Friday, January 27, 2012
Argentina v UK
For the past 30 years, Argentina and the UK have been fighting over the Falkland islands. Things escalated this past week when Prime Minister David Cameron referred to the Argentinians as "colonialists." The legislators and citizens of Argentina are up in arms about the comment, claiming that the UK is breaking a UN resolution by developing the islands unilaterally when there is dispute over the area. The UK says they will let the Falklands be British as long as they wish, but Argentina says they want to work towards independence. The UK is drilling in the oil-rich sea beds of the Falklands. Argentina issued a statement instructing them not to exploit the resources of the area until ownership has been settled. We will still have to see if the UK will follow these instructions. I doubt they will, considering their powerful status in the world. Both sides want to work out the issues diplomatically, but they have been working to that end for nearly 30 years. What do you think will happen with the Falklands? What is the best way to resolve the situation?
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Guatemalan Drug Fight
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16570292
In Guatemala, the government has decided to crack down on drug crimes, particularly in the province of Alta Verapaz. Drug trafficking is a major problem in the area. The Zetas cartel was essentially running the province after infiltrating and corrupting the police force, so the president has ordered the military to take over. Following in the footsteps of Mexico's Felipe Calderon, the new Guatemalan president has issued a strict ban on the drug trade. Cocaine is frequently shipped from Guatemala through Mexico to the United States. This practice is detrimental to the country because the illicit drug trade lowers the legitimacy of Guatemala's crime fighting practices, especially since cartels have taken over police jobs. The new president plans to use military measures within the country to take back the province, but this allows military personnel to conduct searches without a warrant, a policy Honduras also implemented on its war on drugs. The Guatemalan president had been in office for one day when he issued this order. Do you think he's making the right decision? The drug trade is a major problem for the country, but is taking away rights that people once had an acceptable way to govern? What type of circumstances warrant suspension of people's rights? Do any? How do you think Guatemalan officials should handle the problem?
In Guatemala, the government has decided to crack down on drug crimes, particularly in the province of Alta Verapaz. Drug trafficking is a major problem in the area. The Zetas cartel was essentially running the province after infiltrating and corrupting the police force, so the president has ordered the military to take over. Following in the footsteps of Mexico's Felipe Calderon, the new Guatemalan president has issued a strict ban on the drug trade. Cocaine is frequently shipped from Guatemala through Mexico to the United States. This practice is detrimental to the country because the illicit drug trade lowers the legitimacy of Guatemala's crime fighting practices, especially since cartels have taken over police jobs. The new president plans to use military measures within the country to take back the province, but this allows military personnel to conduct searches without a warrant, a policy Honduras also implemented on its war on drugs. The Guatemalan president had been in office for one day when he issued this order. Do you think he's making the right decision? The drug trade is a major problem for the country, but is taking away rights that people once had an acceptable way to govern? What type of circumstances warrant suspension of people's rights? Do any? How do you think Guatemalan officials should handle the problem?
Friday, November 4, 2011
G20 Summit
As I'm sure most of you know, the G20 summit began recently. Its main focus will be on the European economy. Some of the issues at hand are what to do with Greece and Italy and how to come up with a plan to stabilize the European economy. The EU is considering trying to get Greece to leave the eurozone, especially since China refuses to lend money to the EU until Greece's economic situation is repaired. With Greece's economic problems, it is devaluing the euro for all of the countries that use it, tearing down the economies of other states, like Italy.
While some would argue that China is being selfish by not lending money to European banks, it is definitely in its best interest. Although Greece needs money to improve and China refuses to give money until it does, there's no point in pouring money into a broken system. It would be much easier for banks to get loans from richer countries if the European countries had a plan as far as how to solve the economic crisis, which is exactly why the G20 summit is focusing on this problem.
In hammering out a solution, one suggestion is to increase the lending power of the International Monetary Fund. The IMF would become a more powerful force in combatting the fall of the eurozone. Additionally, special precautions would be taken to avoid what happened in Greece from happening in Italy.
The summit will also discuss the possibility of the Greek prime minister losing the confidence vote, which could further delay economic recovery due to instability in the government and a delay in passing a bailout package in parliament.
What do you think? Do their solutions seem viable? How important do you think summits like this are to international politics? And could this threaten the sovereignty of states? Do you think the Greek prime minister should be replaced?
While some would argue that China is being selfish by not lending money to European banks, it is definitely in its best interest. Although Greece needs money to improve and China refuses to give money until it does, there's no point in pouring money into a broken system. It would be much easier for banks to get loans from richer countries if the European countries had a plan as far as how to solve the economic crisis, which is exactly why the G20 summit is focusing on this problem.
In hammering out a solution, one suggestion is to increase the lending power of the International Monetary Fund. The IMF would become a more powerful force in combatting the fall of the eurozone. Additionally, special precautions would be taken to avoid what happened in Greece from happening in Italy.
The summit will also discuss the possibility of the Greek prime minister losing the confidence vote, which could further delay economic recovery due to instability in the government and a delay in passing a bailout package in parliament.
What do you think? Do their solutions seem viable? How important do you think summits like this are to international politics? And could this threaten the sovereignty of states? Do you think the Greek prime minister should be replaced?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Economic Instability
So I was reading this article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/merkel-wins-german-lawmakers-backing-for-plan-to-boost-bailout-fund/2011/10/26/gIQA1R5KJM_story_1.html, and it discusses the economic problems Europe is currently facing, not only with Greece but throughout the continent. The European Union is convening to discuss a second bailout for Greece and to determine how to stabilize the euro for the future. They plan to rely less on short-term loans and ask banks to raise more capital to prevent the decline of the euro due to losses on bonds.
Europe is facing some fairly serious economic problems right now, and although the media tends to focus on Greece, many other countries are going down a similar path. How do you think the EU should handle Greece's economic problems. If Greece's economy completely shuts down, that could devalue the euro and cause problems throughout Europe. On the other hand, they obviously can't just hand over billions of dollars and hope everything goes according to plan.
Another problem is that the countries within the European Union can't seem to agree on what to do, either. Each has its own idea of how much money to give Greece, how to structure the bailout, and what the future of the bank plans will look like. With tensions running high, it is important to resolve the issue quickly, but the EU is having trouble hammering out a plan.
Furthermore, the problems that Europe is facing have caused big moneylenders to pull out of the European economy, further destabilizing it. The United States has stopped investing in European banks, particularly since several main banks crashed. This is due in part to the short-term loans that the banks operate on, which is another issue the EU plans to discuss when they convene. What do you think are the best solutions to these problems? And why do you think that they've had to wait so long to come together to discuss them?
Europe is facing some fairly serious economic problems right now, and although the media tends to focus on Greece, many other countries are going down a similar path. How do you think the EU should handle Greece's economic problems. If Greece's economy completely shuts down, that could devalue the euro and cause problems throughout Europe. On the other hand, they obviously can't just hand over billions of dollars and hope everything goes according to plan.
Another problem is that the countries within the European Union can't seem to agree on what to do, either. Each has its own idea of how much money to give Greece, how to structure the bailout, and what the future of the bank plans will look like. With tensions running high, it is important to resolve the issue quickly, but the EU is having trouble hammering out a plan.
Furthermore, the problems that Europe is facing have caused big moneylenders to pull out of the European economy, further destabilizing it. The United States has stopped investing in European banks, particularly since several main banks crashed. This is due in part to the short-term loans that the banks operate on, which is another issue the EU plans to discuss when they convene. What do you think are the best solutions to these problems? And why do you think that they've had to wait so long to come together to discuss them?
Monday, October 10, 2011
A Modern Concept of Statehood
Just something to ponder...
How has the modern world changed our concept of what is a state. For many years the standard was UN recognition. Now that may be changing. As power shifts towards non-governmental organizations based around the world, like Google, is the authority of intergovernmental organizations (like the UN) becoming moot? Although I wouldn't go as far as that, the world certainly is changing, with instant change the norm. South Sudan (which separated from Sudan in July) wasn't on Google Maps until September - was Google influencing their statehood in the eyes of the world. Although they had established a government, signed border treaties with Sudan, and received UN recognition, the government of South Sudan was up in arms about the Google Maps issue (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15023217), petitioning the corporation via the internet. Shortly after, Google did add the new nation to its world map. Whether that was a result of the petition is unclear.
However, this illustrates perfectly how technology can influence the way people worldwide view government. It's becoming less about Parliament, Congress, etc. and shifting focus towards actors in the international system that aren't even officially involved in government. This may be because it is much easier for people to engage directly with these organizations than for them to interact with the government, particularly in non-democratic states. The UN isn't something we deal with in our daily lives. Without media, we wouldn't have even known that South Sudan had broken away from Sudan. Maybe we learn about it from a newspaper, an internet article, or even a facebook post - but as only small pieces of a much larger international puzzle we don't receive direct communication on every decision made by international organizations like the UN since they typically don't even affect our day-to-day lifestyle.
Although South Sudan becoming an independent nation does not directly affect the all-important ME, it certainly does impact the people of South Sudan. The journalist who started the petition on change.org to add South Sudan to internet mapping services was able to gain over 1,500 supporters in only a short matter of time. This is a new sort of interaction with government that hasn't happened that much in the past. To petition corporations via the internet is certainly an interesting development in how individuals can hope to achieve change and it's something to think about. In a way, South Sudan's sovereignty and statehood were challenged by its absence from online maps. The "if it's not on the internet, it isn't true" mentality that pervades our culture has had an influence worldwide. By adding South Sudan to Google Maps, it reaffirmed the fact that it is its own independent nation rather than just part of Sudan. I'm interested in seeing if this trend continues in the future as more states are recognized. With they see a lack of an immediate response to their recognition as a threat to their sovereignty as well?
How has the modern world changed our concept of what is a state. For many years the standard was UN recognition. Now that may be changing. As power shifts towards non-governmental organizations based around the world, like Google, is the authority of intergovernmental organizations (like the UN) becoming moot? Although I wouldn't go as far as that, the world certainly is changing, with instant change the norm. South Sudan (which separated from Sudan in July) wasn't on Google Maps until September - was Google influencing their statehood in the eyes of the world. Although they had established a government, signed border treaties with Sudan, and received UN recognition, the government of South Sudan was up in arms about the Google Maps issue (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15023217), petitioning the corporation via the internet. Shortly after, Google did add the new nation to its world map. Whether that was a result of the petition is unclear.
However, this illustrates perfectly how technology can influence the way people worldwide view government. It's becoming less about Parliament, Congress, etc. and shifting focus towards actors in the international system that aren't even officially involved in government. This may be because it is much easier for people to engage directly with these organizations than for them to interact with the government, particularly in non-democratic states. The UN isn't something we deal with in our daily lives. Without media, we wouldn't have even known that South Sudan had broken away from Sudan. Maybe we learn about it from a newspaper, an internet article, or even a facebook post - but as only small pieces of a much larger international puzzle we don't receive direct communication on every decision made by international organizations like the UN since they typically don't even affect our day-to-day lifestyle.
Although South Sudan becoming an independent nation does not directly affect the all-important ME, it certainly does impact the people of South Sudan. The journalist who started the petition on change.org to add South Sudan to internet mapping services was able to gain over 1,500 supporters in only a short matter of time. This is a new sort of interaction with government that hasn't happened that much in the past. To petition corporations via the internet is certainly an interesting development in how individuals can hope to achieve change and it's something to think about. In a way, South Sudan's sovereignty and statehood were challenged by its absence from online maps. The "if it's not on the internet, it isn't true" mentality that pervades our culture has had an influence worldwide. By adding South Sudan to Google Maps, it reaffirmed the fact that it is its own independent nation rather than just part of Sudan. I'm interested in seeing if this trend continues in the future as more states are recognized. With they see a lack of an immediate response to their recognition as a threat to their sovereignty as well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)