OUA PLT 120 Assessment task 1
by Feodor Weissmann
student ID 40899152
To state that there is a conflict between the West and the rest is to extremely simplify the picture of current state of international relations. World Politics in our context are group and state interactions. Conflict, again, in our contexts is defined as a state of opposition, disagreement or incompatibility between two or more groups of people which is sometimes characterized by physical violence. Military conflicts between states can and know to lead to a military confrontation or a full scale war. Based on those definitions, mr. Samuel Huntington assumption is that the differences will dictate the tone and not the similarities. This is why the arguments around his statement should be at least on who levels. On the ground level the argument is to what extent will incompatibility dominate the international agenda. Even if we accept that the the extent is vast, this is of course very conservative, there are few arguable angles to the claim itself. First, is there an unified opposition from the rest to the west? What are the factors that unify or divide those groups? If and how modern media impacts global order ? I will present some of the factors shaping international politics now-days and asses them in relevance to Samuel quotation.
What is dominating international politics?
As far as we can remember international politics dominated by conflict between the states, but historical view backward clearly shows development. Aside constant conflicts and almost 200 states statistically should really see eye to eye, there are relatively new institutions showing signs of unification or globalization. Never before in human kind history an institution such as UN was established. With all it`s problems still it is able to coordinate some kind of global cooperation. new multi national entities are forged with European and African Unions each on their track following an example of United states to forge new type of nation or a collective cultural identity. EU unification already in the center of the worlds politics reaching to non European states of Mediterranean, sparking similar ideas in meddle and far east.(0)
Other aspect, opposite to the first one is disintegration of post colonial or post WW II states in the developing world. Separatism is common almost everywhere on the globe but in developing countries local sentiments sometimes posses more military power then the central government. Due to arbitrary division of colonial real estate borders were drown without taking into consideration nature of the inhabitants. Those conflicts are mostly to be armed and violent and since violence looks better on HD television then trade negotiations, separatism could dominate state of minds and therefore global politics. We are witnessing separatism centers on all stages on every continent but Australia. Support or objection for those movements are also spread crossing the lines usual affiliations.
There is no "the rest", rest have agendas that varies to much to present any kind of united front.
BRIC countries, label given to Brazil, Russia, India and Chine to mark them as challengers of current world order. With almost 40% of world population concentrated within those 4 pieces of real estate we can see major differences in political systems and social economics. Two democracies and two authoritarian states, two ex colonies and two former empires. In Asia closely located competitors, China, Russia and India share a rich history of conflicts and wars even within last 60 years. They have territorial and political claims over each other. on the other hand Brazil positioning itself as a democratic leader of central and south America. "The rest" states have very different agendas sometimes competing with each over on conflicting points such as currency values, arms sales and migration. On the other side, west faces same issues, US and EU competing for markets and conflicting over dollar or euro values. We are witnesses to the rise of regionalism (1) , with everyone`s priorities shifting from military confrontation to economical competition. Sometimes however interest align and temporary alliances are forged for one or more motions. Group of four, India, Japan, Brazil and Germany all trying to get permanent seat in UN security counsel, France, Germany, Russia and Chine all opposed military actions against Saddam`s regime, triggering US and UK to invade without UN resolution.
Cultural globalization.
Despite it`s many differences world has become much more integrated. Global culture propagandised by Hollywood, Internet and McDonald's brings populations closer together. There is much more in common about American and Chinese then it was 20, 50 or 100 years ago and it is impossible to overlook the impact of those common values and experiences on the nature of conflicts and the ability to sweep the masses to them. It is custom to think that it is population of western nations feels more cosmopolitan then the developing world but studies showed that Chinese population have better and closer sentiments for Americans then French. With fall of Communism, Capitalism got recognised as only vital economic structure. Growth of Internet and Social web sites (Web 2.0) also contributing to cosmopolitan senses since interaction between individuals never been easier.(2)
Modern mass media impact on conflicts.
This week coalition forces reported killing about 80 Taliban fighters near Musa Qala, Afghanistan. Out if earth population, what percentage will find Musa Qala on a map or name Afghanistan's neighbours from west and north? The story however captured prime time news-brakes all over the world with millions of people watching the oldest reality show on the planet - news. What happened in Musa Qala, depends on point of view, terrorist fighting coalition of the free or maybe group of desperate men standing for their own religious and political freedom against overwhelming presence of foreign invaders backed by most powerful military machines on earth. It doesn't matter what really happened, the fact is for a split of second billions of people instantly knew that there is a conflict and could relate to it this way or the other. Let`s say for example that next day demonstrations and unrests erupted in Congo and Yemen, why, because they knew about the conflict. It takes seconds now-days to transfer information and sometimes it`s impact could be compared to sparks on a dry wheat field. There are hundreds of news channels over different medias what compete mainly on depth and graphical horror and people are easily identify themselves with one of the sides. Given example related to a full scale military offencive but it is as valid for for instance trade sanctions or a full scale blockade as on imposed by Russia on Georgia no so long ago. Those qualities of media are not overlooked by political players. We have competing CNN, FOX, BBC, France 24, Al jazeera, Russia Today. Everyone wants his message to be heard loud and clear. There is no media channel presenting unified position of "the West" or "the rest".
Economy impact on IR
Developed and developing world economies are very tightly coupled up. Five of ten biggest companies in the world (in terms of capitalization) (3) are located in China. China (including HK SAR) also just bypassed Germany as worlds biggest exporter (4). US remains biggest importer but China is listed number 3, mainly due to the import of resources. Developing world holds most of US debts but dependant on western market. With recent years international mergers multi national corporations consolidated and provide supporting net for globalized world. Up to few years ago most of the MNCs originated and managed from the western countries but picture is changing now with Asian players overtaking European and American assets. Chinese, Russian, Arab capital is pored to the west, buying car and aircraft manufacturers, ports, know how, computer firms and even stock exchanges. It is increasingly hard to understand origin and ownership structure of a MNC, blurring borders of the West. Any mention of economy and West / Developing world relations should include relation to debts and agricultural market access. Both issues being addressed numerous times by different negotiations. Agricultural exports are traditionally opposed by developed nations due to internal politics issues. Solution came from China, with it`s hunger for resources. As for debts there are annual pledged for debts cancellation and annual reports about none or almost non real actions.
Energy resources.
Prices of oil and natural gas multiplied over last few years. Grocery such as wheat and beef are also pressured. Competition for energy for both machines and people is high due to increasing demand from fast growing developing economies.(5) Suppliers and customers trying to form different kinds of mixed alliances to benefit or combat this situation. Those alliances are based on economic principals rather upon neighboring or political structures.
Historical impact on modern IR.
There are almost 200 states represented in UN in 2007, most of them formerly oppressed in this way or the other by "the west". Almost every one of the states is a former colony of the western powers. Opium wars, slave trading, colonization, military interventions and coups left former colonies deeply suspicious of western incentive. Poplar movements of those states will support any type of offencive rhetoric or actions towards formal oppressors as a retaliation for the past. Those sentiments are deep rooted inside. On Chinese example one can definitely see how Opium wars and unequal treaties burned in collective memory and in China`s development and trade policies. On the other hand China and South Korea, it`s former protectorate, ripped apart during cold war sharing anti Japanese sentiment cooperate against Japan`s ambitions for security counsel seat(6).
Forceful injection of liberal values by Western states.
There is no doubt that one of the main outcomes of WW II was clearly understood need for preventing next major war. One of the instruments was forced democratization of loosing states, Japan and Germany. The idea behind that was to establish multi layered system of checks and balances that
Religious aspects.
Religious motives are reintroduced into global politics, starting with use of Islam by Islamic militants and George W. Bush clearly identifying himself as a hard core Cristian. Muslim demonstrations after publishing caricature of Muhammad, war in Iraq and stand off with Iran also contributed to an idea of clash of western Cristian civilisation with the Islam and east. But in dept analysis will state otherwise. Front line and imitate target of islamists is not West but it`s presence in the east and moderate regimes seen by islamist as cooperators. Those regimes are mostly Islamic.(9)
Finishing the assessment i came to conclusion that world is much more integrated then appears, there are no clear divisions between the states. Internet, massed media and shared cultural experiences contributing to the integration. Stating that west versus rest conflict is going to predominant global politics is trying to look on new world order via the prism of cold war. What makes the state part of the West? Cold war side? Democratic rule? Economical development? We now leave in transitional period borders of west rapidly change. And as for the rest, there never was an organized rest. It seems that central axis of the worlds politics is economical competition and that same competition triggers consolidation and globalization making traditional borders between the West and the rest blurred. There are some infrastructures for such conflict but there are insufficient to capture and dominate word politics. Central conflicts tend to be economical and due to their nature it is very problematic to assemble broad alliances with clear social economics definitions.
