Japan & China crunlbing economy, in your pumpkin pie.

         After winding down from all the stuffing I did to myself with traditional Thanksgiving Food that I am sure we are all aware of; turkey, green bean casserole, marshmallow and sweet potatoes casserole, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, and cranberry sauce. Not to mention the not so traditional foods like; dumplings, spaghetti, and Peruvian chicken (we had a Friendsgiving as well, where friends bring a dish to share with everyone) and the endless table of desserts, which I will not go into because I will end up wanting to go to the fridge and start eating again. After, all the food, I started to think whether or not I wanted to go shopping on Black Friday; do I want to go wait in line? Should I risk the craziness that is the Black Friday experience? Or Should I wait for Cyber Monday? So, I decided to check online to see if I can find a cheap new iPhone 5/6 that I could purchase. When I stumble upon some news; the Japanese Yen is decreasing its value, compered to the peg of the US dollar. As we saw in the Globalization lecture, global economy is like a knitted sweeter; if a threat comes lose and it gets caught on something, it will eventually start to dissemble the sweater until it is just a ball of yarn. This really got me thinking; if one of the biggest economic driven countries in the world is starting to collapse, what would happen to the rest of the super economic- powers? Will these countries follow the pattern as well?

         The fallen of the Yen over the fall season has have an impact on the economy world wide, for instance an iPhone is cheaper in an Apple store in Tokyo, then in an store in the US. For a long time the rule of thumb has ben that any Apple electronic device is generally cheaper in the US market, than a market in a developing country. For instance an iPhone can range the price from $700- $900, in Germany, Hang Kong, Singapore, and Italy, while in Japan the same iPhone will cost you only $649. Even though, the price is almost similar, this distorts the concept I had about japan; I always saw it as a high costing country like Switzerland. The yen is declining because the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has decided to implement (for the second time) the “quantitative easing”, which means that Abe is going to print out more yen, in order to try to stabilize the economy. The effect of the yen has plummeted 10% against the dollar value, in just less than a month. One dollar will now buy you around 118 yen. Predictions of what will happen, are useless as paper boat however, Wall Street sees the yen, going as low as 130, depending if Abe wins his second term, and if he decided to keep printing money.

         The most intriguing thing about the Japanese economy is that if, this will create a domino effect on neighboring countries, just like it happened before during the Great Depression.

         So, I started to look online and came upon an article on Flipboard, which tittle read; “The Chinese Economy is Facing a $6.8 Trillion Nightmare That Could Get Worse”. The actual shades light on how the Chinese economy is facing a lose of $6.8 TRILLION, which were used to build ‘ghost cities’ as Ordos. Ordos is a compilation of apartment complexes that are, well, empty. Generally building anything in a country will boost the country’s GDP, yes it is spending, but at the end it depends on more, such, as; where does it go? Where is it located? Is it creating jobs? Is it leading people to find or established new jobs or educations? If it is simply, doing nothing, it is a waste of money, and it affects the country’s economic future. This had lead to the world’s most secretive bank to lash interest rates; one-year deposit from 0.24 to 2.75% and the one-year lending bench rate from 0.40 points to 5.60%. This is in results of slowing the economy down.

         If globalization helps improve the economy of other countries, as well as strengthen the global monetary system, with such major economic powers as Japan and China facing such crumbling economic hiccups, what are third world developing countries going to face in the future?

Fear of Iranian nuclear weapons program are largely unfounded

For a while now, there has been this underling fear of the Iranian government obtaining nuclear weapons and using them to attack Israel and the U.S. abroad and at home. In 2012, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Iran had the capabilities to build nuclear weapons but did not know whether they would. Because of this report, the media was inundated with anti-Iranian propaganda that propagated the fear of the possibility of Iran creating nuclear weapons. Kenneth Waltz, in his paper ‘Why Iran should get the bomb: nuclear balance would mean stability”, argues Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would bring more balance to the Middle East, which is an interesting point and one that I tend to agree with. There is only one country in the Middle East that has nuclear capabilities and that is Israel, a U.S. ally. Waltz points out notes that much of the unrest in the Middle East is due to the fact that Israel is the only country in the region with nuclear capabilities. Since the U.S. and Israel are allies and Israel is perturbed by the idea of Iran having a weapons program, the U.S. also takes on this fear. However, I would ask, why does the US take on this fear when a country like North Korea actually has nuclear weapons? Waltz also points out that there is a perception that Iranian leaders are not rational actors and are foaming at the mouth, waiting in anticipation to use nuclear weapons. The theory of MAD states that even the most irrational actor will not use nuclear weapons knowing it would lead to the destruction of their state. I find this to be largely true and it also points out a flaw in defining actors as rational and irrational. Most would not label Kim Jong Ill and Kim Jong Un as rational actors but North Korea has not used their nuclear weapons, although they have threatened to on several occasions. North Korea having nuclear weapons is seen as laughable, whereas Iran is more of a threat and there’s larger sense of urgency when it comes to Iran. This is because in Iran there are more religious martyrs who are willing to sacrifice their life for religious purposes. I would say, however, this is not the case within the Iranian leadership and they are not any less rational than any other leader. In 2012, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’ Supreme Leader issued a fatwa or order stating that having nuclear weaponry is a sin in Islam. This got very little media attention because it counters he dominant narrative of Iran wanting nuclear weapons. Also, Iran is a country that is filled with natural resources unlike North Korea. An invasion of Iran, much like Iraq, would be far more enticing because of the country’s resources. Iran is decades behind North Korea in terms of advancement of nuclear technology and even North Korea isn’t anywhere near many other countries with nuclear weapons are, like Pakistan. Waltz’s main argument is that if Iran had nuclear weapons, the Middle East would be far more stable because they would not be as vulnerable to Israel who has nuclear weapons. I find this to be mostly true. Balance of power is a concept that manifests itself in several different ways within social science. Hard power in regard to state relationships should be no different. In addition to US involvement in the region, the Middle East has also been unstable at the hands of Israel who has issued attacks on both Iraq and Syria in fear of a nuclear weapon program. Waltz states that power begs to be balanced and while I do not believe that Iran having nuclear weapons would put an complete end to unrest in that area, I do think that would provide more stability than there is currently.  

Militarization of Iran

            Power begs to be balanced. This concept has been proven true through countless foreign policy tactics such as, deterrence and mutually assured destruction. All states desire power, therefore when one state in a region becomes significantly stronger than the others because of a nuclear buildup, these other states begin to feel vulnerable. Thus, some states threaten their own military build up in order to balance the scope of power and ensure national security. Disequilibrium of power has been a reoccurring problem throughout history. The most recent case has been Iran’s threat of a nuclear buildup. Many world powers, such as the United States and Israel, argue that Iran’s threat is something to fear and should be deterred, however I believe that militarization in Iran could actually bring more stability to the Middle East and should therefore be encouraged.

            Currently, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East with a thriving nuclear program. Given Israel’s close proximity to Iran and it’s abundance of military strength, it’s no wonder why the latter is left feeling susceptible. With the admission of a nuclear program in Iran, equilibrium of power would be restored between the two states. In turn, Iran’s acts of aggression would decrease because of a sense of restored security that they’d feel once a nuclear program was established.

            The United States and Israel peg Iran as an irrational state because of past incidents between the nations. The US and Israel fear that if Iran were to become a nuclear state, terrorist groups could easily attain these weapons, which in turn could create mass chaos. Although the Iranian government supports terrorist groups, it is unlikely that the government would negligently pass on these weapons to groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Kenneth Waltz argues “history shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers.” (Waltz, 2012) There have been various irrational states throughout history—such as Stalin’s Soviet Union and Maoist China—who have possessed nuclear weapons and have not used them. This is because they are aware of the consequences that would ensue if they used their weapons against powerful rival states. Given this argument, Iran would become more cautious and discrete if they did militarize and would merely possess, and not use, their weapons in order to demonstrate their strength to the world. If we were to illustrate this, it would be the equivalent of Iran flexing their muscles.

Another concern that arises if Iran were to militarize, is the commencement of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This concern is not likely because of the historical evidence stacked against it. “Since 1970, there has been a marked slowdown in the emergence of nuclear states.” (Waltz, 2012) Nuclear Programs are expensive and risky because of the often negative attention that nations receive and the diplomatic risk it produces. This is why many states aren’t allured to the idea.

It is normal that the US and Israel are concerned with Iran’s threat of a nuclear build up, but these two nations shouldn’t continue compelling Iran through sanctions. This will only provoke them. The US and Israel should allow Iran to militarize, however they are free to retaliate if their national security is threatened. Once again, it is highly dubious that Iran would do anything to provoke the major powers, because in the end all they are seeking is power through immediate deterrence (build up of military for the state’s own protection).

Sources:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb

Imbalances of Power in the UN Security Council

According to the charter of the United Nations, one of the central purposes of this organization is “to maintain international peace and security.” This is where the UN Security Council holds importance. It meets whenever peace is threatened; with all members of the UN in agreement to follow the decisions made by the Council. However, with an imbalanced distribution of power in the Security Council it raises the question of whether or not this is a fair or effective means of maintaining peace.

            Consisting of 15 members, the UN Security Council’s main purpose is to maintain peaceful relations between states. This is achieved by mitigating disputes so that states may reach an agreement and settle the dispute peacefully. In the event that a dispute leads to hostilities the Security Council aims to bring an end to them as quickly as possible. This is all well and good in concept. However, the power is notably unequal in the context of these 15 members. Of these 15, 5 members are permanently appointed to the council, those being: China, France, Russia, the UK, and the United States. The remaining 10 members are non-permanent members that are elected to the Council by the General Assembly for a two tear term period. The current non-permanent members consist of Chad, Rwanda, and Jordan, among others.

            Despite the fact that each member is allotted one vote, we still see an imbalance in two glaring aspects of the Council. For one thing, the 5 permanent states have the power of veto. This power, however, is reserved solely for these 5 members, not the other 10. Aside from this there are over 60 member states of the United Nations that have never been elected to the Security Council. In other words, there are over 60 states that have not been able to vote on matters of international conflict resolution. While states like China and the US have had permanent status on the Council, states like Haiti and Estonia have yet to have their turns. That is not to say that these states have no influence, however. States that are not members of the Council may still participate in discussions if their interests are affected, they just cannot vote. This participation in discussion could serve as some consolation for not having the privilege to vote.

            This imbalance of power reflects a view expressed by realist theory. That being, that international organizations like the UN are nothing more than a manifestation of powerful states. This concept explains the 5 permanent members on the Council. Why do the United States and Russia have permanent seats on the council while Rwanda’s term ends this year? The answer is obvious. The United States and Russia are significantly more powerful than Rwanda; therefore they are allotted more influence. They are allowed the power to veto decisions as well as to retain membership on the Council indefinitely because they are so powerful. Although this system may emphasize the interests of the permanent members over the nonpermanent/non-Council members, one cannot lose sight of the big picture. Uzbekistan has never been appointed to be a Council member. However, should Uzbekistan have the same influence as a much larger, much more powerful state like China? Doesn’t China deserve to have a permanent seat on the Council with more influence than other, less powerful states?  

            At the end of the day it is difficult to say one way or the other if the Security Council operates fairly and effectively. Less powerful states have much less influence while powerful countries like the US have plenty. Despite the fact that the power distribution of the Council is clearly imbalanced, it is unclear if creating a more equal distribution would be beneficial to all members involved.

Sources:

"Current Members." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/>.

"What Is the Security Council?" UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/>.

The United Nations: An International Paradox

The United Nations (UN) was formed in 1945 in order to help facilitate international cooperation and promote peace following WWII. Over time, the goals of the UN have evolved in order to respond to the changing needs of the world population. The UN has many strengths and has certainly facilitated many successful projects, particularly the Millennium Development Goals. However, the structure of the UN itself is inherently flawed, as the uneven distribution of power within the UN Security Council does not allow it to function in the most productive or effective manner.

The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were created in 2000 with the support of all UN members at the time, as well as many international organizations. The MDGs are composed of eight individual goals that target some of the most pressing issues facing the world today. Such issues include world hunger and poverty, gender inequality, high child mortality rates, and environmental degradation. In order to ensure improvement in each area, the UN set specific and detailed objectives for each goal, with a target completion date in 2015.  The UN met several of the goals ahead of schedule, and made significant progress towards the completion of nearly all of the MDGs.

For example, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty was reduced from 46.7% in 1990 to 22% in 2010. In addition, the child mortality and maternal mortality rates were significantly reduced, and the amount of people without access to safe drinking water was cut in half. Although some critique the MDGs for not placing enough focus on areas such as sustainable development, it is important to acknowledge the substantial reforms that occurred as a result of the MDGs. There is certainly more work that must be done, but it is difficult to deny that the MDGs responded to a great deal of contemporary social issues in a highly effective manner.

However, despite the strength of the UN in regard to the MDGs, there are other aspects of the UN that remain extremely flawed and severely detract from its value in the international political sphere. In particular, the structure of the UN Security Council greatly limits the degree to which the greater international community can be involved in international affairs. The UN Security Council consists of 15 members who work together to address issues of peace and security on an international level. However, only five of those members are permanent members with veto power. The remaining ten are non-permanent members elected by the UN General Assembly for two-year terms.

This uneven distribution of power greatly favors the five permanent members – the United States, Russia, China, France, and England – and weakens the voice of all non-permanent member states, thereby ensuring that the interests of the five permanent members will always remain a priority during the decision-making process. The rapid rotation of non-permanent members further weakens their power, and creates a sense of instability within the Security Council. In addition, the five permanent members represent wealthy, developed countries. Therefore, the degree of power that they hold in the Security Council serves to marginalize developing countries, and seems to imply that greater wealth warrants greater power.

The UN is a very complex international organization, with considerable strengths and weaknesses. The success of the Millennium Development Goals highlights the power of the UN to implement truly transformative global reforms. However, the structure of the UN Security Council creates a disproportionate balance of power that weakens the voice of many states, particularly developing countries. Therefore, the UN must make substantial structural modifications in order to ensure that the decisions made by the Security Council are truly representative of all actors in the international community.

Sources:

"History of the United Nations." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2014. <http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/>.

"United Nations Millennium Development Goals." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2014. <http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/>.

Harris, Rich, and Claire Provost. "Millennium Development Goals: Big Ideas, Broken Promises?" The Guardian, 24 Sept. 2013. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fglobal-development%2Finteractive%2F2013%2Fsep%2F24%2Fmillennium-development-goals-data-interactive>.

            On this blog I’ve decided to talk about international organizations. I was going to talk about international finance and trade but seeing how I failed Micro-ECON once and barely passed the second time I took it, I rather not ridicule myself, again.

            We started to talk about embedded liberalism, which is a term that pretty much allows states to partake on free trade. Embedded liberalism got created right after World War II. It gave freedom for states to trade freely in order for them to better their economy. The deal was not implicit; it also helped regulate the states unemployment and it served to stabilized the economy.             Embedded liberalism had two main goals; to bring back free trade because, right after World War I, nobody really traded and the Great Depression of 1930, also took a toll on free trade. The second goal was to help national government out, with allowing them create more programs to help their unemployment’s situation. This idea was liberal because, it allowed stated creating an open system of trade of good and services, with a bit of fixed exchanges rates. Embedded liberalism, also reminds us that many of the losers of trade, bring stability to the trading world, it also brings to light how states can trade goods for protection.

            As Prof. Shirk said “Organizations are Sets of rules known and shared by a community that structure political interactions in specific ways” a couple of examples of international organizations are; United Nations, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Each of these organization help making cooperation between nations more easily for example; they can provide information, they can also increase the probability of states to commit, and they also set rule and boundaries, for every nation to follow.

            The United Nations for instance is a general assembly for nations they get together once a year for ta period of two weeks. In which each nation at a time, can address other nations and each nation can share their issues. All the matters of importance need a 2/3 vote whether it is; intergrading a new country into the UN, expulsing a nation out of the UN, budget and things of that sort. There is also the chief of diplomacy, which is like the president of the world, sort of, the UN secretariat; is like the bureaucracy of the UN. There is also a branch within the UN that is in charge of security; the UN Security Council; it deals with keeping peace, interventions and sanctions. Here is my issue; if there is a whole Council of Security, how come they don’t pay attention or tend to ignore what is going on in countries like Ukraine and Russia..? or Venezuela? Or in the Middle East crisis? Why can’t they enforce their power there?

            There is also the World Bank & IMF: International Monetary Fund, which is pretty much set up to lend loans to poor countries whose economy can’t keep up with the US’s economy and the dollar value. It need more than 83% votes to make an issue valid and the only country that has the veto is the US. While the World Bank, is dedicated to solving poverty; where are they solving poverty? I think they are solving poverty in Mars, or Mercury because; countries are just as poor or worse than they were before. Apparently, the World Bank is also in charge of helping dissolve the issues of gender equality, climate mitigations, and educations, HIV/AIDS…? Again, where is this happening, on outer space..? With issues like Ebola you would think that the World Bank at least would find the vaccine, but no. I don’t know what they are doing,

Meanwhile the World Trade Organization is in charge of making sure there are not disrespectful tings going on between states who trde with each other.

            Here is my issues, are these organizations just wasting time and space..? are they really helping..? if so, where?