"I would need a heavy paper-trail of good intentions combined with good results to be convinced that an IO existed that would benefit me."
The World Trade Organization. Period. Ignore the UN, League of Nations, the Pact of Paris, all the rest of the ridiculous nonsense that you guys think are powerful IO's. The WTO single-handedly is the most invasive, sinister, powerful IO that has ever existed. At no other point in world history has an organization been able to coordinate/break down trade barriers between soverign states as the WTO. It (or the GATT in Cold War parlance) along with the World Bank and the IMF were specifically created to integrate the Western World (with additional third world missions to creep up later) and has categorically succeeded. (sinister, if you're a hippy, in that it we have built our own contradictions within the organization in that we are for the removal of all trade barriers in all industries EXCEPT the ones in which we need protection from cheap developing countries, namely agricultural subsidies. Because this is true for Europe see CAP, Japan, and US, we're able to totally dictate abusive trade relationships with the rest of the world.)
Once again, the EU is an excellant org (that we pushed France into creating, and England to joining despite a couple of veto's from de Gaulle). I would even argue that the EU is better for the United States, despite trade competition, than if it didn't exist (but that's a whole new debate)
Why are you guys so concerned with this ethical nonsense? The IO's that work aren't the IO's that have some giant do-gooder mission. That's my argument.
The UN is supposed to give a ridiculous amount of protections to humanity, but it doesn't do shit...Technically we're not even allowed to execute our prisoners, but will the UN ever "compel us" to stop capital punishment? Will they ever be able to tell us what to do or dictate the rules of the road for the future? Absolutel not. We even spent a decade drafting an international law of the sea compelling our allies to join and then at the last minute we reneged. That treaty theoretically exists right now (went into affect with the 160th country signed it) but we filipiantly ignore it at all times. The UN might be a "forum" for Russia and China to take pot shots at us, but it is certainly not a weapon. The UN had a meeting about Economics and grants to the third world? Great. It's cute. But it certainly isn't a threat, and it certainly won't be anything significant in the world.
Lets not forget that there are some organs of the UN that are effective (I cited the ITU in my original post), most notably the IAEA. Do you think American inspectors could unilaterally walk into Iran and get the kind of access the IAEA does? Such access comes about from "perceived legitimacy" that I also discuss (why it's important for IOs to be able to tell us "no")...there's also an excellant discussion to be had of the IAEA and "hand outs" to the poor states that has kept Nuclear proliferation to a minimum.
What I'm trying to say is that IOs are good because the only ones that have succeeded or will succeed will be in our net interest; those that pursue some utopian goals are exactly the ones that won't work. Even if they continue to exist they present no measurable threat to us. Even if they would've put something on paper in Coopenhagen, when countries actually went around trying to implement it, it would've failed miserably. We would've run into Coordination problems, will China actually allow inspectors to monitor their emissions? Should we give them handouts before they allow inspectors or after? Obviously after, but would China agree to this? Do we want to be stuck in a cycle of paying for inspectors? Etc etc. We would've run into committment problems, could political leaders suffer attacks from opposition parties for giving "handouts" for nebulous gains? Also there's the problem of it being too grand. The more states that you have in an organization, the more conflicting interests you have. Thus, whatever general agreement that comes about will be a watered down defunct POS (see the UN & Coopenhagen). The successful IOs have been those that are regional or homogenous in region or purpose, or, if they eventually take on a global scale, develop that way incrementally instead of all at once. That's a little off topic, but something to think about nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The UN is supposed to give a ridiculous amount of protections to humanity, but it doesn't do shit..." As long as you say this, I think I'm with you.
ReplyDeleteI would have to write at lest ten pages or more report to develop my thoughts on this. Overall, I think IOs are necessary. Keeping the history of governments in mind and tendency of govs to grow, I just question the end result of all of this more unified global regulatory bodies and what the final form of it will be. I don't really have an argument against your point of view, just a look at the subject from a different point of view--not necessarily an argument against IOs.
ReplyDeleteA whole is the sum of its parts. What are the parts of the global community? Nations that are not free, America included. Look at where they are going. What will be the collective global IOs? Not very free.
You are saying that IOs will never trump individual nation's interest. What have domestic governments done to individual people? See how further below.) If IOs become too powerful, they become bad. If they dont have enough power, they are useless. Why have them if they don't have any power? They must exist and they must have power in order to function. They will be powerful in the end. IOs are composed of nations which are represented by people. Whose interest do the people in any gov look out after? Their own interest and maintaining power. Whose interest is the WTO looking out for? Only the good IOs will have any power or exist at all? Is this true for any domestic government? The nature of any gov is circumscribed by human nature.
"Government is a necessary evil." The same is true for IOs. To have global free trade, there must be some regulatory body. You assume these IOs will only do their intended and necessary functions. Look at the history of human govs to see how ALL govs have become tyrannical to some extent. Look at the current evolution of America. Where is it going? But as of now, the benefits of IOs outweigh their cost. They are necessary and they are inevitiable for global trade and for nations to work together. The only other option is for a major war of total global domination and for one winner to emerge. Won't happen.
Melkor:"The successful IOs have been those that are regional or homogenous in region or purpose, or, if they eventually take on a global scale, develop that way incrementally instead of all at once." We may get there slowly, but we will still get there.
Melkor: "[...], but will the UN ever 'compel us' to stop capital punishment? Will they ever be able to tell us what to do or dictate the rules of the road for the future? Absolutel not."
This has happened and is happening in a very small way. Have you ever heard of Trans nationalism? Harold Koh? That is one way America will be forced submit its interest to the international body. It is just talk now, but many of the things our gov is doing now was just talk and thought to be impossible not that long ago. This was forced upon the nation through a gov-caused "crises". It is coming about slowly. I would have to explain global bolshevism--the name died but the basic system and its goal that it represents has not died-- and the fact that American culture, economy, and gov have been fairly much taken over by ideals and opinions that will lead to the realization of this system of government in our Country slowly over time.(Another topic.)
Melkor:"What I'm trying to say is that IOs are good because the only ones that have succeeded or will succeed will be in our net interest; those that pursue some utopian goals are exactly the ones that won't work." I would agree that there is not reason for a single nation to trample its national interest for the interest of the world body. That is where coercion comes into play to make nations to act to the benefit of those in power. For EX, climate change-failed but not finished look at the state of the union and the new budget, the economy, and others. From what I read, a major global economic problem will emerge some time in the future. I could be wrong. Regardless, an international economic system in being set up that is not based on freedom. This EP would force a choice upon the world. Why would American people trample their interest for the sake of our gov's? They would not knowingly do so. They have to be lied to and coerced into accepting this. This expansion of government is usually the result of a gov-caused crises: Great Depression and the current recession. EX: the Federal Reserve, going off of the gold standard, social security, health care, Obama's overall agenda etc. These examples work to the detriment of the American people. Why would they choose this? They were coerced into accepting this. The same applies to nations and IOs. The basic framework for a global government-- that is the inevitable end result of globalization-- is being built. Ultimately, this system will be forced upon the world through some government-made crises--purposeful or not, look at the GD, America's economic crises and what it is/has brought about? Some crises will eventually happen and how will these IOs react to it?
ReplyDelete"The basic framework for a global government-- that is the inevitable end result of globalization-- is being built."
ReplyDeleteYou have wisely taken my argument to its logical conclusion. The inevitable consequence of customs unions and increasingly powerful regulatory bodies is the weakening of borders. Borders are inherently debilitating for trade and represent an extreme political inflation of the cost of goods going from one country to another. Inevitably, to continue garnering the benefits that I've outlined, what we are actually doing is eliminating the impact of those borders until they're equivalent to the difference between Oregon and Washington....That's what the EU has been slowing doing for 50 years (when it started out slowly as a customs union for steel and coal), and I think Jeff is right that that IS the inevitable consequence of globalization and the WTO.
This begs the question and the actual debate, do you think this is a good thing? Inevitably, the weaker the border the more efficient the marketplace or are you Smith's classical conservative that wishes to protect local customs and values from an open world?
"This begs the question and the actual debate, do you think this is a good thing?" - That's a very good, very hard to clearly answer question. Like you say, it'll take a blog post, and even then probably won't come up with a sure answer.
ReplyDeleteMelkor: "You have wisely taken my argument to its logical conclusion. The inevitable consequence of customs unions and increasingly powerful regulatory bodies is the weakening of borders."
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the points that I was trying to make and I completely agree with you that this will be a good thing in and of itself. It needs to happen and it is inevitable.
My whole point was to state that open boarders-- artificial trade barriers--will eventually be done away with and along with this more united globe would require a more united global governing body and an overall more connected world, this is the future and is a GOOD thing in and of itself; but however, my other point was to call into question what form this more united global IGB is/eventually will take?
I look at the major players in the world, and I look at the general trends of society's cultures and I look at the prevailing trends that are present in the major governments of the world, and the fact that the major economies of the world being build on a foundation of debt which is potentially giving rise to a major economic problem latter down the road. I simply question what form this government is taking and if it will be a form that is conductive to capitalism and freedom?
This topic is broad enough to write a thesis on. This topic needs to be looked at from an anthropological, a sociological, an economic, a political, a historical and a scientific point of view in order to give a clearer understanding of where this globalization is taking us.
ReplyDeletetrue indeed, but the breaking down of borders (or the creation of them for that matter) isn't occurring through anthropological or sociological concerns, it's economics. It's all economics. Open any anthropological book and the first chapter is going to discuss how globalization is threatening the insignificant little tribe in New Guinea that a hippy did his PhD thesis on. Why certain groups resist globalization or open their arms is also economic. Gains vs Costs that are given a cultural or nationalist spin in order to justify it to their ignorant/base constituents.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the current model of supranationalism (organizations above the nation state) generally follow an American checks system, i.e. a system in which population and gross interests are given their appropriate balance (by gross interest, I mean that the powerful are given the means to defend themselves from the many, like the Senate, Security Council, or Qualified Voting int he EU) and given that the primacy of free trade remains unchallenged, I remain hopeful that the SQ parameters will continue.
I think it will be a good day when all of these primitive tribes and their systems are done away with, not the people. Yes boarders, artificial trade barriers, are being broken down mainly because of economic reasons. But a look at globalization through the anthropological prism and along with the others will provide insight into to where this globalization is headed, this is the question I am asking and trying to address. Globalization was brought about primarily due to advancement in technology that made the world more connected: air travel, communication, internet. The history of governments will provide a hazy view into what these future IOs will look like and provide some lessons on how to prevent an abusive government.
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me that you only see two options: government, IOs, or no government. Obviously, there is a need for government, and globalization is here to stay. That is not the question. The question is what kind of government, and what kind of government is this shaping up to be?
The question I have about your last paragraph( I don't think it is inaccurate. I am not very knowledgeable in international relations.) is what kind of nation is America becoming along with most of the other nations? What will the cultural trends of societies and the trends in the governments of the world lead to? Looking at globalization only through economics does not provide a complete view of globalization.
I think it is necessary, inevitable, good, and great. When I look at the big picture, I simply question if it will lead a government conductive to freedom or one that is not. This is not an argument against globalization or IOs. Overall, I support globalization.
"is what kind of nation is America becoming along with most of the other nations?"
ReplyDeleteGood question but interestingly, Europe has become far more center-right/right wing than the United States. An interesting conundrum has developed, with notable exception of the minority far right parties, where free market analysis has prevailed except for some notable welfare state exceptions. Center Right governments/politicians with pro-buisness agendas dominate the European Commission and the European Parliament (http://www.euractiv.com/en/priorities/big-business-demands-accountability-on-eu-2020 ), we're the only exception, and even our exception is weak....(i.e. a defeated conservative consistency with the largest minorities in Congress in decades is able to stonewall massive social spending agendas)
What you're worried about is that while Europe has developed a pro-buisness and free trade attitude, why are they still welfare states? When Churchill was defeated while he was at the Potsdam conference, the Labor party instituted their National Health Service within 30 days of the election, why didn't Churchill undo it when he returned to power a few years later? Why didn't Thatcher remove it in the 80's? Why hasn't Angela Merkel and the Free Democrats or Nicholas Sarkozy done the same? I think we assume Europe is simply socialist and thus any future bridge between Europe and the US is an indicator of, "A future welfare state world" but this obscures the fact of the favorable business climate that has been/is over there
Such fears about how Europe conducts business vs how we will are unwarranted do to my proposition that the special interests of states, especially the more powerful, will be protected in any future supranational system simply because the risk of our backing out threatens the system as a whole. This is why the member states of the EU dictate how elections for the EU parliament are conducted (i.e. some are Single Member District like us, others are Proportional Rep, but the EU can't tell the members HOW they will do their voting), and also why there will always be certain provisions of the EU that can only be enacted through a unanimous consensus of the EU Heads of Government so that the powerful (England, France, Germany) won't be violated by the many and weak (E.Europe).
When I read the current news through the prism of history, economics, political science etc; I see most major nations becoming more centrally planned. What kind of nation do you see America transforming into? My answer would be one with a more powerful central government. As it stands now, America and most other nations do not have a complete capitalist system. They have a mixed economy:"An economy that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, mixing some individual ownership and regulation [Auto, banking industry in America]. Some capitalist countries, France, for example, employ what is often called state capitalism. In this form of a mixed economy, the state becomes a major shareholder in private enterprises[see above]. An alternative, employed in Great Britain (more in the past than now), is for the state to own some industries while leaving others in private hands."
ReplyDeleteToday, this balance between government and the private sector is going more towards the government side, read the news. This mixed system will eventually led to a near complete command economy. Read _The Constitution of Liberty_, by Hayek to see how such a mixed economy eventually leds to a command system. I am saying this is true of America. So that leads me to question what type of IO one will be that America participates in.
"What you're worried about is that while Europe has developed a pro-buisness and free trade attitude, why are they still welfare states?"
Once people get hooked on the government teat, they can't be weaned off of it. A welfare state eventually leads to a diminished private sector or collapse of it and along with it individual freedom, and it is replaced by a powerful central government.
The economic policies of the major economies of the world are leading to a smaller private sector and possibly the end of it later down the road: nation's massive amounts of debt, governments growth of their involvement in the free market is crowding out the private sector, many of the welfare programs are bankrupting the private sector and they are bankrupting the nations as a whole. A major economic correction/depression needs to happen, and hopefully this will force the governments' role in the private sector to be diminished, not increased as they usually do.
On your point about European nations being welfare states with a favorable business climate. Keeping in mind the two points above, what you described can lead to fascism: "Doctrine; collection of concepts; and dictatorship by government of a country, often involving hostile nationalistic attitudes, racism, and private economic ownership under rigid government control. A fascist regime is often militarily belligerent."
When the private sector is diminished or collapsed due to the government's involvement in it--which what is happening in America is leading to this, it will eventually led to a command economy with a more powerful central government. In America, Big business's and the state's interest are becoming one. Most of the people in government that are responsible for regulating an industry were once in a private business in that industry. Whose interest do they look out after? Their own and their business because of human nature. This merges big business's and government's interest into one. See General Electric, the auto, and the banking industry.
The social trends that are prevalent throughout the societies of the world are leading to an attitude that leads to a larger government.
I am questioning if the Nations you described are becoming more of a Capitalist or more of a command system. It seems more like a command system to me. Not necessarily a Soviet-style system, but a milder form of this system. The nations nor the people of those nations are not necessarily choosing to create such a command system. The end result of these policies and actions of these governments are leading to such a system. In a sense, forcing it upon themselves. ,
ReplyDelete" Human societies come under the influence of great tides of thought and appetite that run unseen deeply below the surface of society. After a while these powerful streams of opinion and desire move the whole social mass along with them without the individuals in the mass being aware of the direction in which they are going. Up to a certain point it is possible to resist these controlling tides and to reverse them, but a time comes when they are so strong that society loses its power of decision over the direction in which it is going." John Flynn.
I question where the tides that are present in the governments and societies of the world are taking us?
From the books I have read: _Economics in one lesson_ Hazlitt; _Basic Economics_ Sowell; TCOL Hayek; _Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler_ Gellately; _Modern Times_ Johnson; all of Rand's books and articles; _The closing of The American Mind_ Bloom; _The True Believer_ Hoffer; _Free to Choose_ Milton; _Black Rednecks and White Liberals_ Sowell, _Some of _Democracy in America_ Tocqueville; _The Road Ahead: America's creeping revolution_ Flynn. I don't see a trend of freedom or capitalism emerging in the major governments of the world. These books might not provide the complete picture and I might just be reading stuff into it. The current trend of more government will not continue: Obama and the democracts will be put out of power; but not before they make some changes that can not be undone; and over the course of the past 150 years or so America has been heading towards a command system. Many of the trends in governments and socities do not indicate that these nations are developing into free nations.