Blog #8

I M Fired. This is what IMF stood for these laid off employees, not International Monetary Fund

IMF has traditionally been closely linked with the notion of stabilizing the economic system since its de facto creation in July 1944, when representatives of the Allied Nations during the World War II gathered in Bretton Woods to establish a framework for international economic cooperation after the eventual cessation of the ongoing war in Europe.

Since then, IMF has become a place of disagreement between rich and poor countries over how national preferences are to be counted for, for the purpose of implementing policy decisions. Right now, there is no doubt that poor countries do not have much representation in the IMF as the IMF is primarily funded by the richest countries, notably the US.

IMF has series of conditions for giving loan to subsidize failing governments around the world. The structural adjustment program, or a series of conditionality imposed by the IMF to the borrowing nations for the purpose of securing improvements in external finances as part of the process of establishing a basis for a greater investment, efficiency and growth. This includes removing restrictions on the foreign investments in the bank, industry and other financial institutions, reducing tariff, trade barriers and other restrictions on imports, devaluing the local currency, etc, etc.

Sound good? The purpose of these conditions are to transform a nation into a place capable of  sustainable, efficient economic growth. But is it really…?

It is interesting to note that these conditionality imposed by the IMF is shaped by shifts in economic and political interests of its major shareholders, notably, the US. and especially after the structural adjustment policy ‘invades’ a nation, many US companies engage in a hostile takeover and buying nonperforming assets of the nation. For example, in South Korea, major ITCs such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and GE Capital bought over 55 trillion won of nonperforming assets, virtually taking into possesion over 46% of Korean buildings, infrastructures, land and communication services. In fact, after 1997, although South Korea now boasts as the worlds 11th largest economy with a high standard of living, it had become a economic protectorate of the US. The entire economic hegemony was passed over to the hands of the American companies, all because of the structural adjustment policy.

During the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, several countries had voluntarily called for the IMF aid, and almost 15 years after the incident, many of these countries still struggle to pay its debt.

We don’t have to look far. Mexico and Argentina and many other Latin American nations are tied by the debt, economic slaves of the rich, trying hard to fight poverty that is the system.

Blog #7

War.

War is a collective killing for a collective purpose, as defined by a historian John Keegan. In On War, Karl von Clausewitz characterized war as a continuation of politics by other means, and therefore focuses on armed conflicts as a political act. But it leaves us thinking whether or not politics, economics, and culture have relative importance in the origin and fighting of wars.

In war, killing and destroying are expected, although the participants of the war are expected to follow the boundaries and constraints established by existing laws or norms. Armed conflict, such as both World Wars and other major conflicts have caused immeasurable suffering and destruction in the human history. Over 60 million have suffered in World War II alone. Imagine how many destructive wars have taken the lives of people and destroyed communities in the last 500 years of human history.

Several trends, however can be identified in contemporary armed conflicts. It is known as the prevalence of wars between or within smaller countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, instead of major powers struggle. Another trend is the increase frequency of wars within states, known as intrastate conflicts. Examples include Ertirea and Ethiopia, India and Pakistan, the NATO air war against Serbia, the First Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan. Overall, the frequency of armed conflict is in decline.

In 2006, there were ~30 armed conflicts in the world, down from ~50 in 1991-1992. (As seen here).

Finally, another pattern is, while war-realted casualties are also on the decline, increasingly the victims of armed conflicts are civilians. Approximately 15 percent of the fatalities were civilians in World War I, where it rose to stunning 65 percent in World War II. In wars after 1945, civilian casualties are over 90 percent.

In this contemporary world, war seems much like the thing of the past for us Canadians, Europeans, or even East Asians, but the increasing military spending since the 1998 is another pattern that is to be accounted for. In 2001-2007, US military spending had increased dramatically, which accounts for 45 percent of the world military expenditures in 2007.

Will the trend continue and will we never see a major military conflict in the future? or does the increased spending on military expenditures and various territorial claims/religious reasons cause another global epidemic of wars in the near future?

Blog #6

IGO, or intergovernmental organizations are comprised of states and only states. Also, they are created by treaties between states and therefore, have legal standing under international law. For example, the right to immunity from jurisdiction of state courts for acts and activities performed by the organization. IGOs also engage in periodical meetings attended by delegates from member states, representing policies and interests of their own states. IGOs also have permanent administrative employees who work for the organization, not tied to their states.

Ban Ki-Moon, current General Secretary of United Nations (IGO)

It is important to recognize the wide scope of activities in which international organizations engage. The UN, for example, is involved in issue areas as diverse as international and civil war, technology, gender relations, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, decolonization, human rights, and many more.  The UN is a multipurpose, universal-membership organization. It can be joined by all states in the international system, providing the Security Council’s permanent members and two thirds of the General Assembly agree.

Herman Van Rompuy, the first long-term and full-time President of the European Council

 

In contrast, regional and functional organizations, which manages issues at a regional level or are designed for a specific purpose exist. These types of IGOs are the most common of IGOs, and the examples include the European Union, which with it’s highly coordinated policies to such a degree that it is often called a supranational institution, although the current financial instability of some of its member threaten its prolonged existence. Other regional organizations include the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Arab League, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

It maybe considered that IGOs are an extension of the theme of collective security, a system of international order in which all states respect recognized territorial boundaries and in which aggression by any state is met by a collective response. In retrospect, collective security has been attempted by IGOs such as the League of Nations, and currently the UN, but it still proves itself to be merely an ideal system that has yet to be fully realized by the international community. The UN was unable to exercise its collective security provisions during the Cold War due to the use, or rather the threatened use of the veto. The Korean War was close to being a collective security but the Soviet Union’s absent was the major factor in deciding the outcome of the UN provision. It maybe argued that the response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was an instance of collective security, but many view it as an example of American-orchestrated power.

 

Blog #1

It is a question that makes one wonder; why do countries such as North Korea continues their pursuit for nuclear capabilities notwithstanding the economic sanctions and  international backlash?

Our understanding of the IR theories tell us that it may be explainable with the idea of Realist Theory. North Korea, as an international actor, seeks its self interest, the never-ending Kim Dynasty. As such, we can, for the sake of argument, name North Korea as an anarchic state, that defies the “American-hegemonic-democracy” of the contemporary world.

Now, as, shall we put it, the normal states (under U.S. hegemony) pressure North Korea to become one of them, meaning the end of Kim Dynasty rule, North Korea will try to uphold their national interest as mentioned above, and defend that through, as we witness in the world today, nuclear programs.

There is no way that a small country like North Korea and other rogue states have a military power strong enough to resist the entire world under the U.S. But the idea instilled into the heads of every U.S. presidents, namely George W. Bush and, as we can see in the video above, Barack H. Obama, is that these rogues states, have the capability to “destroy” and annihilate the world as we know it, and therefore ‘must be stopped’.

Is this really true? The answer to that question is beyond the scope of this short blog entry, but it is interesting to see that we, the normal people living under the U.S. sphere of influence, take a realist stance on this issue and label the rogues states as the Axis of Evil, the ones that are powerful enough to bring destruction to our daily lives through the use of nuclear powers. Therefore, we have come to fear these states.

My favourite vacation spot

I’ve visited a lot of places in the world, but I;d have to say that this place is my absolute favourite.