Legitimacy of North Korea

During the class discussion the question was raised how a country like North Korea can have legitimacy and a group like ISIS cannot. Of course, one of the most important answers is that North Korea is recognized by the international community as a legitimate state and ISIS is not. But in order to answer the question why North Korea was recognized as a legitimate state (and ISIS is not), we have to look at the historical events that created North Korea as a state. Naeem Inayatullah stresses the importance of history in analyzing why states do not exercise positive sovereignty and are not taking care of their citizens. When looking at the history of North Korea, it can help to better understand how North Korea became a legitimate state.

The Korean peninsula was under Japanese occupation for 35 years until after the end of World War II. The allies decided what to do with Korea after Japan surrendered and divided the country at the 38^th parallel. After the war, the Soviet Union occupied the north and the US the south. After North Korea was officially established in 1948, the Soviet Union left the country to its own fate and North Korea decided to invade the south. After the war, the international community officially divided the two countries at the 38^th parallel again. While South Korea was recognized as a legitimate state soon after, North Korea was only recognized by communist states. However, many other, non-communist states decided to recognize North Korea as a legitimate state during the years following the war. Therefore, the occupation by foreign countries eventually led to the creation of two states, which eventually led to the legitimacy of North Korea.

On a side note, last weekend, my family and I drove to an observation point an hour north of Seoul. At this observation point, which is on a hill on top of a river that separates the two states, you not only have the chance to look at North Korea, but you also learn a little bit more about the history and the sad stories of family separation. There was a period under Kim Jon-Il where hope was raised for reunification. During the so-called sunshine years, railroad tracks were built from a town in the south of North Korea to a town in the south, and there were also family reunions made possible by the Red Cross. Unfortunately, however, the sunshine years ended when Kim Jon-Il decided to engage in nuclear proliferation. During this visit, I asked myself many times what would have happened had Japan not invaded Korea. What would have happened if the UN had not divided the two countries at the 38^th parallel and the Soviet Union had not occupied the north?

References

BBC. "North Korea Profile - Timeline." Accessed November 20, 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15278612

Week 11 - Corporate Authority & International Markets

As I drive to work every morning I listen to the news and have recently paid more attention to the talk of corporation mergers. Specifically how many of these companies have tried to move their headquarters to other parts of the world, often with more lenient tax breaks and less government control. In light of what we’ve been talking about recently with authority and global corporations, it’s apparent that this is an important issue. On a national level, the U.S. government has intervened in mergers, one example being with healthcare corporations this past summer. Overall, the concept corporate authority in the international scale is concerning - as there is the question of who has control ultimately?

As Cutler mentions in her article Private International Regimes and Interfirm Cooperation, these corporations are given what often constitutes governmental power, as she refers to them as regimes. She also brings about the question of morality when it comes to these regimes because they “are basically functioning like governments” (p. 32). While we often trust that the government is supposed to work in the best interest of citizens due to the power that has been handed them (whether that happens is another argument), these corporations pose an entirely different threat. They exercise authority over themselves and become involved in politics on a national and international level.

These corporations have authority and yet are fighting for what is in their best interest. This is a scary reality as countries like the United States may have the system, power, and knowledge to recognize and try to keep these organizations in line, others may not. We see corporations getting involved in the politics of developing countries and whose interest are they really looking out for?  For example, in Guatemala the government was unable to protect its citizens from Nestle, specifically their Gerber baby brand, that decided to break into the market to sell its formula in a developing country. Now, there are many infants who are malnourished because their families cannot afford formula and breastfeeding is looked down upon. The World Trade Organization allowed for this to happen as the Guatemalan government was too weak to fend off Nestle corporation and allowed it to essentially trump national laws, and in the process putting the lives of infants at risk. This is only one example where these corporations act in their own best interests and are not stopped or even when questioned, put up a fight until they win.

Claire Cutler, “Private International Regimes and Interfirm Cooperation” in The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, ed. Tom Biersteker and Rodney Bruce Hall (Cambridge, 2002).

http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wto/casestudies

Justice from a Historical Lens (Week 11)

I want to echo Erica's love for the the Inayatullah reading, Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: quasi-states as social construct. What struck me first was the current international society's definition of sovereignty as, "a political entity's externally recognized right to exercise final authority over its own affairs." Such a definition reminded me of the 'us vs them' foundation of international relations as well as the quadrants of categories we've been consistently placing international relationships into throughout this course.

However, Inayatullah's perspective reveals its key claim as he argued that this very definition of sovereignty is not sufficient as the meaning of sovereignty evolves as it confronts and adapts to the challenges of this world (51). Later examples in his article illustrate this evolution with the irrational requirement for third world states to compete in the global system equal to other states.

I believe our interactions with people, not just states, should be founded on this perspective as well. There are too many people these days pointing fingers at other socio-economic or racial groups in an effort to illuminate unequal treatment of others as wrong. The majority of these fingers belong to people who base their claim on how difficult their life has been and how they have overcome numerous obstacles or suffered as a result of them. While it is ridiculous to rate your suffering worse than another's in order to benefit, it is equally ridiculous for society to dismiss these 'historical' elements that affect peoples' lives.

Although its easier to preach then practice, I wholly believe that:

"Equals must be treated equally, and unequals must be treated unequally” 
and/or 
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal"

This quote has been attributed to Aristotle, 

however the actual author and wording is unknown.

It would be great to see such a response to injustice played out in the real world, for example: 

• If a person is blind, we do not expect them to see the text in a book and neither do we give up and never expect them to read. No, we provide them with a braille book on which they can read with their fingers. 

• If a poor child in rural America is accepted into a prestigious school but cannot pay tuition, we do not expect them to give up hope for an education. No, the school will offer them a special scholarship for tuition, room and board that is not available to other families with the resources to pay. 

• If the government employees men and women equally but with only 20% of those women occupying senior leadership positions, we do let women continue to suffer gender discrimination for a job they can do just as good as men. No, we find opportunities to lift-up, groom, and mentor young women to be in place for the next wave of leadership. 

Of course there are countless additionally ways that racial, religious and sexual discrimination is supported in our world today by maintaining the perspective that unequal things must be treated equally. Inayatullah describes how history can be a key reason why all states cannot be treated equally. I think this same argument can and should be applied to treatment of people who make up these states. 

Size--does it matter?

As we go into the second half of this module I wonder: if it is socially acceptable to outsource aid work, is it then acceptable to outsource economic planning and security? There is almost a universal acceptance of the vast web of aid groups who provide basic services to a wide swath of humanity; and there is no disputing that they are doing fantastic work which would otherwise mean the death of millions. However, does their work undermine a central government? If one of government’s roles is to provide basic services to its population (along with protecting that population from internal and external harm); does the external provision of those services detract from a state’s authority and autonomy?

I ask this not to de-legitimize the aid workers but to question whether our discourse on private military organizations (from a couple weeks back), and our discussion of global companies is missing the point. And that point is: there are a wide range of emerging international entities which provide services once thought to be core state functions; however, much as radio undermined a naval captain’s autonomy, but gave him far more capability, do these international entities serve as ‘force multipliers’. Put another way, do these international entities, whether it be ExxonMobil or the Red Cross, provide states with enough in the way of additional capability and resources to offset what we traditionally think of as losses in authority and autonomy?   

               

  As I think about this question I wonder if it is a question of scale. If a country like Moldova is dealing with ExxonMobil, its interactions will be very different than if it deals with the Red Cross, both because of the economic and political weight behind the two different international entities, but also because of the disparity between Moldova’s power relative to those two entities. So then, maybe smaller countries can be overwhelmed by large economic actors, but are much less likely to be taken advantage of by either smaller economic entities or aid groups. I’m still not sure, and maybe we will talk more about this tomorrow. 

Week 10 - Developing countries and their infrastructures

The topic of global business and economic autonomy is very interesting, especially when it comes to other topics we have discussed such as sovereignty and public authority. The Inayatullah article discusses the role of colonialism and sovereignty in the world economy. The infrastructure that countries were colonized was not set up in their best interest, rather that of the one that was colonizing them. This relates to public authority as well, as discussed, in that the structure of many of these developing and underdeveloped countries falls back to the structure that was imposed on them.

One of the problems mentioned regarding TOCs was that they were able to take advantage of loopholes in the system and the justice system was not adequate enough to be able to reign over them and their activities. I see how the infrastructure that allows exploitation in regards to the justice system is also part of the economies in these countries. As discussed by Inayatullah, the economic system established in most of these countries was imposed and not created internally, as that was often best for taking advantage of resources that could make money for the colonizing countries. These economies often crash, as seen with Argentina, Chile, etc. as they were thrown into the emerging markets with help of the IMF. As well as countries such as India, mentioned by Inayatullah, where the structure was set up for the benefit of the Britain and not India.

I think it’s difficult to see where the economic structure, as well as other structures, are for the benefit of the country and for what benefit they are to others, as they continue to difficult and encounter problems, but it definitely something that leaders should think about and consider. And where are loopholes in the economic system, just like in the justice system, that allow global corporations to take advantage?

Global Regulator Wanted?

After listening to the soliloquy this week, and reading through the articles I have a greater appreciation for the role global businesses play in the world, and how are more than just the caricatures of profit monger or engine of growth and happiness. I know that we will get to this question in part later on, however I have to wonder now, if we are to truly hold the business world accountable in the global sphere, do we not need a public international regime to do so? We read about countries who were unable to adequately respond to economic actors in their countries because they lack institutions or are just overwhelmed; is that not a similar situation at the global level? Is the current global governance enough to regulate and provide oversight to an increasingly complex web of global business, or is a global government the only way to do so?

I tend to agree with Christine that states often tend to look the other way and neglect to enforce rules on international companies unless it directly harms them (the state); and honestly that isn’t something which should surprise anyone. Having the U.S. enforce its regulations on GE’s Bangladesh division doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, so I am left wondering if there is a viable solution short of a global entity with the enforcement authority to move against companies who violate a set of agreed upon international norms. And if this is the only solution, how would we even get that international governance regime? I recognize there is a problem, but is there a viable solution?  

Holding Global Corporations Accountable

I think that the question how to hold global corporations accountable is not a very easy question to answer, it really depends on the situation and on what kind of corporation. In the case of the clothing companies that have their clothing produced in the developing world and oftentimes under awful working conditions in the sweatshops, countries do not hold these companies accountable either because they cannot because they do not have the laws in place, or because they simply do not want to because these companies bring money into the country and create jobs (even though these jobs are under awful working conditions). In these cases, customers are the ones who could hold these companies accountable by not buying their products. However, sometimes we as customers really do not have a choice. Even though we do not agree with these companies and how they have their clothing produced, we are still buying their products because a significant number of major clothing companies have their clothes produced in sweatshops in Third World countries.

However, in the case of VW and its emissions scandal, countries are willing and are able to hold VW accountable. In many countries, VW did not abide by the environmental laws in place. Several countries have started investigations against VW and while the US is the only country so far that has filed a lawsuit, other countries probably will file lawsuits against the company, too. This is, of course, a sad example that some countries are more willing to hold a corporation accountable that breaks environmental laws than companies that have their products produced under very awful working conditions.

Therefore, as mentioned above, it really depends on the situation if and how global corporations can be held accountable for their actions. In some cases, unfortunately, states rather look the other way than hold companies accountable. In other cases, states are willing to file large lawsuits against companies that break their laws.

Post Election Night Reflection on Ambiguous Authority & Autonomy (Week 10)

Since I missed class on Monday night, I watched the recording later in the week. This wouldn't be significant on any other week but this past Tuesday, the entire world was shocked as Donald Trump was elected President of the most influential country in the world. While some celebrated and others cried, not even Trump himself could deny that he was shocked by the election's result.  

Our class was recorded on the eve of election night and was mentioned multiple times in our class discussion. It was chilling to go back in time - just a few days - to when our world seemed to have a much different future. We alluded to Clinton's win as a guarantee and the idea of an upset by Trump as a joke. Many of us based this joke on his complete inability to understand or react to the intricacies of international (or domestic) issues with a grain of logic, rationality, or ability to support our country. In addition, we discussed key differences between authority and autonomy, how conflict is generated through actors' articulation of situations and the multiple economic patterns or systems in our world. 

This week's lesson gave me the ability to conceptualize my greatest fear - not embarrassment as that had been easy to conceptualize, but fear - of Donald Trump as President: he is ambiguous. 

As a good student of SISG 760, I'll first define the term that I'm discussing. According to dictionary.com, ambiguous is being: 

1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.
2. exhibiting constructional homonym; having two or more structural descriptions.
3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify.
4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct

While ambiguity can often be a strength in someone's character, it makes me fearful when it is the most powerful man in the world's strongest strength.  Donald Trump can find himself the best economic, military and social advisors but his predilection and capacity to make rash actions and feckless statements will only enable the rise of more conflict. He is constantly interpreting issues from different vantage points without acknowledging his shift with any intelligence (i.e. Obamas American birthright), he has multiple structural elements to his plans that contrast each other directly (i.e. Opposition to immigrants/undocumented persons while utilizing them for cheap labor), he is absolutely incomprehensible, (i.e. Why is he even interested in politics all of a sudden?), and his plans for the administration lack depth, clearness and realistic measures, (i.e. Government attrition in a rapidly globalizing world, utter abolishment of the affordable care system, pulling funds to address climate change, keeping out Mexicans using the same technique as humans protected themselves for the White Walkers - dead people - in Game of Thrones). 

Professor Jackson focused his lecture this week on the importance of understanding that real issues are not economic, they are conceptual issues on authority, autonomy, and ultimately who has the right to do things. Donald Trump now has the right to do things, and that is going to cause many more conflicts than his inevitable clashing of ideas and interests with US citizens, world leaders and international actors. Trump is going to hop around the various modes of interaction we've been studying without any regard for the consequences that such rash and ambiguous behavior have upon his own authority and right to pursue his aspirations. 

If I was a citizen, world leader or international actor, why would I maintain an ounce of trust or respect for someone who believes he is accountable to nobody, not even his own thoughts?

Historical Context and the Inayatullah Reading

I'm sure no one in the class is surprised to hear that I loved the Inayatullah reading. It was a challenging, fresh perspective from the Global South, a voice that we haven't heard from very often in the previous course readings. The contrast to the points made in the other readings was stark, and made me think about how diversity of theoretical perspectives is important in forming your own opinions. Reading Inayatullah last, I wished I had read it first and taken a more critical lens to the previous readings.

I was most compelled by the unique argument that we must view economics and politics through an historical* lens. Rather than taking the posture that the other readings took, of economic policy making happening in an a-historical vaccuum, Inayatullah challenges us to see the power differentials inherent in the system itself. The international community often disparages developing countries for their inability to exercise sovereignty "properly" while neglecting the fact that their sovereignty is limited and weak due to history and a system which privileges certain states. This is not to say, as Inayatullah begins with, that it is right for developing states to constrain human rights domestically and use sovereignty as a sheild against intervention. But, taking history and context into account is critical for a well rounded theoretial and political perspective. As a student of international relations, it was a good reminder to me about the critical approach we should take to international challenges and proposed policy solutions.



*I love saying "an" historical, very grad student

Transnational Crime Organization and the state's authority + Week 9

Transnational organized crime is an interesting topic and one that I have enjoyed discussing in class. I appreciate that Williams mentions that this “is a not a new phenomenon” as he discusses the mafia in Italy and the FARC in Colombia. He argues that transnational organized crime exist as these groups take advantage of “capacity gaps and functional holes” as we discussed briefly in class on Tuesday. I would agree that is it not a new phenomenon and that they affect first-world countries as well as developing countries.

Are these organizations a threat to the state? This is a difficult question to answer. Many would argue that they undermine the authority of the state just by their existence because they are outside of the control of the authority, and authority is aligned with sovereignty. These organizations are taking advantage of loopholes in a state’s justice and legal system and profiting from it. So yes, in this instance they can be considered a threat to the state. However, we also discussed how these organizations often provide resources for the communities where they are doing business in ways that the state cannot. For example, providing someone a job that is in dire need, no matter if it breaks the law or not because their family is at risk. It could also be said that this is a form of exploitation, in that people are so desperate they will do anything for money and the TOCs are aware of that.

I think it’s easy from a first-world perspective to criticize these organizations as completely evil and a disruption of the state’s authority. However, if I were the position of many citizens of these developing countries where these organizations offered employment and my family was dependent on this then I would be thankful for them. I do not agree with their methods of being outside the law and or any other methods that are exploitative but I do not think that many countries would provide necessary social services if these organizations disappeared. We also see these gaps being filled by NGOs and not the state, so it’s not only these organizations that question the state’s authority.

Also, I think it’s important to remember that these organizations run here in the United States as well (human trafficking, sex trafficking, etc.) and does that mean that the country’s sovereignty is at stake or it is excluded since it is a first-world country?

What happens when organized crime becomes a state? - Week 9 Post Class

This blog is a few days late. I had intentions to post earlier, but now I'm glad that I haven't. On my flight home to the US, I sat at the airport with a Lebanese friend. On Monday, Lebanon had elected a new president after several years without a president. (Lebanese friends assured me that this is not as bad as it sounds and reminded me that Americans should keep this option in mind if the election goes poorly on Tuesday). Finally, they elected a president, Michel Aoun, with a fascinating coalition coming together to get him elected. As we talked about the process, my Christian friend from South Lebanon explained simply to me that Aoun had captured the support of Hezbollah and this friend's Maronite Christian political party. Excuse me what? Hezbollah, what my country calls an international terrorist group, and my reasonable, humanitarian aid worker friend, were on the same side?

On this flight this got me thinking two things. One, the Middle East is so complicated and as an American it gets explained to me at home as if it's simple good guys, bad guys, and oil. Second, and more relevant to class, it got me thinking about the Williams article and about organized crime. Can organized crime become something akin to a state? How does this process work and what does it mean for the conclusions Williams comes to? Hezbollah and Hamas both began as organized crime groups, whether you call them terrorists or revolutionaries, they started out as organized crime for a political purpose. While Williams talks about the methods organized crime groups in Colombia and Italy leading to an erosion of public support, Hezbollah and Hamas have developed broad public support for their cause over time. These groups have used force, propaganda/messaging, and money to cultivate authority and a degree of legitimacy.

While seen by many outsiders as criminal terrorists, on the ground in the territories they control, they are legitimate and wield force and authority over inhabitants. Williams' points out that organized crime flourishes when the "primary points of loyalty are family, kinship, clan, or patron/client" (p. 179). This could certainly describe the fabric of society in Palestine and Lebanon. But these points of loyalty have gone far beyond just enabling illegal activities to occur. Hezbollah is now the lynch pin in getting a Lebanese candidate for President into office. Hamas now has control of territory and is attempting to function like a state and run schools, maintain roads, maintain a military, etc. What started as the thorn in the side of the state, organized criminal units, have now become, in the case of Hamas, the government of a territory, and in the case of Hezbollah, a legitimate political party. These groups continue some of their criminal activities and militancy, but have developed into something different. What does that mean for statehood, for states with similar organized crime groups? What does it mean that these blossomed under a relatively strong state, Israel? Things I'd like to ask Williams' over coffee!

Continuation of business by other means (Week 9)

I'd like to explore the manner of defining transnational organized crime as "simply the continuation of business by other means" (Williams 164). Defining the nature of TOCs goes back to a struggle we've had throughout this class - is this the best definition, is it accurate and does it reflect the multifaceted motives of TOCs and the environments in which they thrive?

The text breaks down other definitions of TOCs given by criminologists into three categories:

• simple lists of characteristics
• sophisticated lists of characteristics
• the embodiment of the essence of organized crime 

The definition referenced in the paragraph above falls into the third category. I think it is also noteworthy that TOCs contain the word 'organized' in their name which further contextualizes the strategies, processes and structures that provide the foundation for their activities. 

I was a little disturbed by both this past class discussion on TOCs and the previous class discussion on private security forces. We were all so quick to dismiss and disapprove of them as existing without morals, not loyal, and only operating where the most money is involved. While we can easily blame them for many faults and apply numerous generalizations, I'd like us to remember why both groups exist in the first place - i.e. because another actor failed to provide the need that they fill. These actors might be a government, military or financial institution but for whatever reason, they have failed to support a stable environment for their people. Williams presents an excellent example of such a need when describing corruption as a risk management tool for TOCs. Such a strategy is designed to protect their organization by minimizing the potential risk posed by the governments, militaries or financial institutions mentioned earlier. 

In summary, I urge us to remember to address the core inspiration for the creation of TOCs and private security forces. They are doing business by other means and are usually caught in between the inescapable pressures and incentives of their time.  

Transnational Organized Crime and Nonproliferation Post Class Post

This week’s class discussion was really fun. I especially liked the discussion about the transnational crime organizations (TOCs) and if they are a real threat to states. I think that in most cases TOCs pose a real threat to states. Even the trade in Marijuana can be a threat to a state because criminal organizations use extreme violence to generate their wealth, which often negatively affects law enforcement officers working against these organizations. Also, TOCs are seldom involved in just one crime, but rather have their hands in many different crimes.

The discussion about proliferation was also very interesting and hit home for me. As Professor Shirk mentioned, I live really close to North Korea. Since we moved here, there were several instances where my husband was called into work, had to work really late, and one time was forced to cancel our short trip because he had to stay close to work, because of North Korea doing something bad. This week we are having the Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEO) Exercise here on post. This is a mandatory exercise for us family members of military personnel. We have to go through several different steps including how to correctly put on our gas masks (this is one of the first things military personnel have to do upon arriving here: getting the gas masks for their family members). Several times during the NEO exercise the soldiers in charge were talking to us about the importance of this exercise because we are living so close to the North and you just never know what the guy up North is going to do. While the NEO exercise is really important for us to know what to do in case of an attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, it also made me remember how close we are to the North and how serious this issue is. Not that I did not feel uneasy before, but before we moved here I was not really thinking about how serious this issue really is. However, during the exercise I was constantly thinking, what if Kim really decides one day to attack?

As I mentioned during class, I do not agree with proliferation at all and I definitely do not agree with the statement that all countries could benefit from getting nuclear weapons (Hugh Gusterson 1999, 133). Living so close to a country that does not play by the rules and prides itself with its latest nuclear missile tests, I have to say that there is absolutely no benefit at all in North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons. Neither the international community on the one side nor North Korea on the other benefit from that because North Korea isolates itself more and more from the world (after the last missile test even North Korea’s closest ally China started to distance itself from North Korea). The more North Korea isolates itself, the less are the chances for the international community to be able to negotiate with North Korea.

Gusterson, Hugh. 1999. “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination.” Cultural Anthropology 14:1: 111-143. Accessed November 3, 2016. https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson+International+Relations/Readings/Gusterson+-+Nuclear+Weapons+and+the+Other+in+the+Western+Imgaination.pdf