Balancing the Security Council

       The Security Council in the United Nations is one of the most criticized aspects of the organization, most specifically; the permanent members and their veto power are often the subject of international scrutiny. I would like to argue that while the system may not be perfect and can be improved, it is not possible nor is it beneficial to get rid of these five permanent members and their power. The five actors on the Security Council are the victors of World War Two, the United States, Russia, France, England and China, and who are also current major world powers. As a result of this, I argue that even if they were to be removed or their roles changed on the council, their influence over other nation in the world and on the council would still be great enough that anything they wanted to get done on the council would still be done. If for some reason this was not the case, it could still be taken care of by some other means, NATO being the best example of this. Secondly, because the Security Council frequently deals with issues that will require military backing or great amounts of funding, taking away these huge actors would make many of the things they want to get done next to impossible without these nations to support them. My final argument in favor of the council is the possibility of abuse from smaller nations who may abuse their power by using the forces of nations such as the United States or Russia in order to solve conflicts that the Security Council did not need to be involved in.

       Because each of the five powers also needs to approve of changes to the council, convincing them to give up power would be very difficult. Instead of abolishing the current system, I think there is potential for improving it while allowing the five permanent members to retain their places and their veto power. As it stands now, there are also ten nonpermanent seats on the council that change every two years that can vote in council decisions, but these members do not have the veto power. These fifteen member vote on almost all major decisions made by the UN, most importantly, peace keeping missions and the acceptance of new members. When voting, the five major powers must agree for anything to pass because of the veto threat and they then must gain the support of only three more states. The power disparity between the big five and the rest of the council is obvious as it stands now and as a result the best way to improve the legitimacy of the council is to better balance out the power in the council. I believe the best way to do this would be to expand the number of nonpermanent members, potentially to twenty. In doing this, each of the two major issues are improved, first, the major powers are able to retain their veto power, which will prevent the abuse of their potential for troops and funding for issues that do not require their attention. Secondly, it would now require these five powers to gain the support of eight more members in order to have a majority for any kind of resolution. By requiring more nonpermanent members to agree to a resolution than permanent members, while the permanent members would still be protected by the veto, the majority of the opinion in the resolution would now come from the other members effectively improving the balance of power amongst the states.

Issues with Globalization's Critiques

Globalization can be defined as a trend of increased interconnectedness, in which capital, trade, and ideas flow across borders.  Globalization has many critiques, two of them being that it causes environmental exploitation and a loss of cultural diversity.  In this post, I attempt to reveal issues with these critiques. Globalization may cause some of these phenomena, but the subjects of these critiques can be avoided without targeting globalization itself.  A changing world is bound to have growing pains.  This does not excuse the wrongdoings that occur alongside globalization.  These wrongdoings deserve to be reformed, but globalization itself does not have to be targeted.

Critics of globalization often point out that it contributes to environmental exploitation.  The Amazon rain forest and areas of Indonesia are being degraded at an astounding rate.  Each year, an area of land the size of West Virginia is deforested due to a demand for timber in the developed world.  The harmful effects that result are a loss of biodiversity and a release of greenhouse gases.  Other practices harmful to the environment include unregulated manufacturing in developing nations.  Large, multinational corporations avoid emissions restrictions by moving their manufacturing facilities to South America and parts of Asia.  As an environmentalist, I understand the magnitude and importance of these issues.  However, I feel that it is misguided to place the blame on globalization itself.  The primary cause of environmental exploitation is not interconnectedness itself, rather it is the result of irresponsible management of resources and cultural consumerism.  Targeting more specific causes of environmental problems would be more beneficial than critiquing globalization.  An anti-globalization movement is overly pessimistic, essentially foregoing the possibility of human unity due to current challenges.  There are plausible solutions to environmental problems that target specific problems.  Giving up on an interconnected world does not have to be the answer.  In fact, globalization is necessary to solve many environmental problems.  To start, the world needs something resembling internationally consistent standards for carbon emissions if corporate exploitation of the third world is to end.  We all share the same atmosphere, and climate change will affect all of us.  We cannot hide behind our national identities and pretend that this problem belongs to someone else.  A sense of global stewardship for the planet must exist.  This process implies globalization.  

Another critique of globalization is the premise that it creates cultural homogeneity.  Almost half of the languages in the world are at risk of being lost.  This cultural erosion is linked to globalization.  Throughout the world, English is becoming the dominant language due to the hegemony of western business.  Anthropologists view this as a problem because language carries with it human experience.  Thousands of languages, rich with experience and ideas, are in danger of being extinguished due to globalization.  Once again, I agree that this is an issue, but not one that can be solved by targeting globalization.  The importance of these languages lies in the fact that they can convey experience and knowledge from a unique perspective.  This relies on the assumption that cultures are able to exchange across borders and have a forum in which to share their experience.  Would it not be counter-intuitive then to target globalization?  Globalization is the only reason scholars know of these endangered languages.  A much more reasonable solution would be to allow globalization to occur, but devote institutions to preserve cultural resources.

Globalization seems to be at the center of glaring issues facing the world today, such as environmental exploitation and cultural erosion.  But critiquing globalization itself for these problems is a rather lazy and illogical practice.  Globalization may be at the center of these problems, but they have more specific causes that need to be targeted.  Reverting to isolationism would be counter-intuitive to the problems created by globalization.  It is natural that growing pains come with an advancing society.  This is no reason to halt advancement altogether. 

Commercializing Soccer

In the book, "How Soccer Explains the World," Foer addresses the role of oligarchs in the game, yet he does not include arguably the most prominent, but discreet oligarch in the game. Roman Abramovich is the owner of Chelsea FC, a team which has recently found monumental success from world class players brought in on Abramovich's dime. Abramovich rose to prominence during the liberalization of Russian industry during the reign of Boris Yeltsin. He seized control of aluminum and oil companies, and held a significant amount of shares in Gazprom, a multi-national corporation. Gazprom is a very well known sponsor of UEFA and FIFA, and arguably contributed to the bribes to bring the World Cup to Russia in 2018. While much of this happened after Foer published his book, the influence of corporations and oligarchs extends far beyond the simplicity of buying referees and smashing transfer records. The rise of rich foreign investors in soccer to protect their funds has increased a marketization of the game, and sponsorships which now have a tremendous amount of influence upon the beautiful game. 

Mr. Abramovich started a wave of foreign investment in large European teams, since his arrival in the English game, many more have followed. The Abu Dhabi United Group has brought Manchester City back to prominence, the Qatar Investment Authority has made Paris St. Germain a continental force, and Dmitrii Rybolovlev splashed cash at AS Monaco. All of these oligarchs were seeking a way to protect their money, and to legitimatize it. When Abramovich bought Chelsea, it was during a time in Russia when Putin was cutting the oligarchs down, men like Boris Berezovskii were seeking asylum, and Abramovich had to ensure that he was not next. By funneling money through Chelsea and Gazprom endorsement deals, Abramovich secured his financial and political future. Since his purchase of Chelsea, Putin has taken Abramovich as a close advisor and even helped him secure political office. These oligarchs have established a very effective system for protecting their own capital through soccer clubs in Europe, and because of this, capitalism has spread through the game. Teams are seeking large endorsements, Manchester United have a sponsor for just about every possible item. Take a look, http://www.manutd.com/en/General-Footer-Section/Sponsors.aspx it truly gets ridiculous at times. These teams are now driven by the profit rather than the glory. 

More recently, the corruption of FIFA is well known, and most notably of Sepp Blatter. He secured another term of office, but soon after corporations such as Coca-Cola and McDonalds reneged their sponsorship deals, two of the largest deals for FIFA. A few days later, Blatter announced he would resign. The influence of money and these corporations cannot be understated in FIFA and the game as a whole. While Foer does touch on the power of money within the game, the rise of corporations and their power he did not predict. While he does talk about the Agnelli family and their corruption using Fiat, the scale of which corporations have taken control could not have been predicted.

While men like Abramovich have brought joy to many fans of soccer, controversy is never far away. Some may argue that money has always been corrupting the game, and that the inflated transfer deals was always going to happen. Commercialization has always been a problem, Johan Cruyff refused to wear the 3 stripes of Adidas due to a Puma endorsement in 1974. While the marketization of soccer has certainly coincided with the rise of globalization, it has always been there and it is unlikely to stop. 

Soccer and Globalization

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/upshot/globalization-under-attack-on-the-soccer-field.html?_r=0

SOCCER IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

The European Soccer Industry has been facing many changes in the recent years, especially when it comes down to foreign players entering the league. The new rules that Greg Dyke has proposed seems to be a bad idea globally, because it restricts the international globalization, and opens up a domestic globalization. This globalization of foreign players however has its negative effects, such as the tensions between fans and members of the European soccer council. Yes having foreign players has its benefits and will help with globalizing soccer to a higher point, but some members of the Council believe that It is better to improve the domestic teams rather than bring in players from around the world.

The article mentions that foreign players on European teams are bringing in money and they are able to help the European teams profit from their teams. Globalization and soccer both go hand in hand, as discussed in class, because soccer is a global sport that brings about many people from around the world, who attempt to bring up the national pride, as well as play with nationally ranked players.

In class we discussed Soccer and Globalization and we came up with some of the positives to globalization such as Unity among fans, and using Soccer rather than war. In class we discussed how the Syrian and Croatian soccer teams resorted to violence to prove who the better team is. This obviously had negative side effects which lead to the downfall of a lot of the “gangs” involved. 

With European Soccer players rising to the top levels, they are getting paid more, which in turn helps the global soccer market increase. Players from all around the world are looking to play on the nationally ranked teams, and they are increasing the business for the league. Players from smaller countries are getting the opportunity to compete with top notch players which increasing the global economy, and allows for globalization to take place, meaning the different teams and countries begin to integrate.

The players are able to make a ton of money from signing to other teams, and the fans also get the opportunity to have pride for their team regardless of the team member’s ethnic background. People see the international globalization of Soccer teams as a bad thing, but if we are to analyze the process the money that these teams receive are eye-opening. Just as the article mentions, the wealthy foreigners buy the teams, sponsorship comes about, and fans buy merchandise that coincide with their teams. Soccer has become the best and economically sustainable sport in the world. That is why bringing in foreign players is a good thing, because we are helping out profits!

Ineffectiveness of the UN Security Council

         The UN was established in 1945 to prevent a third world war, and in this regard has been successful. In recent years, however, it has been unable to prevent a number of major conflicts and as a result, many casualties. Many of these conflicts have involved members of the UNSC – in the case of Iraq, for example, the US and Britain. The UN could not block that intervention, and it would probably have been bypassed had the UK parliament voted for military intervention in Syria. The fact is, regardless of the nature and scale of conflict, the power structure of the UN prevents joint decisions on the most pressing and immediate issues if the interests of any Big Five (US, Britain, China, France, Russia) clash.

         The UN’s inability to reach a solution for peace in Syria and also the entire Middle East peace process serves as a perfect example. Palestine's rise as an “observer state” after getting overwhelming support in the General Assembly of the UN has already shown the existing differences in the institution. Immediately after UNESCO recognized Palestine as its newest member, the US stopped its funding to the organization – but it still only reassessed its aid to Egypt after the military coup there. Any resolutions to bring Israel to the ICC for war crimes committed in Gaza, or to stop it from building more settlements on Palestinian land are blocked by the US on a regular basis. Because the US has veto power within the UNSC, it is rendered ineffective and it is easily bypassed.                                                      

I believe that reforms of the UN, especially the UNSC, are necessary and could work towards better international governance and maintenance of peace and security in the world, but they can only work if the top 5 countries (mentioned above) are ready to give up their veto and engage in more democratic power-sharing. Minor reforms, such as including more non-permanent members in the UN for two year periods, are not going to help in the long run: countries elected as non-permanent members to the UNSC can vote on a resolution, but the permanent members can still veto it. The UN needs to be a legitimate international organization that serves the needs of those affected by conflicts directly, and not the interests of the power-hungry nations who run the show. This can only be achieved when there are serious diplomatic efforts to make the UNSC a truly “one member, one vote” system, serving the interests of all nations.

There is a consensus that the Council must be reformed for the U.N. to not lose its legitimacy, but there’s a startling lack of will to get the process of reform into gear. And, ultimately, as long as the veto-wielding powers keep their vetoes, much of the underlying facts on the ground won’t change. Those who defend the veto argue that, without it, international governance would be far more unpredictable and chaotic. But with it, the U.N. is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Sovereignty and Intervention

The idea of humanitarian intervention is in contention between IR scholars and the United Nations itself.  Humanitarian intervention can be viewed as a violation of state sovereignty.  Opponents to humanitarian intervention often quote the UN charter which states “the Organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members.”  However, I am of the opinion that state sovereignty is earned and that humanitarian intervention could be optimal in the right circumstances.

State sovereignty occurs when a government is the sole source of authority in a territory and no other source of authority exists elsewhere.  Where does this authority some from?  Throughout history, different definitions of authority, and therefore sovereignty, have surfaced.  In the Han Dynasty, the ruler had a mandate of heaven from which he drew his authority.  The people were subordinate to the king because, in their view, he was chosen by God.  In the US, authority is drawn from the Constitution.  The US is a nation in which the rule of law, or supremacy of written law over public officials, exists.  In many western democracies, it can be argued that the authority of the government is drawn from the people.  Sovereignty cannot be universally justified because authority comes from different sources according to different worldviews.  If the principle of state sovereignty is upheld universally in IR, it can be said that sovereignty is drawn simply from the fact that a ruler exists and exercises power over the territory.  This implies that power is synonymous with authority.  This idea resembles the laws of the natural world, in which a strong organism rules simply because it has power.  It can live where it wants, kill what it wants, and take what it wants because it is able to assert its power on other organisms.  This should not be the case in IR.  Society is an institution that aims to improve upon the chaos of the natural world.  Sovereignty, therefore, should be earned, not granted by power.  Under the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect, a state must protect its people from atrocities.  States also deserve help in protecting their people from atrocity.  However, if the state actively commits atrocity against its people, member states of the UN have agreed to take decisive action to protect the people (Ban).

It is necessary that humanity adopts a global responsibility for the welfare of all people.  Should we not provide aid in the form of medicine and food to needy people because it encroaches on the sovereignty of an irresponsible or incompetent nation?  I believe that humanitarian intervention can be justified using this same question.  I concede that humanitarian intervention may not always be the best option.  For example, Syria’s conflict consists of Assad, various rebel groups, and ISIS.  There is no legitimate side to support.  All humanitarian intervention would accomplish in this circumstance is to saturate the nation with more weapons and complicate things further.  However, the idea of humanitarian intervention is justifiable.  Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, shares this viewpoint.  In a report, he concludes that the responsibility to protect is a legitimate concept that should be carried out with cooperation between the member states of the UN.  He supports the three pillars of the responsibility to protect, but realizes that it is a new idea that must be refined in strategy.  If the responsibility to protect is exercised with cooperation between nations, and each instance of atrocity is carefully analyzed, I agree with the Secretary General.  Humanitarian intervention could be a legitimate action used to enhance the welfare of humanity.    

 UN Charter- http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html

Ban Ki-moon Report-http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/UNSG%20Report_timely%20and%20decisive%20response(1).pdf

Syrian Intervention

They say hindsight is 20/20, yet that still does not help answer the question on whether we should have intervened in the Syrian crisis in the summer of 2013. Even after the rise of the Islamic State and the refugee crisis that has given Europe quite a headache, the possibility of getting heavily involved in another Middle Eastern country could have possibly had infinitely worse consequences. While many see the control ISIS has over the region as a direct result of the United States refusing the intervene, there is always the possibility that some other extremist group would have risen in its place, using nationalism against the United States to recruit members. A definitive answer to whether we should have intervened or not is truly impossible to give, but I argue that our path of not getting involved during the summer of 2013 was the correct move at the time. 

The past experience including Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have shown that attempting to exert our influence both militarily and politically can be turned against us. All of these situations had deeper cultural issues that we did not understand at the time. For example, Vietnam had a long and glorious tradition of repelling foreigners who sought to use the country, from the Chinese in the 1st millennia to the French in the age of imperialism. When we gave weapons and training to the Mujahideen, we ended up funding the beginning of Al Qaeda and fostered an incredible amount of anti-Western sentiment that has been used since to recruit members to organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. The Iraq War truly has a very negative image in the minds of many Americans. That is still a very fresh memory and we want to avoid it at all costs, so when we saw another tyrannical dictator being awful to his people, it seemed similar to Saddam. While some saw this as a chance to act as a police force, many wanted to avoid the possibility of another expensive war in the Middle East.

Another aspect to consider is the staunch defense of the Assad regime by Moscow. If we had intervened, Russia could easily have taken that as a violation on the sphere of influence. With a leader in Putin who is so quick to use action and assert dominance, we could have triggered military action from another great power which is certainly something we want to avoid. 

While a US military presence in Syria might have helped curtail the rapid growth ISIS has experienced, our presence could have just as easily helped unite the locals against us. Using anti-Western sentiment, gathering support and spreading extremism could have been a legitimate possibility of US intervention. Settling a civil war is infinitely more complicated than an occupying force. In the Gulf War, we got Saddam out of Kuwait, but if we wanted to remove Assad then all of Assad’s followers could not just leave. Splitting two or more factions that are set in a state make the aftermath much more complicated and expensive for the US.

In conclusion, the possibilities of what could have gone wrong is just as bad as what has happened since we did not intervene. However, American boots are not on the ground in the same number that they would be and we are avoiding another expensive war in the Middle East. I see it as the right decision not to intervene.