Blog Post 4

John Rookard
Blog Post 4

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/business/lesotho-trout-for-japan/index.html?hpt=wo_t3

         The article above discusses the relationship Japan has with Lesotho in order to benefit the fishery market of Japan.  In Lesotho, the Katse Dam provides a great environmental setting for trout to flourish year round.  In this process between the two countries, trout eggs are shipped from Denmark to Lesotho where they are kept in nurseries until the fish are able to survive in the water of the Katse Dam.  Many would agree that there is a very different social feeling between Japan and Lesotho.  I would like to argue that this relationship between Lesotho and Japan is a positive example of globalization because all actors benefit both financially and socially.

         This exchange of fish and capital is an example of globalization and relates to Foer’s book How Soccer Explains the World because Japan can attempt to show Lesotho many uses of trout just like Silvio Berlusconi attempted to make Italy like Inter Milan Football Club.  Currently, Lesotho relies primarily on South Africa for trade because South Africa surrounds Lesotho.  Lesotho’s main industry is agriculture because of the arable land in the mountainous country.  The diamond mining industry is starting to rise too which will only lead to higher economic gain.  However, the farming of trout in Lesotho will produce winners on all sides.

          This partnership is a great example of positive globalization.  Japan receives trout which can then be processed for sushi and hopefully drive down consumer cost in the country.  Lesotho receives an influx of money from Japan for raising these fish and shipping them to Japan.  In the article, the reference was made about the extreme cost of this project.  Although it may be costly I am in agreement with Fred Formanek because the demand for fish in Japan is constantly high.  Globalization is a good thing especially when it comes to the trade of food.  Food is needed all year but the weather in particular areas is not constant for growing year round.  I believe that weather is the most important factor that this trout project has been so successful.

           In regards to How Soccer Explains the World, Franklin Foer tells us that Silvio Berlusconi was seen as a winner and used this to his advantage in the political spectrum.  This came “at a time when the economy sputtered and all politicians in Italy seemed like corrupt losers” and Berlusconi’s soccer success helped him (Foer 185).  So, how does this relate to Lesotho and Japan?  I believe that if necessary Japan can show Lesotho how to take their 5% of trout kept in this exchange and create new foods.  I do not foresee a massive sushi following being created in Lesotho but it can add another food for the people to eat.

           Although this process is intricate and hit a few bumps in the road at the beginning because of the shipping arrangements it is a huge success.  Globalization is not new.  Globalization has been happening since new ideas and goods were traded in the Far East.  Now today we see globalization advancing in a positive way with the Lesotho/Japan trout project.

Iran's Behavior Causes Question in Motives

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/world/meast/iran-russia-nuclear/index.html?hpt=wo_c1

The above article outlines a partnership entered between Russia and Iran. As per the deal, Russia will build eight nuclear reactors for the “peaceful use of atomic energy in Iran.” This comes just days after it was revealed that President Obama sent a letter to the Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei offering assistance with the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for aid rallying a force to combat ISIS. Iran is double-dealing with Russia and the United States and may be seeking to attain a nuclear weapon despite claims otherwise.

Though the a copy of the letter has yet to be leaked, the alleged content of the letter has enraged republicans who believe Obama’s approach is the wrong one. Republicans believe that cooperation in the Middle East with ISIS will end in Asaad remaining in power in Syria. Indeed, Asaad’s friendship with Iran is one of the reasons Iran is combating ISIS. While the United States and Iran both want ISIS to be removed from the region, their motives differ. Trading the quicker removal of ISIS for continued rule of Asaad is not worth it according to some politicians.

Further, the announcement of the Russian partnership with Iran comes just one day after the United States promised that Iran would not become a state with a nuclear weapon. Ayatollah Khamenei called for the annihilation of Israel recently. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to claim that Iranian leadership is irrational. Should Iran attain a nuclear weapon and tensions in the region escalate there may not be enough trust between Israel and Iran to prevent war and even possibly the use of a nuclear weapon.

One last strange point in the agreement is that Iran’s spent nuclear fuel would be sent back to Russia for processing and packaging. This could be a way for Iran to enrich nuclear materials for Russia in exchange for a Russian made weapon. Masking the enriched matter as refuse makes it seem innocent on the surface and facilitates movement of nuclear matter between the two countries. If Russia is helping Iran build reactors it should also help Iran manage the waste.

While questions of Iran’s motives are based largely on speculation, double-dealing with the United States and its greatest enemy begs questions of whether or not Iran is to be trusted. The situation is one that will be monitored closely, no doubt, especially if Iran goes through with its deal with Russia.

Capital Doesn’t Fit With the Established Paradigm

I’ve read quite a bit about the book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty, a French economist. Capital has had an incredible impact in the worlds of economics, political science, international relations, and sociology, to name a few. Its main thesis is that because the return on investment of capital is greater than the rate of economic growth, wealth will be distributed unequally and democracy will be threatened. To rectify this, Piketty recommends a global system of progressive, redistributive taxes on wealth, which is arguably quite extreme.

While studying the Ruggie and Abdelal reading, I came across a section, starting on page 157, that had an impression on me and reminded me of Capital. It talked about the paradoxical “uneasy relationship” between capital and international capitalism. It recommended that capital be better regulated by both international organizations and individual countries.

Relative to human history, the existence of capital, and especially capital flowing across borders of towns, regions, countries, and continents, is quite new. With the advent of such technologies and structures as hyper-trading, where algorithms determine which stocks to buy and sell, quick access to information, and structurally important financial institutions, capital’s return has grown even greater. This alone isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but combined with humanity’s inherent greed, leads to high economic inequality amongst countries and individuals. This concentration of wealth, and therefore of power, threatens the liberal democratic order by allowing the wealthy to have ever more power at the expense of the people.

I agree with both of the arguments from Capital and Ruggiet et. al, and I agree with the latter’s solution, since it seems to have a better chance of success due to its nature of being relatively amenable to both populists and financiers. However, I do not agree that a global system of wealth taxes should be enacted. First of all, this would be too difficult to implement due to the administrative costs alone. Second, because it is going from zero to 60, in terms of ramping up of global wealth redistribution policies, it would be effectively opposed by stakeholders, namely those that it would most heavily affect.

Human Rights Violations as Collateral Damage? (blog post 3)

This post is a response to this article.

In Kandahar, Afghanistan, the name Abdul Raziq can be associated with the word fear. General Abdul Raziq is the police chief of the province of Kandahar. In his time as chief, General Raziq has lead a persistent fight against the Taliban. According to the New York Times article “Powerful Afghan Police Chief Puts Fear in Taliban and TheirEnemies”, under General Raziq “insurgent attacks in the city have fallen by two-thirds, according to Western Estimates”. For these changes, General Raziq has received praise because now even the sound of his name strikes fear in the Taliban. 

How exactly did General Abdul Raziq cast such a level of fear? In his three years of reign as one of the most powerful Generals of Kandahar, General Abdul Raziq has impressed the people of Kandahar and even American forces. General Abdul’s platform is anti-Taliban, but he started his mission by regulating a drug trade that was affecting the border. In addition to many successful stand-off’s with the Taliban in 2011 under General Raziq, Ahmed Wali Karzai was killed. Ahmed Wali Karzai was a particular person of interest because he allegedly abused C.I.A funding and took part in drug smuggling. The killing of Ahmed Wali Karzai helped General Raziq gain untouchable respect. In “Powerful Afghan Police Chief Puts Fear in Taliban and Their Enemies”, a former governor of Kandahar said “Raziq is the god, the prophet, the governor and the president here in Kandahar”. Former Governor Gul Agha Shirzai’s words is the mindset that many citizens have of General Raziq.

At what costs did General Raziq become so powerful to be called a “god”? In the New York Times article above, it is reported that General Raziq has been frequently criticized because of human rights concerns. One particular accusation against General Raziq was from a report from the United Nations in a human rights report where 81 people have gone missing after being held in the Kandahar police custody. Yet, General Raziq has not faced any serious consequences.

          I would argue that General Raziq’s influence can be characterized as hard power. The General’s police force has been relentless in their anti-Taliban pursuit. But does hard power always require human rights violations as collateral damage? If General Raziq was not so cruel in his pursuit would he still hold the influence that he currently holds? In General Raziq’s case I am not sure because his power stems from fear even within the borders of his own city. Not to say that fear within the borders of a state is required for hard power because it can mean security for the citizens of the state. In General Raziq’s case however, I think fear is a necessary component to his success.

President Obama's Letter to Khamenei is a form of MAD

John Rookard

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/07/lawmakers-slam-obama-letter-to-iran-ayatollah-ali-khamenei/

The above news article link talks about a recent letter President Barack Obama wrote to the supreme leader of Iran, Ayetollah Ali Khamenei this week about a possible partnership between Iran and the United States.  This letter stirred up quite a bit of controversy because Republicans, who gained controlled of both chambers of Congress, mostly disagreed with his actions.  This letter to Khamenei and possible partnership relates to international studies because it is an example of compellence in Mutually Assured Destruction theory.  I believe that President Obama was not completely out of line in sending a secret letter asking for Iranian support in the fight against ISIL.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory mostly relates to the use of nuclear weapons because they are so destructive.  MAD says that rational leaders will not use nuclear weapons because of the weapons’ capabilities.  It is known by the general public that Iran is harvesting nuclear material and some say it could be weapons grade.  This possible development of a nuclear weapon combined with being in a bad neighborhood makes many American officials wary of the idea of joining forces with Iran.  In the article, it was stated that Iran said their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.  Whether you believe that or not is not the issue here, but rather, this situation shows that the threat of nuclear weapons creates fear. 

Both the United States and Iran keep each other honest with their nuclear capabilities.  The Sokolowski reading for class is a bit outdated but it shows that Iran is not given enough credit for responsibility of having a nuclear weapon.  Sokolowski argues that Iran would be open to attacking Israel and supporting terror groups in the area if they were to obtain a nuclear weapon.  Again, I am here to argue that President Obama trying to rally Iranian support is not a crazy idea because Iranian leadership is more rational than usually assumed.  MAD plays a role in this because Iranian leaders know that the use of nuclear weapons against a U.S. ally would certainly result in a second strike.

I believe President Obama realizes the dangers associated with Iran but he is relying on MAD as well as the threat of ISIL to compel Iranian leadership.  Iran has great interest in both Iraq and Syria and therefore Iran should help stop ISIL’s movements.  Compellence is a strong tactic in MAD because it forces another party to undertake an action through coercion.  Although no clear act of compellence like sanction or withdrawal from land has taken place; the letter is the first step.

Reaching out to Iran was not a horrible thing to do.  Nuclear weapons create fear, but ISIL is a threat that has to be dealt with now.  Gathering support of countries in the Middle East to stop this imminent threat can only help.  Even if Iran’s nuclear program is not for peaceful reasons, I highly doubt Iran will use it because nuclear weapons cause rationality even among the craziest leaders.

Third Blog Post: Game Theory and Climate Change

Game Theory and Climate Change

 

Climate Change is upon us, and Humanity is not doing enough to counter the adverse effects. These effects include: rising sea level, rising temperatures (of the land, ocean, and atmosphere), ocean acidification, melting glaciers, increased incidence and severity of floods and droughts (depending on location), increased occurrences and magnitude of forest fires, desertification, decreased agricultural productivity, decreased labor in the summer, and civil/international unrest due to decreasing security. These issues are caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases - gases that trap infrared radiation and warm the planet. Examples of greenhouse gases include Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Dioxide, and tropospheric ozone (ozone located in the troposphere due to human activities). The international scientific community has gotten together with 99% certainty via the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Game theory can explain why the international community has not done enough to mitigate the effects of climate change.

In this game, there are two players: the developed countries and the developing countries.
As the two players are operating under anarchical conditions, each side is unrestricted in greenhouse gas emissions and do not know what the other player is going to do. There are short term economic benefits (despite the long term effects of climate change highlighted above)  to emitting greenhouse gases. As a result, there is a “business as usual” scenario where the developed countries keep emitting and the developing countries are worse off. This is one of the inefficient outcomes. There is an opposite scenario of the “business as usual” scenario, where the developing countries emit and the developed countries forgo their emissions. This scenario is also inefficient as the developing countries are now better off in the short run and the developed countries are now relatively worse off. The last two scenarios are the efficient outcomes where either both countries emit the greenhouse gases, or where both countries abate their greenhouse gas emissions. The latter is the “worst-case” scenario as both players cause the effects of climate change and accelerate it. The former is the “best-case” scenario or the nash equilibrium as both countries become relatively worse off in the short-run to become much better off in the long run. Currently, we are at the point where the developed countries are emitting much more than the developing countries. It is also important to point out that the developed countries are much richer and have significantly higher GDPs due to their historic emissions of greenhouse gases. This makes them better able to respond to the effects of climate change than the developing countries.

So, why haven’t we reached the nash equilibrium?  Third parties have an international and economic stake in this issue. The fossil fuel industry has a prevalent hand in many of the governments of the developed countries. The industry bought out many of the decision makers in these developed countries in order to prevent costly regulation of the industry that reduces the profit margins. The environmental interest groups are weak in comparison to the fossil fuel industry lobby as they lack resources. Another reason of why the developed countries have not been able to reduce their emissions is because of socialization. The economies of the developed countries are intertwined via trade. As regulations of one developed country raise the operating cost of the industry, firms in the industry will relocate to where the regulations are weakest. Thus, trade makes the economy worse off as firms can leave countries that don’t regulate their markets. The last reason that the nash equilibrium was not reached was due to the failed institutions of the UN. These institutions are the Kyoto Protocol and the Warsaw Climate Summit. These meetings had weak enforcement of rules and regulations for each country involved. Incentives for developed countries to stick to the agreement were nonexistent. At warsaw, the developed countries walked out due to the influence of the third parties. Because of third parties, socialization, and failed institutions, the developed and developing countries have not reached the nash equilibrium. Hopefully, although I am not optimistic, things will change next year in Paris.