to domestic and international regimes on human rights and torture (US Constitution, Geneva Convention, UN Declaration on Human rights).
I will try to relate this to Jacob's question. I think the global nature of terrorism is what makes this especially difficult to answer. The War on Terror is not a war on a state. It is a war on an unknown (I won't go into the sad implication of this on the chance of peace). As an unknown, the war ranges from the US to Great Britain to Africa and finally to the Middle East. If this war is truly global, then the question of civilian status is extremely muddled. So far combatants have yet to even gain legal recognition as civilians or soldiers.
If we go back to the Geneva Convention, there is what I see as what today could be construed as a protection against civilians and the current practice of networking prisoners to escape regulation.
GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.
Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.
With this is mind, maybe the question evolves into what needs to be done to ensure pre-existing measures are followed by the global community. I would enjoy ideas for a solution from the rest of you. Good night.
I do not know if this is a direct response to the comment. I remember my IR class learning about norm diffusion in the area of human rights. The main point was that part of the liberal theory follows that the spread of capitalist markets with representative democracies will help propagate what we in the West view as human rights. The problem is that globalization has delivered benefits to the global South, but the benefits have so far failed to be reliable or widespread. One other problem that presented itself on 9/11 is how the West, an area that has a deeply entrenched belief in individual freedom and rights, can fight a war on terror within the bounds of its own moral conscience. We have unfortunate seen the decision up to now how to deal with our beliefs and that is to forget obligations to domestic and international regimes on human rights and torture (US Constitution, Geneva Convention, UN Declaration on Human rights).
I will try to relate this to Jacob's question. I think the global nature of terrorism is what makes this especially difficult to answer. The War on Terror is not a war on a state. It is a war on an unknown (I won't go into the sad implication of this on the chance of peace). As an unknown, the war ranges from the US to Great Britain to Africa and finally to the Middle East. If this war is truly global, then the question of civilian status is extremely muddled. So far combatants have yet to even gain legal recognition as civilians or soldiers.
If we go back to the Geneva Convention, there is what I see as what today could be construed as a protection against civilians and the current practice of networking prisoners to escape regulation.
GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.
Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.
With this is mind, maybe the question evolves into what needs to be done to ensure pre-existing measures are followed by the global community. I would enjoy ideas for a solution from the rest of you. Good night.
ZDFmediathek
ZDFmediathek
I thought I had already blogged about this, but it looks like the blog never actually posted. I found an online 9/11 museum where you can "walk" through and see images, videos, and newspaper headlines from the attacks in 2001. Because so much of my experience of the attacks was based on media images and videos, looking through the museum was reminding me what I had felt at the time. At the time, the news was so saturated with those images, and video clips that I have not given them much attention in the last five years, but looking at them again, I felt like I was reliving the attacks. Unfortunately I couldn't fully understand parts of the museum because it was in German. I'd be curious to hear Max's impressions of the museum.
I thought I had already blogged about this, but it looks like the blog never actually posted. I found an online 9/11 museum where you can "walk" through and see images, videos, and newspaper headlines from the attacks in 2001. Because so much of my experience of the attacks was based on media images and videos, looking through the museum was reminding me what I had felt at the time. At the time, the news was so saturated with those images, and video clips that I have not given them much attention in the last five years, but looking at them again, I felt like I was reliving the attacks. Unfortunately I couldn't fully understand parts of the museum because it was in German. I'd be curious to hear Max's impressions of the museum.
Immigration
Prior to reading an article in The Globalist concerning immigration I had not considered the influence of globalization on migration and immigration policies of individual nations. While on the surface, immigration may not seem like a global issue, when one considers the extensive role that immigrants (both legal and illegal) play in the global economy, immigration policies become vital to worldly stability. In the article, Chamie explores the mixed messages associated with government immigration policy. Normally, if illegal immigrants can find a way around the authorities and into a country, governments will turn a blind eye and allow these people to live as normal citizens (receiving most of the social benefits and perks of citizenship). Chamie considers this “Darwinian Migration,” a sort of survival of the fittest immigrant. Globally, this encourages citizens of poorer countries to seek refuge in wealthier countries, which could escalate to large scale migrations. Many still question whether or not immigration is a global issue worthy of discussion at an international level. As a result, the UN has not placed immigration on its agenda of important issues, leaving much of the policy to individual nations. A global position on immigration may help to clarify to what extent illegal immigrants should be supported by the countries in which they are living illegally. Even if migration does not seem to be particularly global at this juncture, it will undoubtedly gain an influence in the world scene as we realize the economic stability provided by illegal immigrants in many of the leading global economies. The global powers need to acknowledge the effects of immigration in order to create a world-wide perspective on the issue.
Ethiopia: Famine to Internet Cafe
Ethiopia: Famine to Internet Cafe
I remember as a child my teenage sister insisting that I finish my dinner because there were "starving people in Ethiopia." The phrase in some form has become a basis for convincing children to clean their plates, and making adults lightly joke about the situation as they note that they can't actually send the food over, and thus they are allowed to throw away their leftovers.
The famine and nutritional problems in Ethiopia were made visible to the American public through the Christian Children's Fund and other relief effort infomercials, begging every viewer to donate to the cause of starving Ethiopian children.
While this mental image, of a sickly malnourished people has been pervasive, an article in the New York Times, Ethiopia Opens it's Doors Slowly, discusses the possibilities for travel in Ethiopia. Although the country is still recovering from famine and war, according to the article, the president was able to push for significant "development" including "mobile phone networks, decent hotels, Internet cafes, reliable electricity, and asphalt roads." These "improvements" are being used to promote a tourist industry of Ethiopian Orthodox Christian churches and buildings.
One of the journalist's tour guides was quick to note that they fear the close of the tourist industry by some other disruption like war, famine, or disease.
I am personally still baffled by the thought that for 1500 dollars I could go to Ethiopia, not as a mission project to feed the hungry, but rather as a family vacation where I could still check my e-mail and use my cell phone to call my closest friends. It seems that coming out of so many "disruptions" Ethiopia is taking this opportunity to jump on to the globalization wagon and catch up with other countries.
I remember as a child my teenage sister insisting that I finish my dinner because there were "starving people in Ethiopia." The phrase in some form has become a basis for convincing children to clean their plates, and making adults lightly joke about the situation as they note that they can't actually send the food over, and thus they are allowed to throw away their leftovers.
The famine and nutritional problems in Ethiopia were made visible to the American public through the Christian Children's Fund and other relief effort infomercials, begging every viewer to donate to the cause of starving Ethiopian children.
While this mental image, of a sickly malnourished people has been pervasive, an article in the New York Times, Ethiopia Opens it's Doors Slowly, discusses the possibilities for travel in Ethiopia. Although the country is still recovering from famine and war, according to the article, the president was able to push for significant "development" including "mobile phone networks, decent hotels, Internet cafes, reliable electricity, and asphalt roads." These "improvements" are being used to promote a tourist industry of Ethiopian Orthodox Christian churches and buildings.
One of the journalist's tour guides was quick to note that they fear the close of the tourist industry by some other disruption like war, famine, or disease.
I am personally still baffled by the thought that for 1500 dollars I could go to Ethiopia, not as a mission project to feed the hungry, but rather as a family vacation where I could still check my e-mail and use my cell phone to call my closest friends. It seems that coming out of so many "disruptions" Ethiopia is taking this opportunity to jump on to the globalization wagon and catch up with other countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
