Salud

September 11, 2001: On a clear September morning, a passenger jet was seen cruising, at a very low altitude, along the New York skyline. At precisely 8:46 a.m. (eastern daylight time), as onlookers watched from the streets below and from neighboring high-rises, American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center; the plane and tower burst into flames. Astonished observers and the media began to speculate as to the cause of this spectacular “accident.” At 9:03 a.m., their worst fears were confirmed as a second plane, United Airlines Flight 175, crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center in a ball of flames.

By 9:30 a.m. President George W. Bush announced that the United States apparently had been the victim of a terrorist attack. Minutes later he halted all US air traffic for the first time in history. However, the danger was not over. At 9:37 a.m., another plane, American Airlines Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon in the outskirts of Washington, DC. The public wondered: would the attacks end? Then, at 9:59 a.m. the unthinkable happened. The south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. Only five minutes later, a portion of the Pentagon collapsed, while in Pennsylvania a fourth jet, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed into a field. It is believed the plane was on its way to Camp David, the US Congress, or the White House. At 10:28 a.m., the north tower of the World Trade Center also collapsed. It was later discovered that the passenger jets had been hijacked by 19 Muslim militants, most of whom were Saudi citizens who had been visiting the US on expired student visas.

Today, as 9/11 reminds us, global politics impinges on our lives more than ever. Everything from the air we breathe to the clothes we wear and the taxes we pay has a global dimension. Global news with vivid pictures of riots and wars is accessible on satellite television and online 24 hours a day. In fact, demonstrators around the world are often instructed to wait until a CNN correspondent appears before beginning.

Beyond dramatic events like 9/11, we are reminded of how embedded we

1

global politics the political interactions among sovereign states, as well as nonstate actors.

are in the world around us when we turn on our Sony TV (that may have been manufactured in the United States or in Singapore), drive to work in a Honda or Volkswagen (or an “American” car that actually has parts from many countries), buy toys or shoes made in China, or sip a glass of Molson from Canada.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Figure 1.1 World Trade Center, New York, 9/11/01

© PA Photos

For centuries the United States enjoyed the protection of two great oceans and generally friendly neighbors and a high degree of economic self-sufficiency. Today, all that has changed. America’s homeland is vulnerable to a variety of threats from fanatical terrorists to pandemic influenza. The United States must also confront the possibility that

“rogue states” like North Korea and Iran will acquire nuclear weapons in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. America’s economy is hostage to the willingness of countries like China and Japan to keep purchasing US securities that provide the wherewithal to pay for America’s burgeoning trade and budget deficits, and the effort of American corporations to compete in a globalized economy in which people around the world are increasingly interdependent leads to the outsourcing of US jobs to other countries and the reduction in benefits for workers at home. In fact, many of the most important issues in global politics such as environmental deterioration and the spread of diseases constitute collective dilemmas, that is, problems that no single state or group of states can solve on its own and that, therefore, require cooperation for solutions to be found.

The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were an entirely different kind of threat that most decision-makers believed to be remote.

They were not initiated by another state at war with the US like Japan’s attack on Pear Harbor in December 1941. Rather they were planned and conducted by a highly coordinated network of Islamic militants. It took only 19 hijackers to cause nearly 3,000 deaths – the most deadly terrorist incident in history.

The world, then, is a dangerous place that, in some respects, is becoming more dangerous every day owing to the speed with which change is taking place. Rapid change is dangerous because leaders are unable to grasp the implications of what is happening and, therefore, are likely to misunderstand the sources and consequences of the perils they face and so fashion inappropriate policies to deal with them. Expectations are violated; old friendships wither; new foes emerge; and new dangers appear. Rapid change is also dangerous because there is less time for leaders to respond constructively in the face of impending catastrophe.

Thus, many observers regard global warming as having reached a critical juncture. Nevertheless, leaders have done little to limit the release of

“greenhouse gases” that produce global warming or to change the energy-intensive habits of citizens. If those who believe that global warming poses imminent environmental deterioration and weather changes are correct, the failure of statesmen to take account of it and change course means a future of melted icecaps, flooded coast lines, and even submerged island states.

1

rogue states countries that are said to flout the norms, rules, and practices followed by most other states.

interdependence

a relationship in which two or more actors are sensitive and vulnerable to each other’s behavior and in which actions taken by one affect the other.

collective dilemmas problems that require the cooperation of actors for solution and that no one actor can resolve on its own.

state a political entity that is sovereign and has a government that is said to enjoy exclusive control over a defined territory and population.

Threats and opportunities

Just as global politics consists of change and continuity, so it combines destructive factors and trends that threaten our well-being and perhaps even our survival with opportunities to avoid or cope with the threats that we can ignore only at our peril. Some of the challenges that we must address are:

•

Environmental deterioration including global warming, the thinning of the protective ozone layer of the atmosphere accompanied by rising rates of skin cancer; destruction of the world’s rain forests (the world’s

“lungs”) and denuding of other forested areas; rapid urbanization owing to peasant flight to megacities in countries like China and India with accompanying pollution and urban poverty; the spread of deserts into formerly fertile regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America; the elimination of species of plants and animals and reduction in biodiversity; and the accumulation of radioactive debris and nuclear waste.

•

Overpopulation in poor countries that contributes to famine, diseases like AIDS, land hunger, political unrest, and large-scale migration to rich countries with aging and shrinking populations.

•

Resource depletion as energy demands outstrip known reserves of petroleum and natural gas and as growing populations and economic development places ever greater stress on finite sources of fresh water and fertile land.

•

Proliferating religious and ethnic extremism accompanied by suicidal terrorism directed against innocent civilians in order to create mayhem and cause maximum death and damage.

•

The spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (weapons of mass destruction) to countries divided by profound political differences such as Pakistan and India and to apparently “irrational” regimes such as those in Iran and North Korea, and the growing prospect of terrorists acquiring such weapons.

•

The collapse of states and the spread of chaos in selected regions.

•

The rapid global spread of pathogens that threaten humans, livestock, and plant life and the threat of new pandemics such as the avian influenza.

•

The spread of trade disputes which divide rich and poor countries and that threaten to end the liberal economic regime responsible for ever higher living standards around the world since World War II.

•

Growing disparities in wealth between “winners” and “losers” in the course of globalization.

•

The growing resistance of the United States to working with international organizations or to participate in multilateral ventures to respond to global problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Happily, there is another side to the story. Global politics has always consisted of both conflict and cooperation. Some global trends promise to enlarge human capacities and help us cope with, insulate ourselves from, and perhaps even avoid some of the worst dangers we face. Among the sources of optimism are:

•

The growing accumulation of human knowledge, an “information revolution,” and the accessibility of new knowledge owing to the spread of electronic technologies.

•

Growing economic productivity globally owing to the introduction, spread, and improvement of computer-based technologies, the spread of giant transnational corporations (TNCs), and the mobility of global capital.

•

The development of renewable energy sources derived from the sun, wind, and biomass.

•

Rapid economic development, especially in China and India, that augers an overall reduction in global poverty.

•

The spread of democracy and democratic institutions beyond North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.

•

The continued authority of global institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization that coordinate national policies and enforce global norms and practices.

•

The proliferation and networking of nongovernmental organizations that lobby for global cooperation in dealing with global dangers, provide technical information and humanitarian aid, and foster links among peoples in different societies.

•

The regulation of key issues by informal groupings of nongovernmental groups, international institutions, and government bureaucracies – known as international regimes – that foster interstate cooperation (see chapter 6, pp. 257–9).

•

A decline in interstate warfare.

•

The proliferation of international law protecting the individual, codifying human rights, and spreading norms of racial and gender equality.

Since knowing the past is critical to understanding the present, this chapter continues with a brief discussion of the role of history in global politics and its relationship to change. It then examines the several perspectives known as levels of analysis that we can use to explain events.

Thus, we can think about global politics in terms of the individual, states, or the international system as a whole. Each perspective provides certain advantages and has certain costs. Our consideration of levels of analysis provokes us to think theoretically, and we turn to the question of what

“theory” is and why it is necessary to make sense of the world around 1 (TNCs) economic enterprises with operations in two or more countries.

international regime a set of rules, norms, and decision-making procedures that govern actors’

behavior in an international issue-area.

levels of analysis an analytical tool that simplifies theorizing by categorizing key factors in global politics at the level of the whole global system or of some of its constituent parts (individual, state).

us. We then examine several major controversies concerning how to theorize about and study global politics and analyze four key theoretical approaches to global politics: realism/neorealism, liberalism/

neoliberalism, constructivism, and Marxism.

History and global politics: change and continuity

Global politics reflects both change and continuity. By change we mean the transformation of key structures and processes that has a major impact on the nature of global politics. Where there is significant and rapid change, there are discontinuities between past and present with features of the present not recognizable in the past. For example, the shift from the medieval European order of overlapping rights, privileges, and ownership based on a feudal agrarian economy to a world of sovereign states enjoying exclusive legal authority over internal affairs constituted a major transformation in global politics. So, too, was the shift in security and military strategy that was brought about by the introduction of nuclear weapons after World War II. More recently, the end of the Cold War produced a dramatically different world: the United States emerged as the world’s only superpower; Russia, China, and the countries of Eastern Europe joined the global economic system; globalization linked the fates of people around the world as never before; and suicidal fanaticism produced an unprecedented security problem. None of these

developments was predicted, and, therefore, there was little planning to deal with them.

The other side of change is continuity which refers to the gradual evolution of structures or processes such that the present retains key features of the past. Although global politics is constantly changing – with new events and new actors (countries and other groups whose behavior is relevant to global politics) emerging all the time – there is nonetheless much to be learned from the past experiences of states and other global actors.

For example, terrorism is not new, even though certain features of contemporary terrorism are novel. In fact, few events – however

unexpected – come from out of the blue. Much that seems novel actually has roots in the past, and familiarity with history makes the present more understandable, helps us to plan for the future, and allows us to avoid making the same mistakes over again. Although some aspects of every event are unique, history provides important analogies and vital experience.

An acquaintance with history is necessary for identifying change and continuity. Some political scientists delve far into the past in order to identify patterns. For example, George Modelski and William R.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

globalization those processes that knit people everywhere together, thereby producing worldwide interdependence and featuring the rapid and large-scale movement of persons, things, and ideas across sovereign borders.

sovereignty the status of states as legal equals under

international law, according to which they are supreme internally and subject to no higher external authority.

Thompson have proposed what they call long-cycle theory. They argue that history indicates that there are repeated cycles of large-scale war and global leadership that last about 100 years.¹Each cycle consists of several stages, beginning with a global war that gives rise to a new dominant world leader or hegemon; thereafter the hegemon’s authority is undermined and challengers to the hegemon appear; overextension and the high costs of hegemonic leadership cause the hegemon’s decline; and a new war ensues from which a new hegemon emerges. In previous cycles, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Great Britain served as hegemons, and today the United States plays that role.²Given the length of the current cycle, however, the US should begin to decline and competitors like China or Russia should emerge. Modelski and Thompson believe that periods of hegemonic dominance are relatively peaceful compared to periods of relative equality between a hegemon and a challenger. Long-cycle theory followed on power-transition theory, according to which a hegemon will be challenged by another great power at the point where the latter becomes roughly as powerful as the hegemon.³

Change is part of the natural rhythm of our lives, but when it accelerates to the point where we are “strangers in a strange land,”⁴ as many people all over the world felt in the aftermath of September 11th, people become fearful, anxious, mistrustful, and disoriented. Sometimes, as in this case, change is genuinely threatening and really does imperil the safety and well-being of individuals and society. Suicide bombers, who look forward to martyrdom and paradise, are particularly menacing, as threats of retaliation cannot prevent them from acting. However, at other times change is frightening, but does not have the same disastrous consequence. For instance, for over 300 years the territorial state has been the fulcrum of global politics. Thus the field became known as international politics or international relations because it focused exclusively on relations among (inter) sovereign states.⁵Such a focus is called “state-centric.” But some observers point to the gradual proliferation of important actors other than states such as giant transnational corporations like IBM and ExxonMobil, international organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank, and

nongovernmental groups like Greenpeace and Al Qaeda as evidence that sovereign states no longer enjoy unchallenged primacy – and control – in global politics (a term that allows us to speak of a wider galaxy of actors than states alone). In the state-centric world, governments make most authoritative decisions, but in the expanded world of global politics, authoritative decisions are also made by numerous domestic, transnational, and international institutions and groups, both formal and informal, creating a complex universe of what is termed global 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

international politics the political interactions among states.

state-centric a perspective or model of global politics in which states are the source of all important activities.

transnational crossing national frontiers and involving social groups and nongovernmental actors.

governance in which the governments of nation-states represent only one type of global authority.

Also, rapid economic change creates fears of future poverty and social dislocation. Workers in US industries like textiles will almost certainly lose their jobs in coming years owing to the growth of similar industries in Asia and South America, where production costs are lower than in America. The American economy will have to restructure and former textile workers will have to seek training and employment in other sectors. Likewise, rapid political change, such as the collapse of the Soviet Empire in the late 1980s and early 1990s, raises anxiety about reduced status, loss of freedom, or even threats of war and violence.

But whether or not we fear changes matters less than how we react to them. Dramatic change can lead to either conflict or cooperation among global actors. Some leaders genuinely learn from novel events, while others ignore them and keep on in the same old ways. When change encourages misperception and suspicion of others, political leaders may act on their own, as President Bush did with the 2003 Iraq War. Such unilateralism, which seemed to break with America’s previous policy of multilateralism based on broad consultation and coordination with allies and friends, however well intentioned, sometimes frightens those who do not understand its motives and eats away at international cooperation.

For example, in economics, a country may unilaterally impose tariffs on imported goods to reduce foreign competition and preserve jobs at home, and in military security, it may build new missiles to prevent an enemy missile attack. Unfortunately, citizens and leaders in other countries may view those tariffs as an assault on their workers and may interpret the missiles as a way of making their military forces obsolete. Other changes, in contrast, may enhance global cooperation. For example, international institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the International Criminal Court encourage regional or global economic and political integration and work toward enforcing global peace. And the growing role of nongovernmental organizations such as the environmental advocate Greenpeace or the humanitarian group

For example, in economics, a country may unilaterally impose tariffs on imported goods to reduce foreign competition and preserve jobs at home, and in military security, it may build new missiles to prevent an enemy missile attack. Unfortunately, citizens and leaders in other countries may view those tariffs as an assault on their workers and may interpret the missiles as a way of making their military forces obsolete. Other changes, in contrast, may enhance global cooperation. For example, international institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the International Criminal Court encourage regional or global economic and political integration and work toward enforcing global peace. And the growing role of nongovernmental organizations such as the environmental advocate Greenpeace or the humanitarian group

In document Jamie Lindemann Nelson (página 87-90)