Summer 2008 Issue 3 Vol. 1

Globalization in the Fast Lane

Table of Contents

Domestic Affairs International Affairs

Political Philosophy Special Features

The Brain Race 4

Globalization of Technology and Our Military 6

Civil Liberties and Security 8

Globalization and the Destruction of American Manufacturing 10

Globalization and its Effects on NationalSecurity 12

Resolving the Difficulties of Financial Globalization through Mutual Recognition 14

Terrorism and the Internet 18

Spot the Irishman 20

The Newest “Enemy of the State”:The Internet Blogger 22

Globalization as Seen Through OneGirl’s Teeth 24

Globalization and the M-16 25

Economic Implications of Globalization 29

Keeping Up Appearances on the GlobalizationFront 31

Human Rights and its Role within the Realmof Globalization 33

The Normative Consequences of Globalization 35

Catastrophe, a Charitable Cause 36

The Message to Win 3

Colonial Quotables 17

College Republican College DemocratDebate 27

A Review of the American President 28

Globalization is changing the world from America’s national security to how corporations conduct business. Is it a change for the better, you decide.

Editor’s Note

In lieu of not making this sound like a farewell address, I must say that over the past year, I’ve seen a small magazine grow exponentially. I’ve so very much enjoyed my experience as editor-in-chief of GW Discourse. I say without regret, this has been an incredible growing experience, and I have abundant faith in the permanence and du-rability of GWD. I expect to see you all around campus next year. I also expect to see this magazine around when I come back for a 30th year reunion. Over the past couple of months, the organization has taken a legitimate structural shape. Key to this operation was consolidation and extensive cooperation. Our Presi-

dent, Andrew, managed to finally grab hold of this organization in a way that I am excited to see where this magazine goes. Our shift in mentalities, focusing more on the online content as opposed to the print edition will help not only prolong the organization, but enable us to reach more people. Web media is ever-expand-ing and well-connected to not only the campus, but to the world. With that, I have to give a hearty thanks to all those who have come and gone and blogged on gwdiscourse.com. You’re posts are intuitive, creative, and really fun to read. I also give many thanks for those who are graduating: Elliot Gillerman, David Springer, Bobby O’Brien. You guys have been an incredible asset and I wish you the best. To those who’ve replaced these fine writers and managers, I have no doubt you’ll fill their places extremely well. Andrew and his business team have recently begun an incredible fundraising/finance procedure. In ad-dition, they plan to re-do the entire website onto a more functional, aesthetic domain, subsequently fol-lowing that with a complete outreach to the GW Community, Foggy Bottom Community, and DC, alerting professors, students, business people, etc. of who we are, why we’re here, and why they should care. As well, our new Editor-in-Chief Tim Little will help directly online and print content. Tim, previously serving as Managing Editor, commands a wealth of respect from our team, and has coordinated many activities that have brought life to Discourse. He will do a fantastic job, and I wish him the best of luck. With that, I thank you for everything. I’ll still be around campus, head buried in a case law textbook, but certainly willing to chat. Don’t ever hesitate to engage the editorial board and other writers of Discourse to join up or merely strike up some of your own personal discourse. You – the writers and the readers – will create our legacy on this campus. Continue to write, think, expand, complain, generate the discourse that embodies not only the organization, but also everything we do at this university and in our lives. One thing I leave you with is advice that we must continue to do what we do but also be willing to listen and change. Too often or not, people strike up discourse in a fashion so fiery and stubborn, such conversation would render the common man speechless. We live in a world of civil wars, economic turmoil, democratic tan-trums, and genocides. But we also live in a world of freedom, democracy, rising incomes, and more humani-tarian efforts to those living in squalor. In debating these perspectives and vicissitudes, we naturally turn to black and white, right and wrong, without a discussion of the grey. As a man of principles, I’m certainly not advocating not holding them, but rather to discuss before deciding. As one writer once wrote, “the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” Thanks for everything and I hope to see you all soon! Best, Greg R. Editor-in-chief, GW Discourse

Dear Readers

Editor’s Note

Dear Readers, As you probably now know, GW Discourse is well on its way to becoming an institu-

tion within the George Washington University community. Over the last few months, all members of the staff have been busy at work toiling on the editorial fields, helping to make an even better issue than the first.

Our first issue was truly a great success. Our name and attitudes spread throughout cam-pus and beyond, from Marvin Center Student Organizations to Capitol Hill and around the world. In the first few months alone, we registered thousands of hits on our fully functional website as well as witnessed a massive distribution of the print edition on and around campus.

The second issue clearly demonstrates the strengthened abilities of our staff writers and the incredible caliber of our Business, Editorial, and Production Teams. The second issue, replete with juicy political discourse, once again makes headway with three main sections: Political Philosophy, Domestic Affairs, and International Affairs. Within each section lie a number of articles ranging from themes such as China’s growing economy to Former Vice President Al Gore’s influence on modern day environmentalism. Moreover, GW Discourse does not stop in editorial content, but has expanded its production staff as well as its business team. Essentially, the development of a new framework within the organization has allowed for substantial growth, allowing me to encourage you take more than just a look.

As a side note, I must say that being in Washington, DC while putting together this magazine provides each and every one of us with the ammunition to piece together an noteworthy magazine. This city offers us savory ideas all the way from national security to down and dirty politics, as well as provides a distinct cosmopoli-tan atmosphere like no other, all set against the backdrop of an astoundingly rich, historic skyline. I sincerely hope, to all my readers, that if in DC, you take advantage of the delectable resources available, and if you are not, to come and visit. If anything, I hope GW Discourse and its staff members demonstrate to the community, the city, and the world our commitment to truth and vitality in writing all stemming from our schooling, our backgrounds, and for me, our Washingtonian environment. Thanks and enjoy the articles!

Sincerely,

Greg Rosen

Editor-in-Chief, GW Discourse

DISCOURSEThe Pol i t ica l S c ience Q uar ter ly

GW

Editor in ChiefGreg Rosen

Managing EditorTim Little

Domestic Affairs

David Boyajian

Political PhilosophyLainie Frost

International Affiars

David Springer

Directors, Production,Art, and

DesignKyle Cannon,Ash McDaniel

Staff Photographer:Justin Evans

Staff Writers:George Blair, Louis Boltik, Niketa Brar, Ben Cole, Hope Ditto, Tim Edge, Adam Farrar, Ashley Fleishman, Elliot Gillerman, William King,

Jesse Mayer, Nick Miller, Bobby O’Brien, Sean Redding, David Springer, Sophie Stern, Clayton M. McCleskey, Julie Silverbrook, Shannon Holmes, Hunter Patterson, Alex Holt, Aakif Merchant, Justin Zorn, Anthony Cartelli,

Sergei Shev.

Online Contributors:Michael Pankiewicz, Anthony Cartelli, Daniel Kampf, Alex Rosner, Julie Silverbrook, Anthony Cartelli, Robert

Platt, Clayton McCleskey, George Blair, Greg Rosen, Christopher Wimbush, Alex Holt, Max Abbott, Celeste Carano, Aakif Merchant, Adam Farrar, Michael Herman, Osman Aziz, Elliot Gillerman, Zach Bogner, Max Abbott, Daniel Rozenson, Leah Gould, Daniel Doty,

Akhilesh Pillalamarri.

GW DISCOURSE Fall 2007 | 1

GW Discourse 1

President: Andrew Scott

VP, Communications: Jenny Roh

VP, Outreach and Operations: Lainie Frost

VP, Advertising: Bona Park

President’s Letter

As the new president of GW Discourse, I want to sincerely thank you for your interest in our publication. Our goal is to satisfy the need for dialogue in a political arena. The third issue of Discourse has been a very special experience for everyone on staff. You will notice some changes in the layout of our publication as we have moved towards online content. Our future will be based in more dynamic, current material as you will see more frequent and contemporary articles. Combining print and online production has allowed us to feasibly become a more complete source of “discourse” within this political arena. Other changes have occurred as well. The business team has recently expand-ed to include Vice President of Advertising Bona Park who comes to us with a background in advertising and is eager to help ensure the long-term success of Discourse. Also Lainie Frost, Vice President of Outreach and Development,

joins the business team after serving as editor of the Political Philosophy and Theory section for our pre-vious publications. Finally, our own Ashley Fleishman has come on board as Production Manager, present-ing you with the wonderful layout of our new issue. Our staff continues to build on an impressive precedent set in previous issues, and it is this progress which keeps our publication ahead of the curve. Once again, thank you for your interest and please enjoy!Sincerely,

Andrew Scott President, GW Discourse

Dear Readers

GW Discourse 2

Editor in Chief Greg Rosen

Managing Editor Tim Little

Domestic Affairs Julie Silverbrook

Political Philosophy

Lainie Frost

International Affiars David Springer

Director, Production,Art,

and Design Ashley Fleishman

Cover Design:Adam Farrar

Staff Photographer: Justin Evans

Staff Writers: George Blair, Louis Boltik,

Niketa Brar, Ben Cole, Hope Ditto, Tim Edge, Adam Farrar, Elliot

Gillerman, William King, Jesse Mayer, Nick Miller,

Bobby O’Brien, Sean Redding, David Springer, Sophie Stern,

Clayton M. McCleskey, Julie Silverbrook, Shannon Holmes, Hunter Patterson, Alex Holt, Aakif Merchant,

Justin Zorn, Anthony Cartelli,

Sergei Shev.

Online Contributors: Michael Pankiewicz, Anthony Cartelli, Daniel Kampf, Alex

Rosner, Julie Silverbrook, Anthony Cartelli, Robert Platt, Clayton McCleskey, George Blair, Greg Rosen,

Christopher Wimbush, Alex Holt, Max Abbott, Celeste Carano, Aakif Merchant,

Adam Farrar, Michael Herman, Osman Aziz, Elliot

Gillerman, Zach Bogner, Max Abbott, Daniel Rozenson, Leah Gould, Daniel Doty,

Akhilesh Pillalamarri.

DiscourseGW

K-Street Detour

The Message to WinDavid Bergstein

Staff Writer

David Bergstein: Why is T.V. the most effective method to influence voters? Martin Hamburger: Well, televi-sion isn’t always the most effective medium. In a small, geographically compact area, T.V. is probably not go-ing to be the most cost effective. For example, if I wanted to influence the election of GWU’s next student body president, I could run an ad that ev-ery potential voter would see, but it would seem like overkill and you would hit a lot of people outside of the potential voters, and it would be expensive. Having said that, as a soci-ety we are still television based. Matt Erickson: The average American household is watching something like 7 and 1/2 hours of television a day, As far as new media as an alternative to television, we are definitely taking the internet seriously, but the inter-net advertising market still hasn’t really matured yet. We have tools to try and make sure an online message reaches the targeted demographic, but people are still spending more time in front of their television. MH: There are situations where ra-dio or direct mail can be more target-ed and appropriate, but we are such a visually based society, a television spot is still the most compelling. D.B: We are coming up to a presi-dential election year, what’s the mood of the electorate? What is the message they want to hear? M.E: I think the electorate is still an-gry and disappointed. M.H.: I agree, more specifically I think

there is a strong “anti-Washington” feeling amongst voters. They are tired of all the scandals, the Iraq quagmire, the ineffectiveness. The challenge for the democrats will be to understand that the Anti-Bush sentiments do not directly translate into a democratic victory in 2008. The democrats have to be the agents of change in this election. M.E.: In 2006, we saw individual leg-islators being targeted and removed, but I don’t think the electorate will turn against the democratic congress in 2008. Congress as an institution always tends poll lower than the executive branch, and I think that, while the public wishes that congress could be more effective, they under-stand the democrats are constrained by the President’s inflexibility. D.B.: Right now it seems like Hil-lary Clinton has the democratic nomination locked up. If she is the democratic candidate, what is her challenge? M.H.: I think Hillary’s challenge will be overcoming the baggage she has left over from when she was the First Lady. Americans have strong feelings about her, some of that isn’t her fault, but she will have to deal with it all the same. M.E.: It’s been interesting, we haven’t seen a lot of internal debate going on inside the democratic party as to what the party stands for. People aren’t self-questioning their identity as democrats, they just want Bush gone. This works to Hillary’s advan-tage as a front-runner and has to be

frustrating to Obama and Edwards.D.B.: It doesn’t seem like the Re-publican party has a fair shot at the Presidency in ’08, but what ad-vice would you give the GOP? M.E: Wait for 2012! No, seriously, a year is a long time and republicans generally run better presidential campaigns than democrats. I think the party needs to resolve its inter-nal debate between the primary vot-ers who are looking for Bush’s third term and the general voters who want to go more moderate. M.H.: The republican’s definitely need to resolve their internal dis-putes. They need a consistent ideolo-gy that a large part of their party can stand behind and they need a candi-date who can stick with a consistent message. D.B.: Ending on a lighter note, how did you both become interested in politics?M.H.: I went to Haverford for college, which is a Quaker school. I was really influenced by the spirit of social ac-tivism that I picked up in that envi-ronment, and it just stayed with me as I continued on. M.E.: I got interested in politics, and especially the campaign side of poli-tics, because I think getting the right people elected is essential to getting the right agenda moving to improve our country.

Editor’s note: David Bergstein is cur-rently employed by Laguens Ham-burger Kully Klose.

When a candidate needs the right message to win, they may choose to come to Laguens Hamburger Kully Klose. One of D.C.’s preeminent political advertising firms for progressive and democratic causes, LHKK Media has helped win cam-

paigns for Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, Jon Tester and Nikki Tsongas, amongst many others. In late October I sat down with Martin Hamburger and Senior Creative Vice President Matt Erickson to discuss advertising, politics, and the 2008 election.

GW Discourse 3

Domestic Affairs

The Brain Race

It has been happening for quite a while. Its fre-quency went under the radar of the American mindset and while globalization began to trans-form the United States socially, economically and politically, the average citizen would not know the flattening of our world, to reference Thomas Friedman, was occurring until it hit them in the face. In the past, outsourcing has been synonymous with Chinese factory workers who will work for little money and have big results. It is only recently that the American white collar middle class has begun to experience the effects of globalization and outsourcing, and frankly, they’re look-ing for someone to blame. Nearly 61% of Americans fear they will lose their job to some form of outsourcing, and though theorists, like Friedman, keep telling Americans that the flattening of the world is a good thing for the United States, that’s a hard concept for starving Joe on the street to swallow. The stigma that accom-panies outsourcing has permeated the field of edu-cation and has begun to affect the American youth. Students who might initially be inclined to major in engineering or computer programming are afraid that there might not be a job for them once they graduate.

An Education Deficit When Sputnik was launched in 1957 by the Soviet Union, there was an immediate fear: “how did they do this before us?” This prompted the United States to not only spend more on their space program, but also to incorporate mathematics and science into the U.S. education system. But fifty years later, the United States has digressed. Reg Weaver, President of the National Education Association, accounts this digression to a lack of qualified and dedicated educa-

Sarah KhederianDomestic Affairs

Staff Writer

computerweekly.com

tors. He argues that math and science teachers need to be paid more, offered incentives to teach, and given opportunities to learn more in their field. Furthermore, Weaver ar-gues that one of the fundamental elements of the American Education System is flawed: testing. With President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” act, a new era of educational reform was ushered in. An em-phasis has been placed on test scores and memori-zation as opposed to questioning and critical think-ing – this obsession with testing has put the US, a country leading the pack in innovation, behind the new, shifting curve. Others claim that because globalization and out-sourcing have become such an integral part of the economy, computer science and mathematics have become a less desired career. Jim Noble, President of the Society for Information Management, refutes

GW Discourse 4

the fear that all American IT jobs being outsourced: “Parents and young people have the impression that all IT jobs are going offshore, but only 2% of the to-tal U.S. IT workforce is being offshored,” a reported 104,000 jobs according to the Information Technol-ogy Association of America (ITAA).

Education and a Competitive America With an estimated 30% increase in IT jobs be-ing offered by 2012, the United States may in fact be shorthanded. And though 52% of Americans be-lieve that the United States is lacking in its role as a scientific leader in the world, there are not enough students entering into the IT career path. Though the United States still remains a leader in numbers of skilled workers, India is close be-hind. Many students do not see enough incentives to work in a field where their job is subject to even the slightest offshoring. Some professionals encourage students to take up Infor-mation Technology as a pro-fession, urging that govern-ment agencies are one of the best places to look for engineering jobs because non-U.S. citizens cannot be hired. Some firms, Exxon-Mobile, for example, are of-fering high school students compensation for taking and passing AP ex-ams, while teachers are being paid more to teach these courses. And though the main problem seems to be that students are simply showing little interest in the field of computer science, another problem has surfaced; many students who might take up jobs with Google or Apple have actually chosen a differ-ent path.

Outsource Yourself This recently emerging concept is wholly unex-pected: “Outsourcing yourself may be a good career move” says the Council of Graduate Schools. Indian companies are now hiring American graduates to work in their back offices in the United States. Es-

sentially, to quote Anand Giridharadas, “India is outsourcing outsourcing.” Steve Hamm describes this phenomenon best in his Business Week article “Guess Who’s Hiring in America?” (June 25, 2007): “Think of it as offshoring in reverse. In the past, In-dian companies almost always transferred Indians to work in the U.S. on temporary visas. But now In-fosys and other Indian outfits are hiring aggressively in the U.S.” Indian companies are already working assertively to recruit graduate students for post-degree jobs. This may seem a bit convoluted but it does make sense. With all the money that Indian companies

are forced to spend on their em-ployees, between social security, housing, retirement benefits etc., along with the Indian rupee rising strongly but irregularly against the dollar, it costs just as much if not more to employ an Indian than it does an American.

An Underdeveloped America? Here’s the scary part; Azim Premji, Chairman of Wipro, an Indian technology company, has said that he “is considering hubs in Idaho and Virginia, in addition to Georgia, to take advantage of American states which are less developed”; this seems ironic see-ing as India’s per capita income is $1,000 per year. What kinds of problems does the United States

have when Indian businesses see potential in our own “underdeveloped” areas? This could be a sign that the United States needs to start educating and employing more of their own citizens, but with the U.S. economy so finely integrated with that of India, a “brain race” is futile. Americans’ fear of India producing hundreds of thousands of young, educated IT professionals eager to obtain such jobs has not helped our own IT needs. Realistically, the United States is today in a position in which more high skilled workers is necessary and advantageous. The real job for the United States is to encourage its citizens to view India as a partner and a competitor in the job market rather than an enemy and dispel the current fears of displacement and destruction.

michaelaltendorf.files.wordpress.com

Domestic Affairs

GW Discourse 5

Globalization of Technology and Our Military

Domestic Affairs

On average, there are between 10 and 12 American com-bat casualties in Iraq each day, about two-thirds of which are caused by IEDs (Im-provised Explosive Devices). It follows that without IEDs, it’s possible that casualties would be cut by two-thirds. Their popularity is tied to the fact that a couple of ragged insurgents, when in a firefight against well trained and well armed American soldiers, don’t stand a chance. So they’ve turned to technology instead – simple, easily replicable, do-it-yourself bombs. How-to guides, conveniently written in Arabic, accessible via the Internet, and widely attainable materials make it possible for any aspiring jihadist. These technologies, and others, diffused by ever spreading globalization, are the new threats that the military faces, and as evi-denced by the effectiveness of IEDs, a growing vulner-ability. The problem harkens back to the post-Cold War era, when cuts in defense spending led the defense industry to turn to private markets, including international ones. With the onset of globalization, rogue states and non-state actors – of particular note, terrorist organizations – have gained even more access to these products than ever before. And increasingly, it’s not secretive mili-tary technology that represents this security threat, but conventional dual technologies like GPS, information systems and new data analysis tools, which allow ad-versaries to level the playing field – or rather, the bat-tlespace. Often, we ourselves facilitate the spread of

Celeste CaranoDomestic Affairs

Staff Writer

these technologies; indeed, coalitions necessitate them in order to cooperate. But as they become more widely available on the open market, we can’t expect to main-tain a technological advantage, which has always been a hallmark of American military power. This is not, of course, the first time globalization has impacted the American military. But what makes this particular cycle so potent is that it is coupled with what many experts call a “revolution in military affairs” (RMA). RMA occurring today makes it possible to maintain superiority without increasing numbers – to beat adversaries through strategy, maneuverability and intelligence. But, such a revolution also increases our dependence on new technologies, doubling the new se-curity threat. It’s a threat that our adversaries have turned natu-rally to exploit. For them, technology represents an un-precedented opportunity to equalize power, specifical-ly, through asymmetric tactics. These generally involve “anti-access” or “area denial” strategies – the use of mines or missiles, for example, to prevent troops from being able to enter a region, or the use of electronic

blazingwings.org

GW Discourse 6

warfare or information technologies to cripple logisti-cal teams or the chain of command. A classic example is the Iraqi insurgency; the Palestinian defense is another. These groups simply can’t beat an opponent’s forces on the battlefield; so instead, they seek to prevent such a standoff from ever occurring in the first place. Today’s technology makes it possible. Fortunately, there are a number of ways to help mini-mize the effect that the RMA and globalization will have on America’s technological edge; most obviously, the development of an export control system that prevents the leakage of any dangerous technologies. The best way to combat new forms of warfare r e m a i n s preventing them from b e c o m -ing avail-able in the first place. This effort cer tainly d o e s n ’ t need to involve new agencies, as there are already plen-ty of those in place. In fact, it would be more prudent to streamline export controls into one agency. The De-partment of Defense is already taking steps towards this by implementing Lean Six Sigma, a waste-eliminating management program popular in the private sector. But while control of technologies is important, time shouldn’t be wasted attempting to regulate items already available on the open market. What’s out is out – focus should be on seeking to prevent this from happening to new technology. But nor should the US attempt to keep all of this technology to itself either. “Control” ought to imply regulation, not restriction. Also, understand-ing just how much technological transfer is expected to occur is just as important as regulating its transfer. We need to be conscious of how US actions will affect other nations’ or groups desires to acquire conventional weapons or technologies. Within the defense industry, the Defense Dept. needs to encourage innovative weapons development. Ensur-ing an American market for these new technologies will help prevent them from being pushed onto an open mar-ket for everyone else. These aren’t necessarily futuristic weapons either – one recent technological development

is better armored transportation, called MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles, which have a V-shaped hull to deflect IEDs. On the other end of the spectrum are technologies like missile defense systems. Complicating the development of those and compa-rable technologies are the necessary considerations of where to deploy them and how to prevent similar arms developments by dangerous states, leading the DoD to dabble in foreign policy. This past spring for example, Defense Secretary Gates met with President Putin to discuss stationing those exact missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.

New technologies also demand new strategies, so developing these technologies is merely the first step. Being able to exploit new technolo-gies immediately when they hit the market is critical. This is a time based competition, and the real test is how quickly the armed forces can inte-grate new technologies. It will require strengthening joint operations – not merely with other nations, but intra-service – and on the flexibility of the command structure. Officers and

NCOs will now more than ever need to plan to work on training, implementing and experimenting with new tools and strategies. Utilizing US intelligence superior-ity to its fullest can augment this and provide the best resources possible to those in command to enable quick decision making. At the same time, we need to prepare for the asymmetric attacks that could occur. This is one arena in which the military has already done exception-ally well. The recently re-released Counterinsurgency Field Manual is a testament to this, outlining how to combat such forms of asymmetric warfare in response to the tactics seen in the Afghanistan and Iraq. Globalization and the RMA represent a challenge, and even a threat, but moreover, they represent an op-portunity. At a time when there is plenty of discussion about how the American military is weakening or lim-ited, or faces serious problems due to two strenuous wars, this perspective offers a refreshingly optimistic viewpoint. We ought to take solace in the fact that the American military is strong, well trained, and compe-tent, and matched by equally proficient civilian coun-terparts. Half of the obstacle of confronting globaliza-tion is the leadership and individuals involved, and in this at least, we are already one step ahead.

Domestic Affairs

commons.wikimedia.org

GW Discourse 7

Domestic Affairs

Civil Liberties and Security: How the Global Threat of Terrorism has

called Civil Liberties into QuestionJulie SilverbrookDomestic Affairs

Section Editor

On September 11th, 2001, the world saw the negative aspects of globalization flash across their television screens from 8:46 AM until this very day. On that omi-nous day in United States histo-ry, the global threat of terrorism reached our shores and called into question the very freedom the 9/11 hijackers sought to attack. The images of the World Trade Center towers falling shook Amer-icans’ values to their very core. In a poll taken the day following the attacks, 2 out of 3 Americans said they were willing to surrender civil liberties in order to stop terrorism. The hor-rific attacks committed on September 11th created an unparalleled period for the examination of Amer-ican’s commitment to democratic norms. Context-specific events provide significant insight into a citizen’s level of commitment to democratic principles. As globalization brings new threats to America’s shores, commitment to traditional values of freedom are called into question. In the face of a global threat of terror, Americans have been forced to face that at the same time that their democratic and personal freedoms have been threatened, the U.S. government has attempted to provide for the safety and security of society by requiring that Americans accept certain restrictions on their freedom such as more surveillance of their communications, more searches of their belongings, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. The traditional American view is that the free-doms enumerated by the Bill of Rights are fundamen-tally about protection from the government, which is now in tension with the government’s attempt

to protect the nation from the terrorists. There is a need to strike an appropriate balance between free-dom and control. It is not order, in particular, that clashes with individual rights, but rather the gov-ernment’s method of maintaining security that may challenge individual civil rights or liberties. There are four core factors that are likely to drive people to cede civil liberties for security—threat, trust and confidence in government, social trust, and conser-vative or liberal ideology. “Threat”, or the perception of threat, is assigned the highest importance. A person’s emotional re-sponse to threat is to try to reduce the discomfort of it by increasing personal security. The Bush Admin-istration has been particularly good at harnessing this emotional response through Homeland Security programs, such as the color-coded threat level sys-tem. By alerting the general public, rather than law enforcement only, to an increase in sensitive intelli-gence, indicating a possible attack, the government is able to sustain a high level of fear and anxiety amongst the American people. Throughout United

elcivics.com

GW Discourse 8

States’ history, this type of methodology has been used—not necessarily out of malice, but because of elite fear and a commitment to a certain ideology.Because of the fear caused by these global threats, Americans allowed the federal government to exert more power over their personal and individual free-doms. During World War II, Americans permitted the federal government to intern Japanese Ameri-cans following the attacks of Pearl Harbor in order to prevent Japa-nese spies from infiltrating the United States. After WWII was over and the Cold War began, Americans had a new enemy to fear—Commu-nists. During the Cold War, Americans were willing to sus-tain an assault on their civil lib-erties, via Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee, in order to combat the threat of Com-munism and Soviet spies. The willingness to exchange civil liberties for se-curity translates into concession of power to gov-ernment, and thus trust and confidence in govern-ment is another core factor in the trade off between liberty and security. People, on average, are more willing to trust their governments in times of foreign crisis. However, when the perceived crisis seems to have subsided or is not as severe as the government would like its citizens to believe, there is usually a pushback from the polity. This has been seen in citi-zens combating Communist witch hunts during the Cold War, or even today, when organizations, like the ACLU, file lawsuits to combat warrant-less wiretap-ping or suspension of Habeas Corpus. The level of interpersonal or social trust, which exists within the various sub-groups of society, plays an integral role in the balance between free-dom and security. If people trust one another, they may feel that it is less necessary to grant the govern-ment additional powers to control misbehavior. The

Domestic Affairs

issue with the global terror threat is twofold. First, terrorists have been given a Muslim face, and as a result, Americans are more apt to give government the power to control this particular group—through wiretaps without warrants, racial profiling, and sus-pension of Habeas Corpus. Secondly, terrorists live side by side with ordinary Americans and as a re-sult, there can be no true trust. Thus, Americans are more willing to give the federal government carte

blanche control over all. Conservatives and Lib-erals view the tension between liberty and se-curity differently. Far more than liberals, con-servatives have been tra-ditionally associated with beliefs about duty, respect for authority, and the pre-dominance of law and or-der. Liberals, on the other hand, are often seen as more willing to risk a mea-sure of social instability for the sake of promoting in-

creases in civil liberties. The divide between the two ends of the ideological spectrum fall upon their views of rights. Liberals tend to think of rights as natural and inalienable—and should thus be safeguarded against government reproach; whereas, Conservative tend to view rights as more situational and contingent. This ideologi-cal divide helps to explain why commitment to civil liberties may appear to be waning in the face of the global threat or terrorism. When the Word Trade Center Towers fell, democ-racy was called into question. Not just because the terrorists aimed to attack democracy, but because the government created policies aimed at securing the safety of Americans over securing the freedom of Americans. Civil Liberties, in this country, have sustained assaults before in the name of national security from a global threat, and American’s com-mitment to liberty has fluctuated over time, as a re-sult. The tension between liberty and security will exist as long as there are those, at home and abroad, who seek to attack freedom; however, it is individual commitment to freedom that will keep it alive and well within a democratic society.

socialistviewpoint.org

GW Discourse 9

Domestic Affairs

Globalization and the Destruction of American Manufacturing

Seth WeinsteinDomestic Affairs

Staff Writer

There is no doubt that Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie built America’s manufacturing empire. The strength and potential of this machine governed world politics throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The Japanese feared it, the Germans loathed it. Hitler did not want to wake the “Sleeping Giant”, fearing the might of America’s machines. Once America awoke from its slum-ber, it churned out manufactured products in record numbers, to supply one of the largest military forces ever assembled. Even after the Second World War, the United States Steel Corporation employed 350,000 Americans. In 1950, a Ford Motor Company assembly-man’s salary afforded a family of four an American dream lifestyle; a nice suburban house, two Ford automobiles, and a television. These examples symbolized the strength of American manufactur-ing, and the foundation of the post war, prosperous economy. President Carter first enlightened the nation to the prospect of deindustrialization. The cost of manufacturing items in the United States increased significantly in comparison to the developing world. The stabilization of the newly independent states of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia in the 1970s enabled companies to safely estab-lish operations in these nations at a fraction of the previous cost. An extremely strong U.S. dollar in the late 1970s allowed the powerhouse Japanese and German economies to flood the American mar-ket with cheap products of high quality. The new Japanese and German factories built with American funds after the Second World War produced these

moneymapfx.com

goods cheaper and at higher quality than their American counterparts. By the end of the century, job outsourcing and layoffs became the norm in states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.Bill Gates recently remarked, “The whole pace of business is moving faster. Globalization is forc-ing companies to do things in new ways.” The new way of doing business in the United States involves cheaply producing products abroad and then ship-ping them back to the United States market. Every 2008 Republican Presidential candidate has al-luded to the fact that while the rest of the country is prospering, Michigan finds itself as the only state in a recession. The unemployment rate in Michigan is over seven percent, and its economy has been unable to restructure to the service oriented econo-mies of the other states. The problem with the new service oriented economy in the United States is that it cannot sustain itself. The most prosperous time in our

GW Discourse 10

nation’s history was when we could produce our own products and did not have to rely on unstable democracies and oligarchies across Africa and the Middle East to manufacture these items. While our service industries have remained in the United States, what is to stop airlines, banks, and consult-ing firms from moving the bulk of their operations overseas? Frankly, this has already occurred. The Call Centers across India from technology corpora-tions take jobs away from Americans because they are a fraction of the cost to operate abroad. If this does not stop we will experience more dependency on other nations. Many people on both sides of the political spec-trum blame NAFTA for further eroding our eco-nomic independence. NAFTA has done little to dam-age our economy; the damage already occurred in the three decades preceding the legislation. There is no simple solution for the globalization problem in the United States. Our workers deserve good wages, excellent benefits, and a high standard of living, luxuries not enjoyed by those in other coun-tries. It will always cost more to produce goods in the United States compared to the developing world. While we cannot force companies to main-tain operations in the United States, people have the right to determine what manufactured items they purchase. While government contracts should be awarded to the private company offering the best deal, providing taxpayer funded contracts to companies relocating from United States must cease. Despite receiving over $10 billion from the United States government to operate in Iraq, Halliburton announced a move of their cor-porate headquarters to Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Why should our hard earned tax dol-lars go to Dubai rather than back into the pockets of honest, hard-working Americans? Halliburton has refused to reconsider their decision, and thus can no longer be labeled an American compa-ny. While they have the right to conduct their business the way they see fit, we have the right to demand that our Congress-

man and Senators cancel their contract. There is no bigger slap in the face to the American public than using their money to relocate to a foreign country halfway across the world to avoid paying American corporate taxes. It is not the responsibility of the government to tell people what products to purchase. Some Americans may have no problem with buying goods manufactured abroad, and that is their right. For others, however, like many who have lost jobs to outsourcing, may want to consider only purchasing items produced here in the United States. Another option is our manufacturing base complementing Chinese and Indian industry. They need massive infrastructure improvements, but still do not have the production capacity to undertake this task. In addition, our major corporations such as Ford and General Motors can diversify their assembly lines like they did during the Second World War and pro-duce heavy machinery or construction equipment to sell to China and India. With these ideas in mind, we can create a highly skilled workforce and develop cutting edge technol-ogy to keep us at the forefront of the world econo-my. This is not a political issue, but a practical one. There is not one mainstream politician who dis-agrees with this assertion. Globalization has affect-ed the very core of our society, the bread and butter of the American Dream enjoyed by our parents and grandparents. We cannot end globalization, but we can adapt to its effect, and return our nation to the prosperity of the previous century.

Domestic Affairs

GTR-WORLD.net

GW Discourse 11

Domestic Affairs

Globalization and its Effects on National Security

Timothy LittleManaging Editor

Globalization is a pro-cess that has changed the way the world con-ducts business and the way nations conduct their foreign policy. Since World War II, there has been a dra-matic build up in mili-tary armaments that continued during the Cold War. President Eisenhower popular-ized the term “military industrial complex” in his 1961 farewell address noting an in-creasing relationship between the business of war and its conduct. Over the last 60 years, the United States has had to rethink its military strat-egy because of globalization. From a strategic stand-point, there have been three major challenges that security must address. First, the free market has made it possible for any nation to contract the use of a private security force (PSF); second, advances in information technology have made it possible for all types of information to be shared and coordinated around the globe; third, the expansion of American icons around the globe is spreading our principles while causing resentment among the peoples of some nations. Private Security Forces The International Peace Operations Authority (IPOA) is a trade association started in 2001 to raise high ethical standards for firms in the Peace and Sta-bility Industry. Currently, over 40 organizations have the IPOA’s seal of approval demonstrating a healthy market of choice within this industry. The availabil-

ity of private forces is grave national security issue for the United States. With a PSF, the U.S. has taken defense con-tracting to a new level. The privatization of military functions, from weapons to logistics, has become an element of the Department of Defense’s strategy to the extent that they now consider contractors an in-tegral part of its “total force.” There are over 100,000 military contracts operating in Iraq with anywhere between 20-50,000 private security contractors. Iraq is considered the first case where the U.S. has used PSFs for “protecting persons and property in potentially hostile or hostile situations where host country security forces are absent or deficient.” Be-yond providing security or troops on the ground, these contractors carry out such tasks as interrogat-ing prisoners, cooking meals, and fixing equipment. No other nation in the world uses PSFs or pri-vate contractors as much as the U.S. The outsourcing of the American soldier is problematic. PSFs oper-ate within a legal gray zone between the laws of the

news.bbc.co.uk

GW Discourse 12

country they are deployed to and that of the employ-ing country. Continual efforts by the U.S. military to outsource national security will erode the principles of a volunteer army and change the face of warfare. Lacking a clear legal scope, policy makers face signif-icant regulatory hurdles in limiting the use of these services. Since the Department of Defense consider PSFs an integral part of its total force, the definition of how the U.S. views a voluntary army and the tra-ditional roles of the U.S. armed forces are all in ques-tion. Information Technology The internet, satellite communication, and the ability to exchange ideas instantly is the greatest achievement of hu-mankind, but it has also been one of the most difficult to secure. Militant groups and other or-ganizations have found an easily accessible mode of communication to coordi-nate their efforts. An al-Qaeda operative in the Middle East now has the ability to coordinate at-tacks all over the globe. No method currently exists to monitor all communica-tion all the time. The World Wide Web can provide ano-nymity for individuals when conducting nefarious acts. For these reasons, the U.S. has im-plemented domestic spying programs that question the relation between security and civil liberties; a debate that will continue for decades. Media censorship is also of concern. National-ized media outlets and other private media interests can transmit propaganda and misinformation more than ever. The number of world citizens with access to computers and televisions is growing at an aston-ishing rate. The use of visual media comes at a time where it can easily sway public opinion. News out-lets, like Al-Jazeera, tend not to promote American interests and have put public affairs bureaus on the offensive and expanded national security interests to include a media war. Similar to U.S. efforts during the Cold War to bring a peaceful downfall to com-

Domestic Affairs

munism through programs funded by the United States Information Agency, a new effort is needed to promote internet, radio, and other forms of media that will broadcast America’s message and values to parts of the world where it is misunderstood. Censorship is an issue at the very core of infor-mation-technology and security. One of the few ways to secure information is censorship and misinforma-tion. Again, this raises concerns at home over balanc-ing censorship with civil liberties and the principle of a free press. The Bush administration has done considerably well at preventing flag draped coffins

from being shown in newspapers and television. Control of informa-

tion is vital to protecting American interests. There

is no easy answer to this dilemma. American Business IconsAmerican compa-nies have been ex-panding overseas and taking with them trademarks

that have become distinctly American. McDonald’s, Colonel Sanders, Disney, and Hollywood have been

on the front lines of exporting America.

McDonald’s has become emblematic of Ameri-can globalization. Internationally, the company has restaurants in over 120 countries. In 1986, The Econ-omist published the “Big Mac Index” to compare the purchasing power parity of currencies and has done this annually ever since. Another use of McDonald’s expansion was Thomas Friedman’s claim in 1999 that no two nations have ever gone to war against one another since they both had McDonald’s operat-ing inside their country. Also known as the “Golden Arches Theory,” it shows the affects of globalization that countries with strong economic ties do not typi-cally engage in conflict with one another. However, despite the success of American companies abroad they are often the target of anti-

blog.wired.com

GW Discourse 13

Domestic Affairs

American attacks. Muslims, upset with American in-tervention in the Middle East, have attacked several American corporations over the years. For example, protestors in Pakistan, unable to reach the US con-sulate, set fire to a locally owned KFC and citizens in Islamabad and Karachi vandalized several McDon-ald’s. Companies have become accustomed to this sort of violence since it has been sporadic and on a small scale. Growing criticism of American globalization not only impacts businesses, but by the government as well. An attack on American business icons is an attack on American values. There are numerous in-stances where not only has American businesses been attacked, but also American ingenuity. With the expansion of U.S. interests abroad, the government must seek to turn the tide of anti-Americanism. U.S.

perception abroad has a direct impact on national security. Conclusions National security is a vital function of the state threatened at all levels. The effects of globalization on business and technology ensure that security will never be full proof. Telecommunications are too vast an area to control, companies operate outside U.S. ju-risdiction, and the availability of PSFs ensures that ev-ery nation is able to obtain additional forces for a cost. Security is a goal not an absolute. As the nation moves forward into the 21st century globalization proves to be an ever-shifting scale between positive affects on business and the negative affects on security. The U.S. cannot operate inside a vacuum, globalization will con-tinue and the government must find a way to secure its interests without sacrificing its principles.

Resolving the Difficulties of Financial Globalization through Mutual

RecognitionSergei Shev

Domestic Affairs Senior Staff Writer

In an ever-globalizing world, capital markets are continuously evolving to offer ordinary Americans greater fi-nancial opportunities abroad. How-ever, the reality is that laws and regulations reform slowly, often taking years to change. Yet as more neophyte investors in the United States experiment with overseas securities, protecting Americans from financial fraud remains a fun-damental concern. Under the Securities and Exchange Acts of 1933 and 1934, the United States Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to maintain efficient financial markets and ensure investor protection. As such, today’s investor risk in the global market falls under the

GW Discourse 14

Domestic Affairs

SEC’s mandate, and in the past, the Commission has followed a strict policy to limit foreign fraud. How-ever, this has come at the cost of potential overregu-lation that has deterred foreign securities from join-ing American stock exchanges. A recent movement known as mutual recognition is being discussed by the SEC to synchronize market oversight between itself and securities commissions to remedy the problem of overregulation. Ethiopis Tafara, Director of the SEC’s Office of International

Affairs, and senior counsel Dr. Robert Peterson have put forth a new “framework” for regulating securities in their essay, A Blue Print for Cross-Border Access to U.S. Investors: A New International Framework. According to them, regulation under the current system focuses on protecting American investors from falling victim to fraud; it is important to note that this allows Americans to miss opportunities to invest in the global market. This problem uninten-tionally resulted in de facto constraints for foreign providers and investors. By forcing “foreign exchanges, broker-dealers, [and] issuers” to register with the SEC as if they were domestic, American investors are guaranteed the same degree of legitimacy from a foreign security. However, this is major impediment for foreign mar-

ket participants who were already cleared by their regulators at home; as a result many are dissuaded from listing themselves. Director Tafara and Dr. Pe-terson explained that stock exchanges were not al-lowed to place trading screens (Trading screens al-low investors to trade on an exchange without being physically present at the exchange) with brokerage firms or institutional clients. Therefore, securities listed on foreign stock exchanges could not be of-fered directly to investors in the United States, and

foreign broker dealers could not solicit U.S. investors. This disadvan-tages American in-vestors, costing them additional transac-tion costs, because of the security not being listed on U.S. stock ex-changes. In addition to this, foreign pro-viders are thus unable to inform American investors about new opportunities, which further limit their abil-ity to take advantage of new foreign securities. Though the SEC is jus-tified to place investor

protection as a prior-ity, it was clear that

the system had not evolved to meet the growth of opportunity brought by globalization. The solution proposed by Director Tafara and Dr. Peterson requires participating regulators to agree to a set of principles by which to govern their mar-kets. The assumption is that if everyone follows the same core principles, domestic and foreign markets will be equally protected while simultaneously elim-inating regulation overlap. The reward for delegat-ing this responsibility between each other would be exemption for foreign stock exchanges from regis-tration with the individual domestic securities regu-lators, which would have the effect of eliminating the necessity for domestic investors to buy foreign securities on foreign exchanges instead of their own. Additionally, foreign brokers would be able to solicit

ghanacybergroup.com

GW Discourse 15

Domestic Affairs

American investors and provide them with informa-tion about new opportunities that would have oth-erwise remained unknown. The overreaching result of this reform would eliminate bureaucratic red tape while ensuring investor protection. Yet this move for efficiency beckons the follow-

ing questions. Will national interest play a role in mutual recognition? Can the United States trust foreign regulators with the responsibility of keeping their markets secure? Would synchronizing regulation potentially cause a greater crash for the countries involved if a universal Enron or Worldcom incident occurred? All these concerns are a reminder that globalization is not only a force of good, but that it holds an inherent danger that can be exploited to the ruin of all. Some regulators operate in countries that are hesitant to embrace change. However, in order to receive registration exemption, regulators have to comply with a series of requirements. For example, they must be willing to disclose information about

citizens suspected of securities fraud to the request-ing authority. Though this is essential to combat in-ternational fraud, disclosure to foreign powers will undoubtedly pose a problem for countries with rigid governments such as Japan and China. Globalization raises numerous security concerns.

As Chairman Christopher Cox of the SEC said in January 2007:

“The threat comes not from fear of foreign competition, or foreign issuers, or, foreign investors. Both competition and the influx of for-eign capital and issuers, promises only good for our markets. Rather, the threat comes from the increas-ing opportunities for fraud, uneth-ical trading practices and market manipulation that globalization brings with it.”

The reliability of certain for-eign regulators to monitor and se-cure their own markets from fraud is brought into question. Failure to do so could have enormous ef-fects globally. Emerging markets or countries with inexperienced regulators could make mistakes. The possibility of a global financial meltdown is a serious concern; however, that is why the Interna-tional Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has im-

posed a system of membership requirements that are designed to mitigate this risk by preventing non-complaint or unreliable regulators from joining. Mutual recognition is a revolutionary idea that can streamline financial regulation and accommo-date the growth of globalization in the 21st century. Bureaucratic red tape serves no purpose but to hin-der economic progress, but when reforming laws it is essential to avoid throwing out some of the neces-sary protective measures for financial security. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to able to balance security and efficiency through the next decade will directly correlate to the success, if any, of ‘mutual recognition’ on global financial mar-kets.

oecd.org

GW Discourse 16

Colonial Quotables

“

”

“Information is moving – you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but

it’s also moving through the blogo-sphere and through the Internets.”

- President George W. Bush

“[I have] a wide stance when going to

the bathroom.”- Senator Larry E. Craig (R –

Idaho).

“There are different ways of doing it. It’s like swimming, freestyle, back-

stroke.”- Senator Kit Bond (R - Missouri), on why waterboard-ing, an interrogation technique that simulates drown-

ing, should not be considered torture“I took a city that was known for pornogra-phy and licked it to a

large extent.”- Rudolph W. Giuliani, former mayor of New York, October

24, 2007, touting his achieve-ments while campaigning in

New Hampshire.

“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have

that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know

who has told you that we have it.”- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the

Islamic Republic of Iran.

“Rudy Giuliani, there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence; a noun, a verb, and 9/11. I mean,

there’s nothing else”- Senator Joseph I. Biden (D - Delaware).

“If H.I.V./AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged

outcry in this country.”- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D - New York).

“When I decided to run for president, I did not do it for the attention. I did it to

fulfill a dream, of being the most popular man in the world.”- Stephen Colbert.

“For months now, Democrats have talked tough, vowing they would hold the Bush administration accountable

for their egregious mishandling of what many in the media are calling ‘the world.’ Well, numerous feckless Senate hearings, one useless all-night filibus-ter and three non-binding resolutions later, the Democrats finally decided it’s

go time.”- Jon Stewart.

GW Discourse 17

The contemporary age of globalization has brought with it levels of interconnectivity between peoples, countries, and organizations previously unprecedented in human history. A primary component of these connections is the Internet, the use of which has spread rapidly over the last two decades from government offices to personal computers. Although generally used for benevolent purposes, the Internet also serves as a facilitator of a myriad of illegal and violent activities such as terrorism. Like any organization today, most terrorist groups understand and rely on the Internet’s enormous potential to further their mission. The 2007 White House National Strategy for Homeland Security identified the benefits of the Internet as “an inexpensive, geographically unbound, and largely unconstrained virtual haven” for terrorist groups. These groups rely on the same forms of online communication as the general public—formal websites, chat rooms, and message boards—for fundraising, recruitment, and operational planning. Terrorism poses a major threat both online and in real life, but the Internet’s dynamic and often unregulated nature makes it a particularly safe-haven for terrorist activity.

We’re not on Wall Street Anymore Today the Internet provides people all over the world with the ability to manage and transfer financial capital with unparalleled ease and speed. The convenience that this technology brings has not been overlooked by terrorist groups, who have come to rely on the Internet as a means of raising and transferring funds for logistical and operational support. There are two major components to any successful online fundraising campaign, both of which are essential to ensure the continued flow

of money from around the globe to the coffers of terrorist groups. The first is the existence of legitimate organizations to provide a cover to the illicit activities of the groups themselves. Although most donors to these groups know precisely where their money is ultimately going, they donate to terrorist groups indirectly through front organizations such as religious charities, NGOs, and other seemingly benevolent institutions. This practice makes it quite difficult for intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to track the sources of funding, especially given the intricate network of bank accounts that are often hard to trace around the world. Anybody can acquire anonymous offshore bank accounts, and such accounts are even harder to track when a seemingly legitimate middleman exists between the account and its indirect beneficiary. Many of these groups’ websites provide donors with bank account information that allows them to donate directly to their fund’s account, while some even contain sites that allow the browser to contribute by credit card directly online. Given the global nature of online banking, these accounts can easily be linked to financial institutions located all over the world. The second important component is geographic diversity of donors. Groups such as al-Qaeda and Hamas are heavily reliant on raising funds from

Terrorism and the InternetElliot Gillerman

International Affairs Senior Staff Writer

starlightnetworks.co.uk

International Affairs

GW Discourse 18

foreign sources, and the Internet provides them with the ability to do so quickly and inconspicuously. Online banking allows users to transfer funds remotely to and from anywhere in the world, so that a donor in the United States can easily donate to a Pakistani-based terrorist group that operates a website based in the United Kingdom. Many groups’ websites are updated in several different languages, which allows for a wider appeal to an international audience. The nature of international online fundraising means that money can pour in from all over the world, t h e r e f o r e m a x i m i z i n g profits with hardly any overhead cost to the groups themselves.

Recruitment Transnational terrorist groups have long relied on recruiting members from across the globe, and today the Internet provides a relatively cheap, easy, and effective way in which to do so. Online recruitment consists of two phases, the first of which relies primarily on propaganda to attract browsers to the group’s cause. The elaborate graphics, videos, and photos are loaded with religious messages and anti-American propaganda. These websites also display videos and photographs of violent attacks against targets. Often the media displayed on these websites is not actually produced by the host, but rather by militants scattered around the world who have filmed, edited, and produced the material to be used specifically for recruitment and propaganda purposes. The second component of online recruitment is the actual contacting of potential recruits by group leaders. Many websites are able to monitor their readers, and therefore can gather information about who is viewing the site. If a particular user is believed to be a good target of recruitment, a leader might contact him directly. Alternatively, many of these

sites contain interactive features such as message boards and chat rooms, where real-time dialogue can take place between current and potential members of terrorist organizations. If a recruit appears interested in joining the group, a leader may instruct him through a series of secret chat rooms, send him a recruitment video and training manual,

and give him further instruction on how to create a safe channel of communication. The use of the Internet as a means of recruitment provides terrorist groups with a greater source of potential

members, as the ability to make their messages seen and

heard around the world.

A World Wide Weapon Once money is raised and members

are recruited, the final component is to organize operations. Not surprisingly, the Internet

has become an essential part of this process as well, as terrorist groups rely heavily on online communication and information sharing as a means of organizing their operations. As the level of user-friendliness of the Internet has increased in recent years, so too has the volume of information available. What this means for terrorist groups today is that information that was once only available through firsthand training can now be shared and accessed remotely from around the world. Many websites, operated both by terrorist groups and private individuals, provide instructions on topics such as bomb making, weapons training, and interrogation methods. The availability of this information electronically means that operational planning is now much less centralized, and therefore has the potential to become far more global in scope. Finally, the Internet itself serves as both a forum for and a target of terrorism. Although much of the operational planning of terrorist groups online is focused on military operations, cyber terrorism presents another very serious threat. Unlike the human targets of more traditional terrorist attacks, classified information and financial markets are the two most vulnerable targets of cyber terrorism. In

International Affairs

terrorism-info.org.il

GW Discourse 19

addition to providing users with an arena in which to use cyber terrorism, many terrorist-affiliated websites provide users with information and codes on how to hack into and infect government and corporate computer networks with worms and viruses. Cyber-security is an integral part of overall national security, and so an attack on a government or corporate computer system poses a tremendous security risk despite its non-violent nature.

The Future of Counter-Terrorism? For all the benefits that globalization and the Internet have brought, they have also created areas in which violent movements can flourish. Despite the

dangers posed by terrorist websites, though, there is often more to be gained from monitoring them than from shutting them down. Tracking and analyzing online terrorist activity is an essential step towards countering its effectiveness, as it provides a unique glimpse into the otherwise dark and shadowy world of terrorist networks. Given the vast amount of open-source information that these sites provide, monitoring them should be considered a cornerstone of modern counter-terrorism policy. To successfully pursue this strategy will require unlimited creativity and precise analysis, and despite the difficulty, failing at this task will result in much more damage than a simple virus or an inbox full of spam.

International Affairs

Spot the Irishman:Ireland Faces the Alarming Realities of

Globalization Sophie Stern

International Affairs Senior Staff Writer

As I cross a busy intersection in Dublin’s city-centre, Mercedes, BMWs, and Maybachs rev their engines in anticipation of the stop-light turning green – it is as if they wish to run me over. The intolerance that the drivers exhibit towards pedestrians is not what shocks me; it is the types of cars that are being driven that catches me off guard. Through casual conversa-tions with Dubliners, it was soon brought to my attention that the ‘Mercs’ and ‘Beemers’ that fill the streets are the result of Ireland’s recent econom-ic boom. Lasting from 1993 to 2001, this economic boom became known as the Celtic Tiger. It caused a substantial increase in capital, which in turn changed Irish society, as many Irish would argue, for the worse. Having lived in Dublin for the past two months, it has become glaringly apparent that Dublin is just like any other city; it is filled with a plethora of people from different countries all trying to survive the compe-tition that global cities demand. Globalization and its’ byproduct, the Celtic Tiger, have motivated thou-sands to immigrate to Ireland. Globalization is by no

means a recent phenomenon, and for the Irish, it

seems to be but an ancient concept. A ‘Globalized Identity’ Similar to most colonized countries, Ireland’s his-tory is bleak; it is filled with stories of displacement, oppression, and forced emigration. The first massive wave of emigration took place in the late 1840s in which one million Irish moved to America in search of refuge from the Irish Potato Famine while another million died from starvation and disease. Since then, thousands of others have left Ireland in search of jobs, expanding the Irish Diaspora. It is this Diaspora that

GW Discourse 20

is especially pertinent to the topic of globalization because globalization, in many ways, redefines and ignores geographical boundaries created by nation-states. G. Honor Fagan, author of Globalised Ireland, or, Contemporary Transformations of National Iden-tity?, examines the effects that globalization has had on Ireland by changing the perspective—instead of analyzing how globalization has affected Irish soci-ety and culture, she looks at how Ireland supports the theory of globalization. This atypical approach is seen in her hypothesis: “Ireland was always, or at least already, part of the story of globalization...Being ‘Irish’ was always associated with movement, even while being at ‘home’. Irish migration and the substantial Irish Diaspora across different parts of the globe meant that ‘Irishness’ was, in a very real sense, a globalized identity”. Globalization has encouraged multi-national cor-porations (MNC) to directly invest in the Repub-lic, which lowers unemployment rates. However, globalization has not offered a solution for many of Ireland’s societal problems. Fagan asserts: “Ireland can still arguably be seen as a ‘third world’ country in terms of its conditions of structural dependency on the central locus of power in the era of global-ization. In the world of globalization, there are now ‘globalizers’ and ‘globalized’, and Ireland fits the latter category in political economy terms”. The ‘Celtic Tiger’ Roars Globalization did not develop the conditions for the Celtic Tiger to occur, but instead, created the opportu-nity. It was the direct investment of IT companies in Ireland that caused the Celtic Tiger to come into exis-tence. Kieren Allen, author of Globalisation, the State and Ireland’s Miracle Economy, stated: “...It is more likely that policies which had failed in the past worked because of wider changes in the global economy. Specifically, the emergence of an EU single market forced US corporations to find new manufacturing bases inside its boundaries”. Initially, Ireland offered a huge incentive for foreign companies to directly invest in the Republic with a 12.5 percent tax rate on corpo-rate profits. This rate is incredibly low compared to a near 50 percent in other European countries. Ireland is often compared to Bermuda because of the leniency in the laws regarding transfer pricing. Foreign companies are allowed to set up within the Republic to receive the tax benefits while creating profit elsewhere. This

International Affairs

went under the radar of other European countries because of the underdeveloped state of the Republic and the small size of the island. However, once other members of the European Union saw what was hap-pening, it was too late to legislate change. Repercussions of a ‘Celtic Tiger’ Denis O’Hearn, professor of sociology at Queens University Belfast, accurately assesses the repercus-sions of direct foreign investment. He states: “The Celtic Tiger was thus a case of dependent development where the primary beneficiaries were foreign capital-ists... the main recipients of the fruits of growth were the foreign capitalist class rather that the domestic one...this form of dependent development contributed to class inequality...because it produced returns pri-marily for a foreign class.” While certain luxuries have become attainable, the cost of living has sky rocketed and the wealth is not evenly distributed. IT compa-nies exist in Ireland today for tax benefits and for the dependable, highly educated, English speaking work-force. When these IT companies find cheaper labor, Ireland will face outsourcing and the effects could be devastating. Radical theory, also known as Marxist theory, deals with class issues and how people are confined to social constructs based on their monetary value. This theory creates the most accurate window of analysis into Irish society, because, in Ireland, the social class you occupy determines your quality of life. Globalization and/or the Celtic Tiger have not necessarily benefited Ireland in the way that neo-liberalists would suggest. According to Allen, “Ireland ranks as one of the most unequal societies in the world”. For example, Ireland has poor social programs (especially health care), ineffective pension plans, and compared to other EU countries, has the third lowest amount of days allotted for annual leave. The Celtic Tiger transformed Ireland into a post-industrialized nation overnight. The problem with transitioning from a pre to post-industrialized nation is that the infrastructure that an industrial revolution can create is not achieved. In order to sustain a stable economy or to provide social programs to support the workers and their families when foreign investors lose interest, a sound infrastructure must be in place. Allen points out the harrowing reality: “US investment has begun to fall, dropping form $21.6 billion in 2003 to $9.1 billion in 2004”. GW Discourse 21

The Republic of Ireland: MNCs Drop the Ball The Republic of Ireland was a poor underdeveloped country prior to the Celtic Tiger. Now that the effects of this economic boom are wearing off, it appears as if the Irish people were taken advantage of economically by foreign investors. When these investors pull out of Ireland there will be a devastating recession thrusting Ireland back in time. The Irish will once again have to leave their country to find work and better oppor-

International Affairs

tunities. Ireland is a prime example of what will/does happen to other underdeveloped countries in the world community; foreign investors will directly invest in states’ economies until it is no longer lucrative – creat-ing more jobs and higher standards of living only for a brief moment. Certainly, Rome was not built in a day, but in Ireland’s case, an exodus of foreign capital could cripple it in passing time.

The Newest “Enemy of the State”: The Internet Blogger

Dan RozensonInternational Affairs

Staff Writer

inthesetimes.com

Over the last few years, blogs have be-come very influential players in Ameri-can politics. Political commentary maga-zines as diverse as National Review, The New Republic, and The Nation each have their own blogs on their websites. This American tradition has caught on both with politicians here, such as Oakland mayor Jerry Brown, and with elected officials overseas, like British Member of Parliament Tom Watson and Israeli President Shimon Peres. Former Japa-nese Prime Minister Junichiro Koyzumi also featured a blog on his website. The rise of web logs, or “blogs,” is one of the most explosive phenomena in the 21st century. What is a blog? A blog is a web site that contains an ongoing personal journal of the author’s reflections and comments, and often includes links to articles and other blogs. Blogs tend to fall into two categories: personal diaries or com-mentaries on current events. The word itself dates back to 1999, but the first true web log surfaced in 1996. Since then blogging has exploded with 113 million up and running as of this year and thousands more created each day. Merriam-Webster even named the word “blog” 2004’s Word of the Year. But the “blogosphere” has traveled outside of the West-ern world and is gaining ground even in repressive

states with high government regulation of media outlets and where unauthorized political meetings are forbidden. Nowhere is the conflict between government con-trol and Internet innovation more prevalent than in Iran. Technorati, an Internet search engine that tracks blogs, says that Persian is among the ten most common languages for blogs in the world. Part of the reason for this is because Iranian dissidents have turned to the blogosphere to get their messages out. They have railed against government-imposed

GW Discourse 22

fuel rationing, lambasted President Mahmoud Ah-madinejad on his 2007 speech at Columbia Univer-sity, and some even express sympathetic views to-wards Americans. But the Iranian government, ruled by a system of strict, religious-based laws, has shut down blogs it considers too dangerous for public consumption. This trend was confirmed by the free press advocacy group Reporters Without Borders, who in 2005 labeled Iran an “enemy of the Internet.” They explain in an article, “A score of [Iranian] blog-gers were thrown in prison between autumn 2004 and summer 2005.” One of the targets of this repression is Mojtaba Saminejad. At only 27, he has a criminal record. His crime? He was convicted of insulting the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—a criminal offense under Iranian law. While the crime of insult-ing the Supreme Leader has been on the books long before Saminejad’s saga, Saminejad was among the first charged with committing this act using a blog. Iranian citizens—especially younger ones, many of whom are critical of their government—now are be-ing monitored not just in what they say or do in pub-lic, but what they state on the Internet. Saminejad’s blog dealt primarily with sensitive religious and political issues. In November 2004, he was arrested on the following charges: insulting the Supreme Leader of Iran; endangering national se-curity; insulting the founder of Revolutionary Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; spreading corrup-tion; and insulting the prophet Muhammad—an offense which carries the death penalty. Report-ers Without Borders and others, however, maintain that he was de-tained because he reported on his blog about the arrest of three oth-er bloggers. According to Human Rights Watch, he was put in soli-tary confinement for 88 days and tortured. He was released in Janu-ary 2005 and began a new blog, similar to his first. Two weeks later, however, his bail was dou-bled and he was taken back into custody. He was then convicted of insulting the Supreme Leader and sentenced to two years in prison. He did not walk free again until

September of 2006—21 months after a few simple keystrokes. The struggle for Saminejad and other bloggers to express their opinions is emblematic of a larger de-mand among pro-reform activists to have their voic-es heard. The Iranian government is afraid that by al-lowing bloggers the freedom to express their views, the pro-reform movement will mobilize and affect change in the political structure of the country. Per-haps these fears are not unfounded, and with a po-tential military standoff over Iran’s nuclear program looming, the stakes could not be higher. A former se-nior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Ra’anan Gissin, told me last year that the key to em-powering the Iranian reformists—and thus avoiding military confrontation with the conservatives—was, “the blogosphere, the Internet.” This ability to open dialogue and prevent war is key to many Iranian bloggers. One of them writes in a recent entry that “[Iranians] are friends, we respect others and we love nature, freedom and peace.” He continues, “I am against [war]. War will not help us.” In a country whose civil society can only function outside of the view of the government (and the mosque), the blog-gers have found a way to maintain a forum, however fragile, for open political discussion. If Iran’s blog-gers are vigilant enough and can overcome threats of government censorship, perhaps they will be able to avoid this scenario and pull their country towards modernization.

International Affairs

eccma.orgGW Discourse 23

International Affairs

Globalization as Seen Through One Girl’s Teeth

Alex HoltAssistant International

Affairs Editor

Globalization has no single definition; the term can be applied to practically everything. Reading GW Discourse is a good start, but to truly understand globalization one must go abroad and see globaliza-tion first hand. Only by going abroad can one begin to see the nuances of global-ization, as well as the endless positives and negatives that come along with a more globalized world. Take, for example: Tobati, Paraguay. The effects of globaliza-tion on Tobati are striking. The new soccer field in the town, which meets FIFA specifications and is funded by an American philanthropy organization, Team Tobati, has many flags flying over the field. The flags are not however the flag of Paraguay, or a soccer team, but rather of Coca-Cola. The field looks much more professional with the official flags of the Coca-Cola company flapping in the wind, and many people commented on how much more legitimate the field looked once the flags had been put up. This was not Coca-Cola’s first venture into Tobati; the company cemented it-self into the culture years ago. In fact, Coca-Cola is so well-known, that when the high school students from Connecticut come down every spring to help build schools and hospitals, the three words that all Americans and Paraguayans understand are śi, no, and coke. The sale of Coca-Cola in Paraguay helps the coun-try. First of all, the Coca-Cola sold in Paraguay is pro-duced and bottled in Paraguay, which creates jobs. Vendors in Tobati, the drug stores and restaurants, make money off of the sale of Coca-Cola. But Coca-Cola and other companies like it are hurting Tobati, a poor rural region, in a big way, even if the effects are hard to see. Coca-Cola, and other

companies that sell cheap food and beverages high in sugar, are ruining children’s teeth. Though bad teeth may seem like a small problem, in an area with limited if any access to dental care, it can become a very dangerous issue. In Paraguay, people do not brush their teeth or get their teeth cleaned, and when mixed with a diet high in sodium, this leads to disastrous results. As I filmed a group of dentists from the University of Connecticut dental school who had come to help with Team Tobati, the prob-lem became abundantly clear.

“Want to see something sad?” a dentist asked me, “Look at this girl’s teeth.” I looked at the six

year old girl as she looked up at me with fear of what was about to happen, not unlike most chil-dren at a dentist office. But there were two big

differences between a child at a dentist office and this child in front of me. First, we sat

not in an office, but in a converted class-room, with dusty floors and flies on the

instruments, and instead of suction, the girl held a plastic bag she would use to spit blood. Second, the girl did not

have the teeth of a six year old American, but the teeth of a sixty year old American,

or older. Her back teeth were “bombed out”; not so much teeth at this point, but rather an erod-ing black mass. As the dentist tried to pull out the badly infected tooth, it broke into many little pieces because it had been so weakened by infection. “By the time this girl is twenty,” the dentist said to me with a look of sadness and frustration, “She will not have any teeth.” “How will she eat?” I asked. “She’ll need dentures.” Although that fate does not seem terrible, consider the cost. The average worker in Paraguay survives on less than two dollars a day, and dentures are not cheap, not to mention will be more prone to infection, and that gum disease has been proven to be able to spread to the heart. A small but serious problem coming from a small region of a small country, the problem with dental hygiene is just one example of one problem of an in-finitely complex term: Globalization.

GW Discourse 24

International Affairs

Globalization and the M-16Adam Farrar

International Affairs Senior Staff Writer

Discussions of globalization often conger up imag-es of golden arches and brand name clothing being manufactured in sweat shops, however increasingly these multinational corporations are not the only ones cashing in on the rise of the new international market. Governments are cashing in as well. Unlike their corporate counter parts, they are not spread-ing fast food chains or running shoes, but rather the large scale sale of weapons. In recent years large scale conflict through-out the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa has led to a focus being placed on illegal arms sales. Movies such as “Lord of War” and countless books have highlighted the effect illegal arms dealers have had on conflicts. What is often over-looked is that nations, not gray arms dealers, make up the vast ma-jority of the global arms market. In any given year, illegal dealers have accounted for barely a quarter of the arms shipments, while the gov-ernmental arms trade supplied the remaining 75% or so. From 1993 to 1997, the U.S. government sold, approved, or gave away $190 billion in weapons to virtually every nation on earth. It also comes as a surprise to some that the largest arms dealer in the world to-day is not China nor Russia but rather the United States. In fact, in 2005 alone, US global arms deliver-ies totaled $12 billion --approximately three times that of our former Cold War enemies combined. Globalization and the Arms Trade As globalization has spread throughout the world, the United States’ ability to sell arms has grown with it. With cold war policy no longer dictating arms sales, the US government, following the path of US corporations, began a rapid expansion into what had been the Soviet sphere of influence. This includes many countries in the developing world which now

play an integral role in the modern US arms trade in-cluding eighteen countries involved in conflict such as Angola, Chad, and Sri Lanka. Since 2001 and the United States’ declaration of a “War on Terror”, US arms sales have increased dra-matically. Like the years following the end of the Cold War, the introduction of the “War on Terror” expand-ed the reach of the US arms industry even further. In particular, twenty-five countries were identified for “counter-terrorist” support, and according to the Center for Defense Information (CDI), they received arms sales that amounted to a 400% increase from pre-September 11 levels. CDI research found that

the focus on countries deemed integral to the “war on terror” led to a $66 billion increase in arms sales for US industry in the five years following 2001. This massive increase in arms sales was made even though, 13 of the 25 countries remain classified as undemo-cratic by the State Department’s yearly Hu-man Rights Report. Recent US arms trade which has included sales to countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan -- all pre-viously restricted -- has played a large role in

the United States’ con-tinued rank as the

world’s number one arms deal-

er. In addi-

tion to new arms sales to countries

that had previously been restrict-ed, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have offered

US arms dealers a unique opportunity to continue expanding their sales. The wars have served as a showcase of US military technology, demonstrating to US allies their usefulness and effectiveness. This has led to increased orders for high end US arms, further sweetening the already lucrative market for US arms manufacturers. The Bottom Line With US arms being sold throughout the globe, it is clear that US policy towards weapons exports has changed drastically. Instead of selling arms based on national security and foreign policy, the US

plastic-shipping-cases.com

GW Discourse 25

arms industry today could best be described to be focusing almost exclusively on the bottom line. This mentality is evident in the United States’ continued sale of weapons to autocratic regimes throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. These sales, at best, do not help US foreign policy interests, and at worst, actively work against them. US political actions on the world stage have done little to change this perception. The United States even went as far as to try and block a treaty presented by the British in the UN Disarmament and Interna-tional Security Committee, to prohibit sales of arms in situations where they could destabilize a region or fuel an ongoing conflict. The United States deci-sion to vote against this treaty is a perfect example of the government’s refusal to risk defense industry profits even in situations where it is clearly against

quite possibly our own national se-curity interests. Guns for Every-one Just as globaliza-tion brought both the good and the bad to the world, the globalization of the arms industry has had the same effect. Countries are now able to sell weapons not only to their neigh-bors but countries around the world, however this in-creased accessibil-ity to markets and increased profits come at a large cost. With increasing amounts of weap-onry being sold to both developing states and conflict

prone areas, a r m s suppliers, like the United States, are playing a role in continued global conflict and regional destabilization. Such sales directly undercut the work of peace efforts around the world and in particular the work of the United Nations. Even though recent efforts to regu-late the sale of arms in the UN received overwhelm-ing support from 139 countries, the abstention of many of the world’s largest arms suppliers and the dissenting vote of the United States all but destroy this treaty’s viability. With the estimated worth of the world arms trade at over $40 billion annually, it remains increasingly unlikely that the world’s larg-est arms suppliers will join on any time soon. As long as the market continues to expand through glo-balization and the bottom line remains the primary concern of the industry, treaties that seek to regu-late do not stand a chance.

International Affairs

pof-usa.com

GW Discourse 26

Special Features

The following question was posed to the GW chapters of the College Democrats and College Re-publicans:How does your party believe the growing influence of the People’s Republic of China will affect the United States and in what ways would you like to see China’s diplomatic and economic relationship with the United States altered, and why?

On the Right: College Republicans The Republican Party believes that our nation will have a constructive future with The People’s Repub-lic of China. However, the Communist Chinese gov-ernment suppresses many of the rights guaranteed to Americans under our First Amendment, includ-ing freedoms of worship, assembly, and the press. People living under such conditions, void of many human rights, are hindered from reaching their full socioeconomic potential. Upon entering the global market and the World Trade Organization, China has been forced to openly address its oppressive domestic policies. The world must hold China accountable for the needs of its citizens, and the transparency policy of the WTO en-sures that Chinese leaders will work to continually improve the lives of their people. Members of the Republican Party support President Bush and Republicans in Congress in their commit-ment to ensure that Chinese leaders bring dignity to their people through changing social and economic policies. Prosperity will become more easily attain-able with the opening of the Chinese market. Free trade permits us to produce for Chinese consumers, allowing our exports to flourish in their burgeoning economy. Additionally, the expansive Chinese mar-ket offers opportunities for American companies to build facilities in China. Thus, decreased amounts of subjugation will not only create a friendlier eco-nomic environment for Chinese companies, but American ones as well. The Republican Party also supports a forthcom-ing Sino-American diplomatic relationship. Leaders in China have been supportive of War on Terror and have cooperated with our efforts to halt nuclear pro-liferation on the Korean peninsula. So long as they maintain a peaceful status quo with their neighbors, in continued cooperation with our foreign relations in the region, the Republican Party will continue to

pursue a pragmatic relationship with China. Republicans see true potential in China, and be-lieve that he prosperity of their future is dependent upon a freer market and a freer people. We believe that, with continued detachment from Communism and oppression, this will soon be realized.

On the Left: College DemocratsDemocrats believe that defending the American worker in the global economy is one of the highest priorities of our time – the failure by Republicans and George Bush to do so is evident in almost every decision they make, including those affecting the re-lationship between the US and China.Over the past seven years, the fiscally reckless Re-publicans have allowed the federal budget deficit to grow by greater bounds than ever before. As a re-sult, the US is more dependent on countries like Chi-na – the second largest holder of US treasury bills (at 400 billion) – to finance these massive deficits and keep the dollar alive. This growing reliance on China has hurt our ability to get tough with Beijing. If the US is to stand up to the Chinese on currency manipulation, intellectual property rights abuse, en-vironmental degradation, human rights, or the trade deficit, then the value of our dollar and the sustain-ability of our federal budget can’t be beholden to the Chinese. Meanwhile, China continues to suppress wages and allows abusive and inhumane labor practices to inflate its manufacturing edge. When workers in Shanghai are earning in a week what workers in De-troit earn in an hour, the American economy suffers. The US must pursue a trade policy with China that insulates American workers from the threat of out-sourcing while strengthening our ability to compete in the global economy.The advantage unfairly gained from China’s unwill-ingness to institute a humane minimum wage is

GW Discourse 27

Special Features

A Review of The American PresidentDavid Earl

The 1995 film The American President is likely the kind that ide-alistic young his-tory students just love. It’s a movie that makes you feel good about the American po-litical system, hopeful about the federal govern-ment’s leaders, and excited by the challenge of pass-ing that landmark bill that will actu-

ally help the nation. It’s that movie, political sci-ence majors, that made you say, I’m going to work THERE! Throw in a single President (Michael Doug-las) who’s a great father and hot enough for Cath-erine Zeta Jones and director Rob Reiner’s got the budding political science major in you by the pocket, which is surely holding a pocket Constitution. Writer Aaron Sorkin’s vision of the inner-work-ings of the White House (later developed further in the mega-hit series The West Wing) was fun and cute and inspiring in 1995, but the Rob Reiner-directed film rings hollow in the shadow of a 2008 world that is increasingly grim and much more serious. Sorkin’s plot is simple: A widowed president up for re-election sacrifices his political values (and the respect of his lobbyist girlfriend) by weakening

one bill and scrapping another to score desperately needed political points, but then rediscovers his val-ues in time to make a brazen assertion of his presi-dency and get the girl. Meanwhile, his likely opposi-tion, conservative Republican Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss), is shamelessly prying into his personal life, and ripping apart his girlfriend’s cred-ibility and patriotism. Oh, elections. On one level, Sorkin paints a fascinating picture that makes the thinking American wonder why we end up so concerned with the personal lives of our elected leaders, why our politicians play games that take the teeth out of policies, and why old, white, ugly Republicans even have a place in the American political system. On a much deeper level, though, it becomes clear that Sorkin’s world resembles a Clinton first-term dreamland. While President Andrew Shepherd’s one military move leaves him shaken by the prospect of killing a Libyan janitor, the death of thousands of American soldiers looms large over this coming Presidential election. It’s hard to imagine young communications staffer Lewis Rothschild (Michael J. Fox), ripping into the most powerful man in the world for the manner in which he handles his own PR, and almost impossible to conceive of a president being honest. At least not that honest. The movie, even twelve years later, is worth view-ing, if for no other reason than to remember a time when the approval ratings were higher, the mud came from less than ten directions, and the environ-ment and domestic crime were the gravest problems facing our country.

only further compounded by their abusive currency evaluation, which continues to deepen the massive trade deficit between the US and China. Moreover, US industries continue to lose two billion dollars an-nually because of China’s flagrant disregard for in-tellectual property rights.

The growing influence of China does not necessar-ily pose an inevitable threat to American interests. In 2008, Americans will finally have a Democratic president who will maximize the mutually benefi-cial aspects of the US-China relationship without sacrificing the hard-working middle class that sus-tains it.

GW Discourse 28

Political Philosophy

Economic Implications of GlobalizationAnthony Cartelli

Political Philosophy Assistant Section Editor

When one hears the terms ‘globalization’ or ‘free trade’, it does not take long for one to hear cries for “protection of domestic indus-try” or an “end to outsourcing”! These ac-cusations and the countless others levied against free trade are rooted in either an ignorance of basic economic principles or the promotion of an ulterior agenda. The attack on international free trade is truly unfair, causing harm not only to poor workers in foreign countries, but to consumers in this country, who are forced to subsidize underperform-ing businesses through inflated prices. Politicians, with either personal inter-ests at stake or misguided intentions, can easily cause great damage upon a na-tional economy through the implementation of protectionist policies. Before examining this, it is important that we develop an un-derstanding of international trade. International trade is an extension of the special-ization and division functions of modern econom-ics. Not long ago, families provided themselves with food, shelter, and clothing. People were self-suffi-cient, raising their own livestock and spinning their own yarn. This lifestyle soon died out with the ad-vent of advanced transportation. Individuals could now easily purchase higher quality products at low-er costs from individuals who specialize in produc-ing these specific goods. Instead of spinning more clothing, a farmer could now use that time to grow more wheat, buy his own clothing with the extra profits, and still have something left over. All of this depends on whether or not the time and resources to produce something will directly yield more of that good in the end even though that ‘thing’ could be made in a different way. This principle applies to all products, whether they are produced within the same national borders or on the other side of the world. This is the basis for international trade.

Often misin-terpreted as the

trade between na- tions, it is in fact the trade between individual producers and consumers. This is a voluntary exchange, where each individual weighs one choice against another, deciding what better coincides with his resources. An American can decide if he wants to buy a Toyota or a GM; an Indian can watch films made in Hollywood or Bolly-wood. The increased amount of consumer choice re-sulting from international trade not only puts more goods on the shelves, it helps mitigate the power of monopolies. Protectionist policies allow domestic industries to charge higher prices than they could in the face of cheaper foreign competition. The surest way to open up an industry is to allow foreign com-petition in the market place. International free trade is not a zero-sum con-test between competing nations, but a large assort-ment of voluntary transactions, where both parties enter the agreement for the sole purpose of gaining something in exchange. Contrary to prevailing anti-

GW Discourse 29

free trade notions, wealth is in fact created during economic activity. It is very common for well-inten-tioned politicians to enact policies that are designed to protect domestic constituents, but all too often the results of these policies result in unforeseen consequences. In 1930, the Hawley-Smoot tariffs were passed with the intention of protecting Ameri-can jobs. This bill raised tariffs on imports to record high levels. What followed was a decrease of total world exports, high retaliatory tariffs, plummet-ing farm exports, and skyrocketing unemployment. Most economists agree that this helped prolong the Great Depression. Sometimes protectionist policies aid one group at the expense of others who are not as organized or vocal. As documented by Thomas Sowell in his book Basic Economics, the 1980’s steel tariffs produced $240 million in additional profits and saved 5,000 jobs in the steel industry. What was not seen was the effect the artificially inflated prices had on American industries that manufacture prod-ucts from steel. These industries lost about $640 million in profits and 26,000 jobs. The United States is not alone amongst countries whose protectionist policies have resulted in harm to international sup-pliers and to domestic consumers. The policies of Czarist Russia kept the nation in impoverished serf-dom, while in later decades Eastern Bloc nations languished in isolation. Countries such as India and China have suffered for decades under protection-ist laws, only recently seeing freer markets with increased prosperity. It is estimated in Basic Eco-nomics that all of the protectionism in the European Union countries added together saves only 200,000 jobs – at a cost of $43 billion, which works out to about $215,000 per worker. In other words, if there was complete free trade in the EU, every worker who lost his job as a result of foreign competition could be paid about $100,000 a year in unemploy-ment - or find new work. Whatever losses these workers sustain in the process pales in comparison to keeping the workers where they are. The costs do not only include their salaries, but the larger oppor-tunity costs of inefficient production, wasting scarce resource that would be used more appropriately elsewhere. As French political economist Frédéric Bastiat once said, “…the bad economist confides himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into ac-count both the effect that can be seen and those that

must be foreseen.” Globalization is often credited with the “vast sucking sound” of outsourced Ameri-can jobs. While everyone knows that many jobs are “outsourced” to India, what is not as widely spoken of are the vast amounts of jobs that are “outsourced” to the United States. It is true that when foreign com-petition is brought home some jobs will be lost, but what is not seen is that this is a two way street. Be-tween 1977 and 2001 the number of jobs created in the United States by foreign companies grew by 4.7 million, while the number of jobs created by Ameri-can companies in foreign nations grew only by 2.8 million. In 1980 foreigners invested $12 billion into American businesses; this rose to $200 billion by 1998. As of 2003, foreigners purchased $579 billion more assets in the United States than Americans ac-quired abroad. Toyota and Honda make millions of dollars selling to American consumers. This money is not “stolen” from the American economy; it is invested back into it. The Japanese build factories in the United States, employing thousands of Americans at high wages who have repeatedly voted against unionization. In 2002, the ten-millionth Toyota was built in the Unit-ed States. These comparisons leave out the thou-sands of jobs created throughout the entire economy as a result of increased wealth and efficiency due to international trade. The increased wealth from in-ternational reactions means increased demands for services and goods in general, including domestic services and goods. Opponents of globalization and free trade often try to depict it as a battle between “us” and “them”. Using this logic, one can make the ridiculous as-sumption that other countries are making Ameri-cans worse off by selling them goods that they want to buy. Businesses though that cannot compete in the free market cannot compete in the free market for a reason. Should the wasteful allocation of resources be continued, or should firms that are more efficient enter the market place, increasing standards for ev-eryone? In the words of Allen Greenspan, “If the pro-tectionist route is followed, newer, more efficient in-dustries will have less scope to expand, and overall output and economic welfare will suffer”. Once one is able to get past the rhetoric and overcome these fabricated wars of “us” versus “them”, one if able to truly see magnificent benefits of free trade.

Political Philosophy

GW Discourse 30

Political Philosophy

Keeping Up Appearances on the Globalization Front:

How Anti-Globalization Translates to Anti-America

Ben ColePolitical Philosophy Senior Staff Writer

A “human rights scandal” in Guan-tanamo; domestic wiretapping; CIA “black sites”; America as the gun-crime capital of the post-industrial world. These are not the issues often overheard in a debate over the pros and cons of globalization. But they are critical to whether or not the world becomes truly flat. America’s appearance to the rest of the world might be the linchpin to maintaining the current procession of globalization. Globalization, in all its current political, economic, and so-cial manifestations, is a Western, and predominately American enterprise, whether it be through the G8, the Bret-ton Woods Institutions, NAFTA, or the WTO. Americans who are in favor of globalization often point (knowingly or not) to the concept of “American exceptionalism:” a form of cultural imperialism positing that America is the most just, free, democratic state in the world, has the best in-formation technology industry, and is such an all-around cultural superpower to the point that it is only right that it lead the world in all facets of life. Because of this superlative status, pro-globalists say that Americans are justified in spreading their eco-nomic, political and social ideals to countries that are developing or suffering under a non-liberal re-gime. David Rothkopf, an American professor of foreign politics argues for globalization vis-à-vis cultural im-perialism. He has held that “successful multicultural societies,” such as the United States, “discern those

aspects of culture that do not threaten union, stabil-ity, or prosperity (such as food, holidays, rituals, and music) and allow them to flourish. But they coun-teract or eradicate the more subversive elements of culture (exclusionary aspects of religion, language, and political/ideological beliefs).” In other words, America is the cultural cheese maker, collecting dif-ferent types of milk in the form of foreign beliefs and customs and pouring them all together before sepa-rating the non-threatening curds from the “subver-sive” whey. Unfortunately, it seems America has hardly been adept at this craft lately allowing a great deal of its own disgusting whey into the cheese. Thanks to the

christianityismore.com

GW Discourse 31

recent conservative swing in American politics ac-companying the Bush administration, the United States is becoming less and less a “successful mul-ticultural society” in favor of one with prominent “exclusionary aspects”: racial profiling by police and airport security, calls for a constitutional amend-ment to deny marriage rights to homosexuals, and the National Security Agency’s snub of a legal tradi-tion against domestic spy programs. Furthermore, upon a thorough cross-cultural comparison, the charges that exceptionalists’ level against “oppressive” societ-ies appear to be increasingly applicable to America. For example, Rothkopf points out that China, Iran, and Sin-gapore censor media that paints a pro-Western pic-ture. Yet when Iranian Presi-dent Ahmadinejad arrived at Columbia University to speak in an academic setting, hundreds protested his mere presence. Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) re-cently went so far as to pro-pose legislation to cut feder-al funds to Columbia because of the incident. If we lead by example, should there be any doubt why the rest of the world looks at us and sometimes scratches its head? It is important to recognize the good of globaliza-tion as a liberal one. As Milton Friedman once wrote, “A free economy… gives people what they want in-stead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want.” Essentially, the dispersion of technology through modern economic forces ultimately em-powers the individual: to transmit and receive infor-mation, to achieve better standards of living and, to provide for his or her family. American exceptional-ists will certainly tout these humanitarian goals as evidence of the magnanimous side of globalization. But to compare the ideals of globalization to the way in which it is now practiced is to oversimplify a muddy picture. Surely, bringing engineering and infrastructure to provide clean drinking water to an impoverished nation is a way in which globalization can benefit the marginalized. But when this task

Political Philosophy

entails the World Bank forcing a government into privatizing the entire water supply of one its largest cities for the profit of an American firm, in this case the Bechtel Corporation in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 1997, the poor are not advantaged and Western mo-tives for globalization are rightly questioned. If glo-balization is not a cutthroat race to obtain material, strategic, or diplomatic resources, but a way to offer people help, it should be just that: an offer. To prove to the world that it is not coercing them into accept-ing a system designed to accumulate wealth in the

hands of Western elites, our government must do two things. First, it must set the homogenization of goods, technolo-gies, and human rights above the inter-national spoils system run by the World Bank, IMF, and greedy contractors. If our politicians only want to aid marginalized people around the world, why are the corporations for which they served as di-rectors and consultants always the ones to reap the rewards? Secondly, it must match its political activities to better resemble what Aristotle once deemed the “ideal state,” the one that is the best practitioner of a universal humanitarian ethic. Exclusionary and paranoid politics make the U.S. seem more like a country that needs help than one ready to give it.

American motives for globalization are purely business, primarily to extract something of value from another people and retain our place at the top of the proverbial hill. If we are able to help marginal-ized people in the process, and we continue to resist expedient help, it is understandable that many na-tions of the world resist or reject our own efforts. Some will point fingers at me as a cultural rela-tivist, but supposing there is a universal political ethic, is America really what Aristotle would deem the “ideal state,” the one that is the best practitio-ner of virtue? In other words, does our track record indicate to the world that we are worthy of judging all other countries inferior as we label American culture superior and use it as the face of globaliza-tion? The answer is no and I think many Americans can agree. Can it change? Absolutely. However, if we want to understand why others resist our change, we have to look at the good as well as the bad and then question our own ethics and nature.

smh.com.au

GW Discourse 32

Political Philosophy

Human Rights and its Role within the Realm of Globalization

Niketa BrarPolitical Philosophy Senior Staff Writer

segue.atlas.uiuc.edu

The greatest struggle academia faces is how to put its work into action. Debates may rage on, intel-lectuals may analyze every inch of an issue, but the value of such comprehensive study is found in its application. In human rights debates, philosophical and conceptual critiques are especially important. Human rights cannot be defined without such dis-course. In the realm of human rights, the discussion starts with universalism and relativism. That is, the debate lies between those who believe human rights can be universally applied and those who believe that rights range and depend on an individual’s culture. However, the United Nations Declaration of Hu-man Rights enumerates several rights that tran-scend culture. For example, I would be hard-pressed to find a culture that defines itself by promoting slavery. To argue that a culture is entirely shaped by its reliance on a particular human rights violation (such as slavery) would be to essentialize its nature. It would belittle the culture itself. Furthermore, it is dangerously inaccurate; to do this would be to turn a complex set of beliefs, customs, and practices into one generalized statement that is rarely supported by every member of the cultural group. Culture is a fluid, adapting set of beliefs and be-haviors that mold themselves to meet the evolving needs and desires of its adherents. Each person within a cultural group has the power to contrib-ute to its future; that is, they have the power to alter its identity. It is within this flexible reality that hu-man rights can be applied. Though universal human rights, as found in the United Nations Declaration, may have been conceived within a Western context, they are not exclusive to Western tradition. Applying human rights within different cultures is possible without creating an imperialistic western influence, as many relativists claim. The most basic human right – the right to free-dom – is one that has emerged in nations across the

world. As Indian economist Amartya Sen writes, the development of nations inevitably invites democra-cy. Development requires citizen effort, which brings about increased faith in each individual’s work and worth. Increasing internal efficacy motivates a move to external efficacy. That is, promoting confidence in each citizen causes these members of society to desire more. It pushes them to want more control over their lives. This creates a desire for democracy, which cannot be quenched until a democratic struc-ture is achieved. Natan Sharansky supplements this view with the concept of a ‘free society’ vs. a ‘fear society’ as out-lined in The Case for Democracy. He applies what he names the ‘town square test’ to evaluate the true democratic nature of a state – evaluating whether an individual can go into a town square and proclaim his or her views “without fear of arrest, imprison-ment, or physical harm”. The ability to do so indi-cates the presence of a free society. Anything short of this is a fear society. Sharansky boldly asserts that all individuals desire to live in such a free society. All individuals, if given a true choice, would choose to live in a place they do not fear that their speech may

GW Discourse 33

put them in harm’s way. When integrated, Sharansky’s assertion and Sen’s hypothesis illustrate a remarkably clear picture of emerg-ing democratic na-tions. As development quickly takes over the globe, albeit slower in some places than oth-ers, individuals will be-gin climbing the socio-economic ladder and through such security, gain confidence in their own ability to evaluate the issues of their so-ciety and the solutions offered to them. Com-bined with a growing concern to maintain or improve their status, they will begin to ques-tion the structure and workings of govern-ment. And if they’re not living in Sharansky’s free society, there will be a natural impulse to move towards it. It is from this urge that democratic structures develop. Such an understand-ing is crucial in a mod-ern context, where our nation’s leaders believe that democracy can be spoon-fed. Arguing that all nations can be democrat-ic states, the current Administration has made it a priority to create a how-to guide on the issue, and is looking to disperse it freely amongst Middle Eastern nations. The Administration is right in believing that a democratic structure can arise in any society that wishes to be free; in Sharansky’s view that is any society at all. However, this desire must come from within the people of the state – not from an external actor. The value of a democratic society only holds

Political Philosophy

true when citizens are invested in their government and confident that their voice matters. It might be true that an external predicament will instigate an internal evaluation by the people of the state. But, if internal actors do not desire such freedoms, then such will never be attained. Our Constitution poi-gnantly but briefly sums up this idea within the first sentence: “We the People…” must not be a merely a phrase, but rather a building block to democracy.

tcnj.edu

GW Discourse 34

Political Philosophy

The Normative Consequences ofGlobalization

Max AbbottPolitical Philosophy

Staff Writer

Globalization can appear to be an unwieldy force that entangles world economies, cultures, and knowledge together in a haphazard and indeci-pherable manner. Wars are waged, technology de-velops, trade is conducted and it seems that all of the sudden the world is a smaller place. But this is not the case. Globalization is in fact controlled to a large extent by those who have the most to gain from it: large multinational corporations and rich developed nations. We can see this trend from a very high profile instance, that of Hallibur-ton in Iraq. The energy corporation was given a no-bid contract by the United States for many reasons. Nevertheless, a rich and powerful nation helped a rich and powerful multi-national corporation gain more wealth. A rising tide does not raise all ships. What we see occurring due to the phenomenon of globalization are several normative problems. In this article, I would like to address three of the most serious. First, we see ‘commoditization’ over-riding national sovereignty. Second, there is widen-ing inequality between the world’s rich and its poor. Third, we can observe an attack on cultural diversity by homogenizing global forces. My eventual conclu-sion is that the best solution to these problems is democratization at a global level, but I will state that the challenges to a process of global democratization are huge, leaving the possibility of a just, equitable, and diverse globalized world highly improbable. As globalization develops, standards and prac-tices are applied across traditional Westphalian nation-state borders. In this globalized system, com-modities tend to flow freely, encountering an ever decreasing amount of barriers. While this may ap-pear fair at a global level, as all nations and peoples are subjected to the same rules, it may be damaging to national sovereignty. Commodities have shown the ability to trump the will of peoples in the name of free trade. For example, European nations have decried the importation of Genetically Modified

Organisms (GMOs) into their food supply, dubbing such items “Frankenfood.” But the World Trade Or-ganization has ruled that blocking GMO importation from the United States is an unfair ban on free trade. Thus, as globalization increases and organizations like the WTO guide the application of standards and practices to nations across the globe, we must be prepared to confront the serious consequence of di-minished national sovereignty. The European Union is by far the quintessential example of such trends. An observable trend over the past several decades has been an overall increase in wealth accompanied by wealth becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a few. International organizations have not played the role of wealth distribution. As stated above, those who already have wealth and power have used the interconnectedness of the globe to benefit themselves. By nearly all measurements, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are becoming richer. The OECD (rich industrial countries) share of global GDP has increased from 68 percent to 78 percent from 1978 to 1995. If globalization contin-ues on this current path, the impoverishment of the majority of the world’s population may have serious repercussions for those of us reaping the benefits. Associated with the standardization of trade prac-

columban.org.au

GW Discourse 35

tices by organizations like the WTO, which are led by developed nations, is the imposition of the value systems and cultural ideals of the developed nations on the rest of the world. Cultural values and beliefs differ across the globe. As globalization increases, the developed world at times encounters cultures that it does not agree with because these systems do not resemble their own. The result is often conflict and the effort by the developed world to impose their system upon oth-ers. This is problematic because many value cultural diversity and the preservation of a pluralistic system of values in the world. These are three challenges that advocates of glo-balization must face in order to justify its value. As the situation stands, globalization has given us any-thing but an equitable global society. A solution of-fered by many prominent thinkers to this dilemma is democratizing the globalization process. Doyle proposes the opening of supranational organiza-

Political Philosophy

tions such as the WTO and United Nations to global suffrage. By allowing the masses to participate in the organizations that play a large role in globaliza-tion, they have the potential to shape it in a way that would benefit the lower rungs of the ladder. Can such enfranchisement be implemented in a constructive manner? Probably not. The United States and other developed countries already bicker enough about the current state of affairs. To let another billion people and countless nations engage in debate as well would be rather dangerous in the eyes of most contemporaries. It appears that globalization may not result in fair and peaceful world in the end after all. Instead, the rich will use their power to stack the deck against the rest of the world for personal gain. Does this mean protectionist measures may be justified? Maybe, but at this rate, globalization whose supporters trumpet its flattening qualities, may in fact flatten the poorer countries of the world into oblivion.

Catastrophe, a Charitable CauseAndrew Scott

President

“Foreign aid undermines democracy” -Andrew Mwenda

A Progressive Regression If you gave money to a charity, you’d want to see where that money goes, right? Surely you wouldn’t want that money to end up in the wrong people’s hands. But what if the money you were giving was supporting an unstable, corrupt, likely violent envi-ronment? Would you be upset? Or would you keep giving? This situation parallels one the United States fac-es today. President Bush has tripled direct humani-tarian aid in Africa since he took the Presidency. He has plans to double the current number by 2010 – a 500% increase in under ten years. Noble, indeed, but this action exemplifies the kind of irresponsible economic policies that are un-developing the Afri-can continent. It might be hard to see how a 500% increase in humanitarian aid could be a bad thing. Certainly supporters of such aid are elated with such an in-

crease. Perhaps the phrase “ignorance is bliss” is well suited here. In the example of giving to a charity, the action is noble, but this action doesn’t always produce noble results. The same goes for foreign aid. Giving mon-ey to a poor and undeveloped country is a righteous and seemingly moral action to take. Yet, a closer look at where this money goes will blur the lines between development and debauchery. Africa has made great strides in development since the beginning of the 20th century. Decades ago imperialism and the Cold War left vague and uncertain political boundaries throughout Africa, crumbling any foundation on which to build a sta-ble nation. Now, there are 53 autonomous nations in Africa. Though it is perceived to be a continent wrought with civil war, only six nations are currently involved in such conflict. Economically, South Africa, Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Cameroon and Egypt have shown considerable economic success in past years. Africa is also situated atop some of the most abun-dant natural resources in the world. Some countries, like Angola, Sudan, and Equatorial Guinea have be-gun to extract these resources and jumpstarted their economy, witnessing jumps over 10% in their GDP.

GW Discourse 36

Political Philosophy

The Downside to Charity When aid is dumped into Africa, it is apportioned by economic need. The poorest countries often get the most money. Seems logical, no? Look at it this way. Unfortunately the poorest countries are often destitute because the govern-ment in power is corrupt and adverse to develop-ment. Supporting such nations through foreign aid only sustains the corrupt environment that is in control. Thomas P.M. Barnett, a m i l i t a r y strategist, addresses this issue in his book Blueprint for Action, “...bad governments force their citizens to rely on their own, typi-cally meager savings to self-finance entre-preneurship, which is just about the slow-est way to grow your economy. Since many of these same econo-mies receive significant amounts of foreign developmental aid... there is the additional destructive effect often associated with such charity: it tends to infantilize the local social, political, and economic institutions necessary for broadband development.” Foreign aid is often given with a “budget for con-struction, but not for maintenance.” When aid is poured into a country based on its economic situa-tion, the money is often given to the wrong people, feeding a habit of instability and corruption. Rather than inadvertently supporting governments clearly incapable of using aid to better their nation, theo-rists like Ugandan journalist Andrew Mwenda argue for a more careful and perhaps more responsible appropriation of developmental aid. At the recent G8 Summit in Berlin, it was decid-ed that the solution to Africa’s problems should be a massive increase in aid. Yet foreign aid already accounts for some 10-15% of many African states’ GDP. This is an “unprecedented transfer of financial resources from rich countries to poor countries.” Often what we hear about Africa carries strong undertones of despair, poverty, struggle and conflict, justifying any amount of developmental aid in the area. It is hard to argue for reformation of African aid when all signals lead us to believe Africa is hope-

less. The question of what to do with Africa has pre-sented the solution of simply putting more money into the system to feed the hungry, help the poor, and spread peace through areas of conflict. But in doing so, we have in a sense “stripped Africa of its self initiative.” Clearly, there are fundamental problems in Af-rica hindering its development. On the same note, h o w - ever, the area is filled

with potential. As An-drew Mwenda notes in a conference on aid in Africa,

“We need to reframe the challenge that is facing Africa,

from a challenge of despair, despair which is called poverty reduction, to a challenge of hope. The chal-lenge facing all those interested

in Africa is not a challenge of reduc-ing poverty; it should be a challenge

of creating wealth.” Rather than basing aid on the reducing the poverty of each nation, aid should

be given to generate wealth. In simpler terms, money should not be spent to stifle

further loss of money; it should be spent in places where it can productively grow. Foreign aid today has distorted the incentives for national development. Governments have little push to democratize or become legitimate when they can live off of such contributions. Right now it makes more sense for an African nation to go to the IMF for help than to go through the trouble in developing its economy. In doing so, however, each benefactor of foreign aid loses its ability to listen to its citizens – to understand what its own people need for develop-ment. Instead all ears are pointed toward the donor, and pretty soon institutions like the IMF are dictat-ing policy – telling African nation X what its own people need for development. Herein lays the problem with the system. For-eign aid should be used to reward nations who have shown capacity for positive change rather than to sustain nations who contest it. The answer to Afri-ca’s problem is not more aid; rather it is a reframing of the issue at hand, so as to promote the genera-tion of wealth and to incite productive and positive change throughout.

GW Discourse 37

GWDiscourse.com