|
The Australia-China Chamber of Commerce and Industry |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last updated: 11 October
Mainstream 1:
Revitalise the State-Centric Approach Mainstream 2:
Strengthen Multilateralism Mainstream 3: Form
Coalitions of the Self-Interested Mainstream 4: Increase
the Influence of NGOs and CSOs Applications of Global
Governance A Change in the World Order of Geopolitics
|
|
|
State-Centric Approach |
Rosemary Foot, “Chinese Strategies in a US-Hegemonic Global
Order: Accommodating and Hedging,, International Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 1
(January 2006), pp. 77-94. Available
for purchase at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2006.00516.x/pdf. The author favours an interpretative approach to Chinese
perspectives on global order: “an approach that suggests nothing is
pre-ordained, that policy choices are being made, and that not everything is
determined by systemic structure.” She
gives an indication of the range of perspectives that are appropriate to
China. Giovanni Mantilla, “Emerging International Human Rights Norms for
Transnational Corporations,” Global
Governance, Vol. 15 (2009), pp. 279-298.
Available for purchase at: http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-international-rights-transnational-corporations/dp/B002QWSUO8. “The end of the Cold War, the consolidation of the global economy, the
rise of information technology and the strengthening of transnational
advocacy networks have [all] contributed to effectively turning our
attention to the potentially perverse impact of transnational corporations,
insurgencies, paramilitaries and non-state actors on human rights.” Although the author does not extend this
view in support of a revitalised state-centric approach to global governance
it is nevertheless likely that improvements in the human rights profile will
occur for states that succeed in limiting the undesirable impacts that are
directly traceable to the non-state sector. Ziya-Öniş and Ali Burak Güven, “The Global Economic Crisis and the Future of
Neoliberal Globalisation: Rupture Versus Continuity,” GLODEM Working Paper
Series, 10/2010, Centre for Globalisation and Democratic Governance, Koç University, Istanbul.
Available at: http://glodem.ku.edu.tr/10_001.pdf. The authors
suggest that neoliberal globalisation looks set to survive the global
economic crisis, but in a more heterodox and multipolar
fashion. It is likely that “tighter
coordination between old and emerging power will be needed to inspire lasting
solutions to pressing global problems.” Yan Xuetong, “From a Unipolar
to a Bipolar Superpower System: The Future of Global Power Dynamic,” Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, 30 December 2011. Available at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/12/30/from-unipolar-to-bipolar-superpower-system-future-of-global-power-dynamic/a6vl. The author
notes that since the end of the Cold War the US has been losing its status as
the strongest superpower, while China has been expanding its role to occupy
the second pole in a bipolar system.
International organisations are also losing their ability to steer
world affairs and must adapt to the global power dynamic shift to a bipolar
superpower system by broadening their leadership positions and promoting
international cooperation. Roger
C Altman, “The Fall and Rise of the West: Why America and Europe Will Emerge
Stronger from the Financial Crisis,” Foreign
Affairs, Vol.92, No. 1 (January/February 2013). Available for purchase at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138463/roger-c-altman/the-fall-and-rise-of-the-west. Altman
cites experiences from previous financial crises to indicate that in many
cases a substantial economic and financial restructuring occurred after the
crisis that brought new vigour, and he expects this to happen first to the US
and then to Europe several years later. |
|
|
Strengthen Multilateralism |
Gary Marks, “European Integration from the 1980s:
State-Centric v. Multi-Level
Governance,” Journal of Common Market
Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3 (September 1966).
Available at: http://www.unc.edu/~gwmarks/assets/doc/marks.hooghe.blank-european%20integration%20from%20the%201980s.%20state-centric%20v.%20multi-level%20governance.pdf. The author
compares the state-centric approach to the multi-level approach using the
experiences for the European Union, from the 1980s to the latter part of the
1990s. Marks
concludes that multi-level governance is unlikely to become a stable
equilibrium since there is no widely legitimised constitutional framework and
little consensus in the goals of European integration. Simon Chesterman, “Globalisation Rules:
Accountability, Power and the Prospects for Global Administrative Law,” Global Governance, Vol. 14 (2008),
pp.39-52. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=975167. The author
expresses the view that a body of rules, based upon administrative law, is
emerging that may both constrain and improve the decisions of the “new global
bureaucrats”. Nayan Chanda, “Runaway Globalisation Without Governance,” Global Governance, Vol. 14 (2008), pp.
119-125. Available at: http://www.fairplanet.ca/media/globalization.pdf. Chandra takes
the historical view, with globalisation being “with us since the dawn of
history, but the notion of trying to govern the interconnections that it has
produced is a more recent phenomenon”.
Governance has thus developed slowly, lagging far behind the trade,
travel and interaction wrought by globalisation. Greater multilaterism through a continued
pooling of sovereignty is advocated. Mark Beeson and Stephen Bell, “The G20 and International Economic
Governance: Hegemony, Collectivism or Both,” Global Governance, Vol. 15, Issue 1 (January-March 2009). Available by subscription at http://journals.rienner.com/doi/abs/10.5555/ggov.2009.15.1.67. The key
question examined in the article is whether institutions like the G-20 are
likely to provide genuine mechanisms for co-operation and inclusion or simply
become instruments of “hegemonic incorporation.” The argument here is that despite the
continuing “structural” dominance of the international system by the United
States and the Group of 7 (G7) nations, the G-20 provides some scope for
other nations to influence outcomes. Gelson Fonseca Jr, “Notes on the Evolution of Brazilian Multilateral
Diplomacy,” Global Governance, Vol, 17, No. 3, (July-September 2011). Available for purchase at: http://www.amazon.com/Notes-evolution-Brazilian-multilateral-diplomacy/dp/B0076VD3R8. The author
examines the continuities and changes in Brazil’s multilateral attitudes to
determine the nature of the influence displayed by Brazil in multilateral
forums. Creon Butler, “The G20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced
Growth: Glass Half Empty or Half Full”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 28, No. 3 (2012), pp. 469-492. Available for purchase at: http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/3/469.full.pdf+html. The author
concluded that the
framework launched by the G-20 leaders in 2009 to strengthen coordination of
national economic policies as the world emerged from the 2008–9 financial
crisis, made significant advances in the institutional procedures for policy
coordination, including information sharing, analytical tasking, and the
development of structured, but more work is needed to deliver the full
intentions of the framework. Neil
MacFarquhar, “UN Treaty Aims to Limit Arms Exports for Rights Abusers”, The New York Times, 2 April 2013. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/arms-trade-treaty-approved-at-un.html?pagewanted=all. The United Nations General
Assembly voted overwhelmingly “to approve a landmark treaty that tries to
regulate the enormous global trade in conventional weapons, for the first
time linking sales to the human-rights records of the buyers. […] It was
regarded as a victory by rights groups that called it at least a first step
toward limiting commerce in illegal weapons that kill thousands of people Andrew F Cooper and Bessma
Momani, “Re-balancing the G20 from Efficiency to
Legitimacy: The 3G Coalition and the Practice of Global Govenance,”
Global Governance, Vol. 20, No. 2
(April June 2014), pp. 213-232.
Available for purchase at: http://journals.rienner.com/doi/pdf/10.5555/1075-2846-20.2.213. An earlier version of the paper is
available at: http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~bmomani/Documents/GG-3GandUNupdated.pdf. “This article
contributes to the literature on global governance, legitimacy, and small
states through a detailed analysis of the Global Governance Group (3G). It examines in particular the operational
impact and wider conceptual implications of the 3G's collective diplomatic
efforts on the Group of 20.” Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt, “Why Parties Politicise International
Institutions: On Globalised Backlash and Authority Contestation,” Review of International Political Economy,
Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 1275-1312. Available for purchase at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09692290.2013.839463#.VQTyzo7QoW8. It has been generally accepted that international
institutions are becoming increasingly politicised and the reason was thought
to be mainly the actions of globalisation winners and losers who, in
different ways, react to threats or opportunities associated with the
institutions. The author’s research
indicates that “yielding
sovereignty to international institutions has led political parties to
increasingly contest international governance in the arena of electoral
politics.” |
|
|
Coalitions of the Self-Interested |
Akira Iriye, “Beyond
Imperialism: The New Internationalism,” Daedalus, Vol. 134, No. 2
(Spring 2005), pp. 108-116. Available
at: http://www.hnn.us/articles/13625.html?page=18. The author’s conclusion that the emergence of a
new empire in the twenty-first century that is able to support the “emergent
transnational institutions of global civil society” is unlikely, and that
other ways of securing international order are possible, will probably not
surprise most readers. However, the
way in which this result is obtained by noting what empires and imperialism
have meant in the past may be of interest to many readers. Seyla Benhabib,
“The Legitimacy of Human Rights,” Daedalus, Vol. 137, No. 3 (Summer 2008), p. 94-104. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/polisci/sbenhabib/papers/The%20Legitimacy%20of%20Human%20Rights.pdf. The author notes that basic human rights,
although they are based on the moral principle of communicative freedom of
the person are also legal rights, i.e., rights that require embodiment and
instantiation in a specific legal framework.”
However, this close connection between human rights and legal rights
is being tested with the obligation to protect since tension between
sovereign legal systems and spreading legal cosmopolitanism pushes the issue
into “uncharted waters in the international arena,” Alex
J. Bellamy, “Conflict Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect,” Global Governance, Vol. 14 (2008), pp.
135-156. Available for purchase at: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/glogo14&div=18&id=&page. A central
point in this evaluation of the responsibility to prevent is that it is more
likely to become a reality by “cultivating the political will of those
like-minded states that have already declared their commitment to the
Responsibility to Protect,” Chester A
Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, “Collective Conflict Management: a New Formula for
Global Peace and Security Cooperation?” International
Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 1 (January 2011) pp. 39-58. Available at: http://www.g-l-f.org/site/global_leadership_foundation/assets/pdf/CROCKER_et_al_-_Collective_Conflict_Management.pdf. The authors consider
current security challenges and identify obstacles to effective global and
regional responses and cooperation in an era when security has become
increasingly divisible. They argue that
a new pattern of improvised, ad hoc and often case-specific security
mechanisms has developed, which they refer to as collective conflict
management (CCM). Marco
Antonio Vieira, and Christopher Alden, “India, Brazil and South Africa
(IBSA): South-South Cooperation and the Paradox of Regional Leadership,” Global Governance, Vol. 17, No. 4
(2011), pp. 507-528. Available at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/India,+Brazil,+and+South+Africa+(IBSA)%3A+South+-+South+cooperation+and...-a0277602607.
In this article, the authors argued that the key to building a
sustainable partnership between India, Brazil, and South Africa is for these
countries to acknowledge the importance of consolidating their leadership
role in South Asia, South America, and Southern Africa, respectively. The paradox, however, is that, while
Western powers – especially the United States – have welcomed the regional
leadership role of IBSA's members, most of their
neighbours have not yet welcomed these leadership intentions in their
respective regions. Kevin Zeese, “Stop the Fast
Track to a Future of Global Corporate Rule,” Eurasia Review, 11 March 2015.
Available at: http://www.eurasiareview.com/11032015-stop-the-fast-track-to-a-future-of-global-corporate-rule-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29. The author states that “several major international
agreements are under negotiation which would greatly empower multinational
corporations and the World Economic Forum is promoting a new model of global
governance that creates a hybrid government-corporate structure.” |
|
|
Influence of NGOs and CSOs |
Magadelena Bexell, Jonas Talberg and
Anders Uhlin, “Democracy in Global Governance: The
Promises and Pitfalls of Transnational Actors,” Global Governance, Vol. 16 (2010), pp. 81-101. Available at: http://www.statsvet.su.se/publikationer/tallberg/Bexell_et_al_Global_Governance_final.pdf. The authors
find considerable “support for an optimistic verdict on the democratising
potential of transnational actor involvement, but also identify hurdles in
democratic theory and the practice of global governance that motivate a more
cautious outlook”. Yale H
Ferguson, “NGO’s Role in Constructing Global
Governance,” Global Governance,
Vol. 18 (2012), pp. 383-386. Available
for purchase at: http://www.amazon.com/constructing-governance-Non-Governmental-Organizations-Politics/dp/B00AUCKRVK. This is a review essay of a book by Peter Willetts, Non-Governmental Organisations in World
Politics: The Construction of Global Governance (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2011). Ferguson states that
“Willetts has been researching and writing about
nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) for over thirty years, beginning long
before they became "visible" to most analysts of what was then
called "international relations," and his current book is a
definitive study in every sense.” The
main contributions of his definitive study are then summarised and briefly
analysed by Ferguson. Catherine Shanahan Renshaw, “National Human
Rights Institutions and Civil Society Organisations: New Dynamics of
Engagement at Domestic, Regional and International Levels,” Global Governance, Vol. 18 (2012), pp.
299-316. Available at: http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-301181776/national-human-rights-institutions-and-civil-society
or by subscription at http://journals.rienner.com/doi/abs/10.5555/1075-2846-18.3.299. This article examines the dynamics of engagement
between national human rights institutions (NHRIs)
and civil society organizations (CSOs) in the Asia
Pacific region. It explores the role
of CSOs in the establishment of NHRIs
and argues that this history is essential to understanding the experience of NHRIs within different states. Grahame Thompson, “Should We Worry About Global Quasi-Constitutionalisation?” Open Economy, 23 January 2013.
Available at: http://www.open.ac.uk/ccig/dialogues/blogs/should-we-be-worried-about-global-quasi-constitutionalization. The author
suggests that the “rule of law” is changing to the “rule of laws” as a result
of a movement toward a comprehensive system of democratically constituted
judicial review. Stefano Pagliari and Kevin L Young, “Leveraged Interests:
Financial Industry Power and the Role of Private Sector Coalitions,” Review of International Political
Economy,” Vol. 21, No. 3 (2014), pp. 575-610. Available for purchase at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09692290.2013.819811#.VQT4bI7QoW. Pre-publication draft is available at: http://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/Leveraged-Interests-November-2011.pdf. The authors’ research indicates that global financial
regulatory politics is more pluralistic than previously believed so that
private sector interests can leverage the influence of financial industry
groups, “ which are often able to tie in their
interests with those of other private sector groups affected indirectly by
the regulation in question. Lisa
Kastner, “’Much Ado about Nothing?’ Transnational
Civil Society, Consumer Protection and Financial Regulatory Reform,” Review of International Political Economy,
Vol. 21, No. 6, (2014), pp. 1313-1345.
Available for purchase subscription at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09692290.2013.870084?journalCode=rrip20#.VQTuPY7QoW8. “The author suggests that a
trans-nationally connected civil society network successfully mobilised to
place consumer protection on reform agendas in tandem with public
entrepreneurs and on the back of a popular backlash against big finance.” |
|
|
Applications of Global Governance |
Khalid Koser, “Introduction: International Migration and Global
Governance,” Global Governance,
Vol. 16, No. 3 (2010), pp. 301-315.
Available for purchase at: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-international-migration-Governance-Governance/dp/B004HHH7OE. This is the
introduction to a series of articles in special issue of Global Governance
(separate articles are not cited here but the entire series of articles may
be purchased). The main thrust of this
attention is to show that there is a growing momentum toward both greater
international cooperation between states on international migration and
greater institutional coherence. Matthew
Paterson, “Legitimation and Accumulation in Climate
Change Governance,” New Political
Economy, Vol. 13, No. 3, PP. 345-368 (15 June 2010). Available for purchase at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563460903288247#.UYGkSrXviSo. Paterson examines recent critiques of climate
change governance that focus on its “marketised” v.
“privatised” character. He agues that to understand the political dynamics
of legitimacy surrounding these forms of governance we need to take into
account the recurrent tension within capitalism between accumulation.” Ann Florini and Benjamin K Sovacool, “Bridging
the Gaps in Global Energy Governance,” Global
Governance, Vol. 17, No. 1 (January-March 2011), pp. 57-74. Available at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bridging+the+gaps+in+global+energy+governance.-a0251460976. The authors bring out key energy-related global issues and
explore some of the connections among them to suggest an agenda for future
research. Pádraig Carmody, Godfrey Hampwaye and Enock Sakala, “Globalisation and the Rise of the State? Chinese
Geogovernance in Zambia,” New Political Economy,
Vol. 17, No. 2 (April 2011), pp. 209-229. Available for purchase at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563467.2011.552107#preview. The authors argue
against the predominant narrative of globalisation (that it has led to a
decline n the power of the nation-state and to an increase in the power of
markets), by examining China’s engagement in Zambia and concluding that it
has created benerit (enhanced power) for both
countries. Matthew Klick, “Configuring Global Order: Institutions, Processes
and Effects,” Global Governance,
Vol. 17, No. 4 (October-December 2011), pp. 557-565. Available for purchase at: http://www.amazon.com/Configuring-global-order-institutions-Governance/dp/B007Z2UXPI. This is a
review essay based on three books (1) Deborah D. Avant, Martha Finnemore, and Susan K. Sell, eds. Who Governs the
Globe? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) :
(2) Iver B. Neumann and Ole Jacob Sending, Governing
the Global Polity: Practice, Mentality, Rationality (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010); and Stewart
Patrick, Weak Links: Fragile States, Global Threats and International
Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Sten Rynning, “Coalitions, Institutions and Big
Tents: The New Strategic Reality of Armed Interventions,” International Affairs, Vol. 89, No. 1
(January 2013), pp. 53-68. Available
at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International%20Affairs/2013/89_1/89_1Rynning.pdf. The author argues
that “strategic leadership grows out of the effort to connect the three
distinct political arenas that have come to dominate armed interventions:
coalitions, institutions and big tent diplomacy” and applies this to an
assessment of NATO's experiences in Afghanistan and Libya, and concludes with
a more general discussion of the steps that can be taken to encourage
strategic leadership. Bernard Hours, “Sweet Sound of Global Philanthropy,” Le Monde Diplomatique, May 3013. Available at: Coalitions,
Institutions and Big Tents: The New Strategic Reality of Armed Interventions.
Available at: http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/14sup. The article raises this question in the first
paragraph: “what exactly do we mean by
solidarity, aid, charity and humanitarian emergency? Is a vast moral formatting process
developing across the world, behind the unending emotional blackmail
concerning our indifference to the misfortunes of others? Since solidarity is presented as a matter
of ethics, any criticism is suspect.
Yet the content of the ‘duty to care’ merits examination.”. In such an
examination, the article makes interesting connections among global
governance, humanitarian ideology and human rights, and in these connections
much of the outcome depends upon who is controlling them. Eli Dourado, “Too Many Stakeholders Spoil the Soup,” Foreign Policy, 15 May 2013. Available at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/15/too_many_stakeholders_spoil_the_soup?page=0,1. The article concentrates on a major problem with
a multi-stakeholder system (or forum) for Internet governance: sovereign
states can express opinions and fight for specific governance outcomes, but
they cannot use their stakeholdings to force solutions. Ngaire Woods, Alexander Betts, Jochen Pranti and Devi Sridhar,
“Transforming Global Governance for the 21st Century, “United Nations
Development Program, Human Development Report Office, Occasional Paper
2013/09. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdro_1309_woods.pdf. This paper examines the transformation of global
governance triggered by the rise of the global South. The authors offer three principles that
might guide thinking about transformation: pluralism, where national,
regional and Global governance systems work in concert; strengthened
multilateral processes and the updating of existing international
organisations: and stronger accountability to wider groups of governments and
stakeholders. Comment by Michael C H Jones on
global governance is available at: http://www.accci.com.au/JonesCommentonGlobalCompanies.pdf
or online translation into Simplified Chinese here. Malcolm
Fraser, “Australia’s Dependence on a Major Power Lies Deep in Our National
Psyche,” The Guardian, 29 April
2014. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/29/australias-dependence-on-a-major-power-lies-deep-in-our-national-psyche. The former prime minister of Australia
states that “in distant days, if Britain went to war, we also were at
war. We have tragically put ourselves
in the same position with the United States.” Christian
Caryl, “Africa’s Singapore Dream,” Foreign Policy, 2 April 2005. Available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/02/africas-singapore-dream-rwanda-kagame-lee-kuan-yew/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AAfPak%20Daily%20Brief&utm_campaign=2014_The_South_Asia_Daily%2004.03.15. Why Rwanda’s president styles himself as the heir
to Lee Kuan Yew.
Richard
Dobbs, James Manyika and Johathan
Woetzel, “The Four Global Forces Breaking All the
Trends,” McKenzie Insights, 30
April 2015. Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/The_four_global_forces_breaking_all_the_trends?cid=other-eml-alt-mgi-mck-oth-1504. “The
world economy’s operating system is being rewritten. In this exclusive excerpt from the new book
No
Ordinary Disruption, its authors explain the trends reshaping the
world and why leaders must adjust to a new reality.” Editorial,
“The Guardian View on Populism in European Politics: Shaken and Stirred,” The Guardian, 17 June 2015. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/16/guardian-view-on-populism-in-european-politics-shaken-and-stirred. “Populism is presumptuous in claiming to speak
for all of the people, but it can’t be wished away. It calls for creative engagement.” No
author cited, “Advancing, Not Retreating: Buttonwood,” The Economist, 8 August 2015.
Available at: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21660549-forecasts-decline-capitalism-are-premature-advancing-not-retreating. “Forecasts of the decline of capitalism are
premature.” Julian Borger and Bastien Inzaurralde, “Russian
Vetoes Are Putting UN Security Council’s Legitimacy at Risk, Says US,” The Guardian, 23 September 2015. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/23/russian-vetoes-putting-un-security-council-legitimacy-at-risk-says-us. “Warning over body’s failure to act on Syria and
Ukraine comes on top of wider criticism of its structure and the permanent
members’ veto rights.” Thomas Carothers and Richard Youngs, “The Complexities of Global Protests,” Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, 8 October 2015. Available at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/10/08/complexities-of-global-protests/iint. It appears that a new era of political flux
is emerging as citizens demand more from their governments and mobilise in
pursuit of their demands.” Comment
by Michael C H Jones at: http://www.accci.com.au/JonesCommentonProtests.pdf. |
|
|
|
Jackson Diehl, “Ukraine’s Wake-Up Call for
NATO,” The Washington Post, 27
April 2014. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-ukraines-wake-up-call-for-nato/2014/04/27/1cb65dbe-ce03-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html. Diehl emphasises NATO’s complacency and lack
of consensus rather than the weakness of US foreign policy. Walter
Russell, “The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist Powers,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014 issue
at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141211/walter-russell-mead/the-return-of-geopolitics.
Mead
attributes the return of the imperial urge to the assault on the global
geopolitical system not specifically by Russia and China, but to a web of
large and small power plays in what he called an “axis of weevils”. David
Brooks, “Saving the System,” The New
York Times, 28 April 2014.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/opinion/when-wolves-attack.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0. Brooks suggests that the main reason why the
“fabric of peace and order is fraying” is the deterioration of the liberal
pluralistic system and this, in turn, is due to the “political fracturing” in
those nations that have depended on that system. Saving the system requires a willingness of
the electorate in those nations to accept the required costs and sacrifices. Slavoj Žižek,
“Who Can Control the Post-Superpower Capitalist World Order?” The Guardian, 6 May 2014. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/06/superpower-capitalist-world-order-ukraine. The author considers that a
“principal contradiction” of the new world order is the impossibility of
creating a global political order that would correspond to the global
capitalist economy. … [T]he global free
circulation of commodities is accompanied by growing separations in the
social sphere. Since the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the rise of the global market, new walls have begun emerging
everywhere, separating peoples and their cultures. Perhaps the very survival of humanity
depends on resolving this tension.” David
Brooks, “The Revolt of the Weak,” The
New York Times, 1 September 2014.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/opinion/david-brooks-the-revolt-of-the-weak.html. “There has been a norm, developed gradually over the
centuries, that politics is not a totalistic
spiritual enterprise. Governments try
to deliver order and economic benefits to people, but they do not organise
their inner spiritual lives.” This is
precisely the norm that ISIS and other jihadi
groups are trying to destroy. George Monbiot, “Scots
Voting No to Independence Would Be an Astonishing Act of Self-Harm,” The Guardian, 2 September 2014. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland. Monbiot examines the
Scotland-Independence issue from a different perspective – by posing a
question from the other way around: “An independent
nation is asked to decide whether to surrender its sovereignty to a larger
union. It would be allowed a measure
of autonomy, but key aspects of its governance would be handed to another
nation. It would be used as a military
base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over which it had no
control. Larry Elliott, “The Cold War, Catholicism
and Modern Capitalism,” The Guardian,
2 November2014. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/nov/02/post-cold-war-capitalism-moral-roots-ancient-places. Larry expresses the view: “The financial crisis and its aftermath have revealed
the dark side of the post-cold war model, but Catholic social teaching
proposes correcting the way market forces work so that they serve the public
interest.” Mark Beeson and
Fujian LI, “What Consensus?
Geopolitics and Policy Paradigms in China and the United States,” International Affairs, Vol, 91, No. 1 (January 2015), pp. 93-109. Available for purchase at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inta.2015.91.issue-1/issuetoc. The authors conclude that “the prospects for some
form of continuing, albeit diminished, ‘American hegemony,’ even including
elements of the so-called Washington Consensus, may not be as poor as some
predict, at least in the immediate future.” Wolfgang Ischinger, “The World According to Kissinger: How to Defend
Global Order,” Foreign Affairs,
Vol. 94, Issue 2 (March 2015).
Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143062/wolfgang-ischinger/the-world-according-to-kissinger. The article is a review essay of Henry
Kissinger’s new book, World Order:
Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History
(Penguin Press, 2014). The reviewer
concludes that “Kissinger’s book is a gift to all of those who care abut
global order and seek to stave off conflict in the twenty-first century. No one else could have produced this
masterpiece.” Steven Erlanger, “Are Western Values Losing Their Sway?” The New York Times, 12 September
2015. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/sunday-review/are-western-values-losing-their-sway.html?ref=opinion. The author suggests that the West is suddenly
bathed in self-doubt. “Yet democracies
in whatever form seem more capable of coping with shifting pressures than
authoritarian governments. History does not move laterally but in many different
directions at once.” |
|
