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?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
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)