The United Nations and the Syrian Crisis.

The United Nations is an international governing organization that was established in the aftermath of World War II in hopes to prevent such a war from ever occurring again. Since its establishment it has grown significantly and now includes 193 states. Even though the United States, China, France, England, and Russia technically have the greatest say in U.N. policy due to their exclusive veto power, all states are given a chance to address issues during the two week conference held once a year.
This year one of the most brought up and discussed topics was the crisis in Syria. The Syrian crisis began in 2011 when the Syrian government began crackdown on public protests through violent means such as civilian bombings. These acts only helped to fan the flame as more and more Syrians began to rebel against their government. The inner-state struggle for power continued to rage on until this year when an alarming amount of Syrians began to try and flee the country to other states such as Turkey, Jordan, and Germany who surprisingly welcomed many of them with open arms. This large emigration truly brought the Syrian Crisis to the national stage and for a few months it was one of the most broadcast issues on the news.
At the 2015 U.N. meeting Obama called the Syrian ruler Basher al-Assad  a "tyrant" and explained how he was willing to work together with other countries, such as Russia, in order to quell this crisis. Russian President Vladimir Putin also joined in the conversation and stated that the United Nations must work together to resolve this issue but placed more of an emphasis o working with the Syrian government. Many smaller states including Poland and Denmark exclaimed that they refused to support the migration of Syrians to their countries and that they would be promptly deported upon entrance.
In October of 2015 many members of the U.N. met in Vienna to discuss peace talks in regards to the Syrian Crisis but there is still much work to be done.

Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

Attention to US dominance in the Pacific has recently been a key topic, as some see China and India as rising powers. But lately, there has been little talk on what the US should do in order to secure its position in this region. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), negotiated by global powers such as the United States and Japan, was established to write new rules for Trans-Pacific trade and promises many benefits to all the members involved. Despite approval from President Obama, Congress has yet to ratify it. From a globalization aspect, the TPP can further global sustainability of natural resources and promote American economic models abroad. The TPP also recognizes sectoral and factoral trade theory in favor of the US. I argue that the TPP will not only boost our nation’s economy, but promote US values and ultimately establish the United States as a leader in the Pacific.

The TPP is a landmark deal in international trade agreements, since it marks the first time that environmental provisions are issued under the threat of economic penalties. International negotiations on environmental policy have been often ignored since economic repercussions are often minimal. The TPP recognizes that feasible globalized efforts are necessary to combat famine and climate change. Under the threat of economic trade penalties, the TPP will be able to enforce a prohibition on harmful fisheries subsidies. MARPOL, an international agreement to prevent marine pollution, will also be reinforced under TPP statutes. Under the TPP, notable emphasis is placed on protecting marine ecosystems, because there has been a disturbing trend in overfishing in the Pacific Ocean. As one of the world’s leaders, the United States should join the partner nations in the TPP so as to support the sustainable harvest of the ocean’s resources.

                  Aside from the environmental benefits that globalization through the TPP can create, there will also be possibility for the spread of democracy and capitalism. I will use Myanmar as an example of how economic globalization has issued with it the spread of democratic and capitalist ideals. In Myanmar, an oppressive military government has reigned, causing economic stagnation at a time when surrounding Asian states are beginning to prosper. The spread of information technology has made available insights into the economic situations of their neighbors, therefore leading to calls for democracy and capitalism in Myanmar. The TPP will indirectly urge other nonmember states to seek better ways to develop their economies and invite outside investors.

In terms of benefits to the US economy, the Trans Pacific eliminates over 18,000 foreign tariffs on US exports. This allows US farmers to export agricultural goods to members of the agreement, including Vietnam, Canada, and Malaysia. Here, sectoral trade theory will work along with US service firms, since these firms will be able to deploy in fields where they have a comparative advantage. Education, engineering, and software are all types of service firms that can prosper under the new agreement. In terms of factoral trade theory, the increase in capital in member states will also cause US businesses to prosper. The agreement will support better paying jobs, since export-related jobs pay up to 18 percent more, on average, than non-export related jobs. Meanwhile, the current tariffs on US exporters reduce US manufacturing worker’s earnings by up to 12 percent (USTR.GOV).

Ultimately, the TPP is a win-win solution for the United States and the global economy. Global trade development has been directly linked to increased standards of living for US and foreign residents. Through environmental enforcement and increased employment opportunities, the TPP goes above and beyond in assuring that the United States and its allies have economically sustainable futures.

Don't Talk About Globalization

In class recently and with the book, "How Soccer Explains the World" we've been talking a lot about globalization. What effects it has on international relations, on separate states, who it hurts, and who it helps. With more and more trade around the world, institutions and cooperations that involve multiple states, and more wide-spread travel, it's easy to see how the world is somehow becoming both bigger and smaller at the same time. My point is, there's no real reason to discuss the pros and cons of globalization, just ways to enhance the good and mitigate the bad because either way there's no changing what's happening in the world today.

It's impossible to go back to an era without widespread communication between people on different continents with all the technology that is now available at the touch of a button. Since people are already accustomed to the way information flows freely (for the most part) around the world, governments cannot start restricting that flow of information without major backlash from the public. I'm aware that in some states around the globe governments are controlling information their people receive and sometimes the people are given incorrect or misleading information, but the governments still give them something. If we just stared taking away people's right to knowledge it would be impossible and also unwise.

Also, now that we have this spread of information through technology, there's bound to be more growth economically which leads to greater trade between states. Once these states start trading with each other and grow accustomed to the good they import and receiving the profit from the goods they export, it becomes hard to find a state that is okay with throwing off a trading partner if no other partners are there to pick up the slack. For this reason governments will not back away from globalization.

Because both citizens and governments benefit from globalization, even though they also are hurt somewhat by it (sometimes), globalization has happened and is happening and will continue whether we agree it's helpful or not. These are facts we cannot change unless we want to become like North Korea, meaning we need to find ways to make it work in our advantage more so than to our disadvantage.

Game Theory and International Governance

Game theory can be used to analyze the possibilities, as well as the potential barriers of achieving effective global governance. Global governance refers to the way international cooperation is achieved on a global scale and illustrates the centralization of states’ governance. Game theory can be used to express the potential cooperation if certain criteria are met while also showing the potential for failure if states are left to themselves.

The United States and China’s interdependent relationship is based on two important economic factors. On one hand, the United States imports far more goods and services from China than vice-versa. On the other hand, China is the biggest foreign lender to the United States. Economic imbalances between the United States and China have increased foreign policy relationships that reveal both mutual interests and frictions. However, there is uncertainty about the intentions and future actions of the both countries. Both states would cooperate with each other if they knew that the other side would not cheat on them, but the fear of being cheated may lead both sides to not cooperate. Economic theory claims that the United States and China would both gain by cooperating and would miss out on a better solution if they did not.  It would also be beneficial if these great powers took time to think alike. This would help ensure that both parties make the right and same choice in order to avoid the negative outcomes caused by making different choices. A failure in coordination in this situation can undermine long-term economic gains to both sides. 

These scenarios highlights both possibilities and barriers to cooperation and effective global governance, which can be modelled as a game between two states and can be analysed through a game theory approach. In situations of interdependency, one side’s expectations and preferred actions depend on the actions available to the other side, and what is known about their preferences. Game theory assumes that there are only two players that know each other’s preferences and available actions.  They can use the game in order to calculate the outcomes from each combination of strategies, along with the gains or losses they’ll receive from these. This portrays the prisoners’ dilemma, where players would prosper more by cooperating, but the threat of losing out if another player does not cooperate means that both play the non-cooperative strategy. It is only if both states cooperate, will it produce all-round gains. However, they can choose not to cooperate to avoid being the one who is punished by cooperating while the other doesn’t.

Despite the prediction of non-cooperation in game theory, both China and the United States have joined the WTO and settled various agreements that commit them to setting low tariffs. Altering payoffs so that non-cooperation is no longer a dominant strategy is another way of ensuring cooperation. The WTO for example tries to enforce cooperative outcomes by enforcing low tariffs, monitoring countries trade policies as well as imposing penalties if cheating occurs.  The problem of global governance in the international system is that most situations involve more than two players. The more players there are, the harder it is to reach a mutually beneficial solution through negotiation or repeated play. Although game theory is based upon strong assumptions that ignore a lot of constraints on decision making, it provides a useful understanding of real life events and can help establish the scope for international institutions to improve the outcomes of engagement between states.

The United Nations and its Impact

Tomas Iturregui

            The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization that aims to promote cooperation between its member states while looking out for the well being of them. It was a replacement for the League of Nations which failed to do its main job which was to prevent any further wars from happening such as World War Two. Many argue that the United Nations is ineffective at solving problems, but I think it should continue to exist because it serves various important purposes and at the very least makes an effort to solve many of the problems of its member states.

            The UN consists of now 193 member states and is financed by donations from its member states. It accepts any state that is willing to accept the obligations presented in the charter. As long as a state is open to peace and open to accepting the terms the UN puts before them, they can join.

            The main goals of the UN include maintaining international peace, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid. Basically the UN is looking out for all potential issues a state could encounter. Often times a state cannot deal with a large issue such as a natural disaster on its own, so it helps to be part of an institution such as the UN. Obviously the UN is not capable of solving every problem of every member state, but it can help with many of them. At the very least it does not hurt to be part of the UN.

            Peacekeeping is one of the main objectives the UN has. It does not have a military, so volunteer troops are necessary from member states. The UN sends in thousands of troops to different locations worldwide every year. In 2013 they had soldiers on fifteen different missions. These missions are especially important in third world countries or weak states who are unstable and need international assistance. That’s why the largest mission of 2013 involved over 20,000 troops being deployed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to help with the war. Furthermore, the UN also focuses on human rights. In 1948 the General Assembly created a universal declaration of human rights which emphasizes the need for basic civil rights fro all humans. An example of this was after World War Two when the UN created a couple bodies whose main goal were to improve women’s rights. Moreover, a few years ago the UN passed a declaration which recognized the rights of the LGBTQ community for the first time. The UN also helps with humanitarian assistance. It has organizations such as the World Health Organization and the World Food Program which help with humanitarian efforts. The UN has helped in cases such as the Haitian earthquake and the crisis in Syria.

            The United Nations has existed for over a half century. There are many critics that say it does not do enough to help certain states. But the reality is that’s unrealistic. The UN is not a saving grace for every state in distress, but it can help with many problems that member states face such as peacekeeping, human rights issues, and humanitarian aid and therefore should continue to exist.

Real Talk with the Daily Show

Elaine Hang

Professor Shirk

International Relations

9 November 2015

Real Talk with the Daily Show

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

In this video, Daily Show correspondent Jordan Klepper successfully highlights the difficulties members have with the United Nation’s ineffectiveness. Criticism of the United Nations usually centers around the UN’s inability to enact its resolutions and handle international conflicts. Other criticisms focus on the privileges of the permanent members of the Security Council.

In the beginning, Jon Stewart sets the stage for criticisms of the United Nation’s inability to solve global issue; or in other words, do its job. He turns it to Jordan Klepper, who interviews General Assembly members and get their opinions on the whether or not the UN is effective. Of course, the diplomats he interviewed in the first portion suggest that the UN is not an organization that works on issue, but rather a place where members pay lip-service to ideas.

Klepper goes on to playing the blame game with more members of the General Assembly. The blame game reveals the resentment members have with one another over the UN’s lack of progress in terms of getting resolutions passed and taking initiative on them. It also highlights the frustrations members have with the Security Council, which is the body that oversees the agenda and priorities of the UN. The Security Council, according to some of the interviewees, is incapable of handling international crises in Syria, Ukraine, and Africa. That results from infighting among the members of the Security Council, more specifically the permanent members who have veto power–China, France, Russia, the Unites Kingdom, and the United States.

In an interview with a representative of the UN, Klepper subtly criticizes that fact that the UN’s strongest move is to “encourage.” The United Nations does not have the capability to enforce its resolutions. Since most of its resources come from its members’ contribution, the UN does not have a sustainable force that actively fulfills orders. This may be because some members do not want the UN to have that capability. They do not want the UN, which is heavily influenced by the desires of the permanent members of the Security Council, to infringe on their sovereignty.

These critiques are not new. Not only have there been papers and articles written about them, but there are also many people who are involved with the United Nations who share the sentiment.

Unfortunately, reforming the United Nations to be more “efficient” or “successful” at achieving its goals is extremely difficult. Among many other complicated factors, the permanent members of the Security Council (the only UN members with a veto power) do not want to change the system. They would like to keep their privileges and assert their power over other members in order to fulfill their own goals. There would be additional opposition from UN members who benefit from the current system as contributors of resources. They have more status, power, and prestige over the other non-permanent members of the United Nations. Overall, any proposed changes to the structure of United Nations (which includes upending it and replacing it with a “World Buddies!” program) can face opposition because, in the large body of members, there will be a number of whom will want to maintain the status quo.