245- "A Time for Every Season"

President Obama said on April 11, in his weekly radio and Internet address that major obstacles such as climate change, the global financial crisis, terrorism and nuclear proliferation demand coordinated action to overcome.  He said. "These are challenges that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can confront alone,"  "The United States must lead the way. But our best chance to solve these unprecedented problems comes from acting in concert with other nations."

It is a nice sentiment, and on the face of it, it seems logical and persuasive.  But can the world act in concert? And on what? The one overriding truth of the nation state system as we know it is that states will act in their own perceived self-interest even if that comes at the expense of other states and long term goals. And the perception of self-interest is almost inevitably short term. It would certainly seem to be in the broad interest of mankind to curtail carbon emissions and at least slow global warming.  But polar bears are not as important as the  survival and competitive advantage of your business community and the jobs and profits they produce.  And the lobbyists and shareholders of those businesses are not likely to let up the pressure on their members of Congress to reach global agreements that give competitive advantage to China or India. 

Recent history has not been kind to global efforts to solve problems.  The Doha round is dead - the victim of conflicting North-South interests and the inability of nation states to compromise when faced with political pressure at home.  The  Fifth World Conference on Women was deferred in 2005 due to fear that the gains of the 1995 conference would be lost in the face of positions on abortion and the human rights of women adopted by the Bush administration.  United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, is set for 7-18 December 2009, but success is far from certain.  The Obama administration is currently in the process of back tracking from early statements on climate change and a cap and trade system for carbon emissions.

The United Nations Security Council has been blocked from effective action in Darfur to save lives and has been unable to confront Sudan’s president Bashir to restore humanitarian aid to its former level. The International Criminal Court issued an indictment of Bashir, which the African Union and Arab League ignored.  The Security Council cannot even act effectively to enforce its own resolution against North Korean missile testing and had to settle for a watered down Presidential statement, which everyone knows who has worked at the UN is a toothless face saver for an embarrassed Council.  Afghanistan is going backwards as NATO countries argue over policy and participation.  The President is rebuffed by the Iranians in his effort to open a door.  And he was far short of his goals at the G20.  Where is the leadership that President Obama is talking about?

In the early 90’s after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world came together and marked major progress on trade, intellectual property, population problems, women’s rights, and a plethora of Security Council, NATO, and AU interventions in global hot spots.  Education about global health and international systems to deal with pandemics were instituted. Growth pulled millions of people out of poverty.  Most of the world, except for the United States came together on climate change at Kyoto. 

The difference between then and now was that then wealth was expanding and more people and states could share in the pie.  Today, contraction means that states and individuals are trying to hold on to those larger slices at the expense of others.  The industrialized country leadership has pledged to avoid protectionism, but protectionism is insidious and does not have to mean new openly restrictive measures.  It can mean the failure to correct existing imbalances that favor the few at the expense of the many.  For example, it can mean the collapse of negotiations over agriculture in the Doha round.  Protectionism can mean the failure to reach agreement on a new climate agreement at the UN Conference in December.  It can mean buy America provisions in legislation and failure to compete for massive new expenditures under the stimulus package.

Perhaps this is not a time for bold new international initiatives.  Perhaps we should take a page out of the book of the organizers of the Fifth World Conference on Women and be satisfied to protect that which has already been gained and defer that which exceeds our capacity right now while we work to restore growth and wealth.  President Obama is correct that our future depends on our ability to act in concert with others.  But in that process, we have to be realistic about the nature of that concert.  Let us focus on what can be done now and leave for later global initiatives that will inevitably divide us today and create a downward spiral of beggar thy neighbor.

Comments

[Maria Leonardi]

Although the state of the economy, the inability of many nations to compromise on key issues, and violent conflicts are arising in many areas of the world, it is not fair to so harshly criticize the leadership of Obama or the failed attempts of other nation states around the world to address these problem. The issues of climate change, human rights, free trade, the financial crisis, and nuclear proliferation are important to focus on and should not be abandoned because of the lack of progress in recent years.
In order to effectively address problems around the world countries must be able to compromise on certain aspects and action plans to address these issues. The world must find some common ground that can lead to compromises. Of course “states will act in their own perceived self-interest even if that comes at the expense of other states and long term goals,” but if states can try to focus on only those issues where there is common ground, or at least a common long term goal that will be beneficial to all states, progress could be made. For example, climate change will affect us all. It does not matter if you are a developed or developing nation, there will be detrimental effects on the people of all countries along with the economies of the world. This message needs to be fully comprehended by the world before any progress can be made because “polar bears are not as important as the survival and competitive advantage or your business community and the jobs and profits they produce.” The problem needs to be addressed in a practical way in which people can see that climate change may induce economic instability in many regions and that addressing the problem to create sustainable economies can decrease dependency on developed countries as well as create jobs around the world.
All of these issues are important and the era of the Bush administration should not deter the world from addressing these issues once again, especially with Obama and Clinton in the White House. Just because monumental changes has not already occurred and compromises have not been gained yet, Obama has been in office for only three months, much more time is necessary to make these significant changes. The public should not pass judgment on Obama yet, especially in the midst of a dismal economy and a war that much of the world opposes. States cannot just sit back and “focus on what can be done now and leave for later global initiatives that will inevitably divide us today and create a downward spiral of beggar thy neighbor.” Many of these issues cannot wait and will just keep getting worse and continue to be put off and eventually with a problem like climate change and Darfur, we will experience a snowball effect and it will be too late.

[Welles Borie]

While on paper, organizations such as the UN, the ICC, and the IMF all seem theoretically plausible. When put into action, however, a different picture emerges. The theoretically sound becomes fundamentally flawed because of the “one overriding truth” of the current international system: that each nation acts in their own self-interest, a dog-eat-dog Darwinian free-for-all. While Obama’s heart is clearly in the right place, his mind is not, which is what Amb. Walker is critical of. Peering back into the annals of history in search of hope one is sure to turn up disappointed. Look no further than the failed Doha trade reform talks as well as the deferred Fifth World Conference on Women to see that most attempts at multi-lateral coordination have come up short at best, and fallen apart entirely at worst. Is the history’s recent track record reason enough to throw in the towel and just focus in on your own nation’s well being? This is where I diverge.

Amb. Walker notes the 90s and the fall of the Berlin Wall as a period when multi-lateral cooperation between nations reached a zenith. Today, however, in lieu of the current global financial crisis, nations are now turning inward, looking “to hold on to those larger slices at the expense of others” and protectionism lurks in the shadows, waiting for its chance to catch hold of a country and drag it further into despair. While it’s easy to say that we should all join hands and sing kumbaya like we did in the 90s, one must not forget that the 90s were a time of great prosperity for all nations across the globe. Governments didn’t need to worry as much about their own self-interests so long as their economies kept growing and their people kept getting pulled up from poverty. Fast forward to today.

We are in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Should we be worrying about women’s rights in Afghanistan and polar bears in the Arctic? Absolutely. Don’t get me wrong; I think that promoting universal human rights and combating climate change are two of the most important issues we face today. If we try to tackle them right this moment, however, our efforts will be impeded by the limited resources we have at our disposal. Not only will this effort fail, but it will also hinder any future efforts that might have actually had a chance at solving the problem. We must choose our battles carefully, and as Amb. Walker writes, “Let us focus on what can be done now and leave for later global initiatives that will inevitably divide us today and create a downward spiral of beggar thy neighbor.”

[Patrick Hines]

Ambassador Walker highlights the principal barrier obstructing cooperation amongst nations regarding global issues. States around the world are suffering from severe financial setbacks, and therefore do not have the time or resources to invest in matters that do not directly affect their people at the present time. President Obama is not likely to succeed in collecting a united consensus amongst nations for a resolution to universal concerns such as climate change and terrorism. It is imperative to acknowledge the fact that when practically all the roads of this financial crisis lead back to Wall Street, and the United States’ inadequate monitoring of their transactions, President Obama’s campaign for global collaboration is diluted.
Furthermore, states are inherently selfish, but in the present global financial crisis, self-interest is at an all time high. I agree with Ambassador Walker’s conclusions that the United States is not in a position to call on world leaders for conferences regarding terrorism, nuclear proliferation or global climate, because the United States is itself, no exception to the high demand for improvement from its citizens. However, if President Obama is insistent on addressing concerns on the international stage, than now more than ever, action is critical, and words are trivial. States are more likely to become active in battling worldwide dilemmas if the United States distinctly commits itself to the cause. None the less, I believe the President ought to be advised, as Ambassador Walker stated, to focus on the recovery of the American economy. With the ever-increasing unemployment rate and disputed bailouts, the Obama administration cannot afford to concern itself with numerous global affairs. We must be the priority.

[Michael Schmidt]

Political realism in international relations has been the dominant practice throughout human history, extending from Sun Tzu to Otto von Bismarck all the way into the 21st century. This practice is encapsulated by a paraphrase of Henry John Temple’s famous quotation: “Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.” Ambassador Walker outlines this political trend in the 21st century with compelling support from recent developments in the international scene. Furthermore, the observation that national interests are “almost inevitably short-term” is an astute one with few counterexamples. One of the few contemporary exceptions is China’s investment and economic interest in Africa. However, while this case may be long-term in looking forward to Africa’s eventual development, it is in boldfaced self-interest that China makes investments in Africa despite human rights concerns. The most obvious example of this is China frustrating the UN’s attempts at acting against Sudan’s government on behalf of Darfur. Thus, with very few national interests that extend long-term without extremely selfish goals, it is no wonder issues such as climate change are so difficult to tackle through international cooperation.

Political realism, while being the most frequent practice throughout history, has not always been systemically used. When there is an overwhelming hegemonic power, such as the Roman Empire during the Pax Romana, it is difficult for nation-states to act in their own self-interest without the hegemonic power overriding most of those interests. While nation-states will still act out of their own interest, the rules are so skewed in favor of the hegemony that it is difficult to truly say nation-states have self-interests apart from the prevailing power. Some might argue that the United States is currently an “overwhelming hegemonic power” but this is simply not the case. As the world has grown larger since the New World was discovered and modern technology has advanced, it is almost impossible for a single power to be so dominant as to control the entire world’s affairs. Another situation where political realism begins to break down is when there are two dominant superpowers that all nation-states fall behind in conflict. This was quite apparent during the Cold War. Nearly all nations in the world chose to benefit from the patronage of the US or the USSR. Once again, it is important to note that nations sought patronage in the first place out of self-interest. However, once in the patronage relationship, the self-interest of the individual nation was compromised. Thus, it is not surprising that once the Cold War ended in the early 90’s, worldwide cooperation began in a conflict vacuum but quickly broke down as nations began to realize their own self-interest within the context of a system that was devoid of an overwhelming hegemonic power. Political realism has begun to take hold once again and Ambassador Walker’s plea for the world to attempt to keep the cooperative advancements made in the early 90’s is the best option for today. That is, until the system changes again.

[Colin Flaherty]

President Obama’s plea for the world to confront the collective action problems of climate change, the financial crisis, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation may assist in changing foreigner’s views of U.S. foreign policy, but his words lack serious potential to actually unite people and countries against these global threats. As Ambassador Walker points out, under the current international system, the primary concern of any nation remains an individual set of narrow self-interests. While countries publicly announce intent to reduce emissions, they would prefer other countries to conduct the majority of the reductions for the preservation of their economy and welfare of their workers. China, especially, cannot afford severe reductions in their emissions, because of their dependence on their manufacturing industries to maintain economic growth, curtail unemployment, and establish governmental legitimacy for the CCP.
Too often do unified efforts rise against a common enemy or for a common goal, and yield no effective results. This problem arises from the continued sentiment of realism and the weak development of a sense of an international community. Although countries can agree that problems exist, no individual country is willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. The problems that plague global cooperation are the same that undermine international law and the United Nations. There is nothing that truly binds these countries together, besides being faced by the same threats or having similar goals. The unity that evolved after the end of the Cold War was a result of global exhaustion of the ever looming threat of a nuclear holocaust. The international organizations established during this time period have been hailed for their strives towards international peace, but now the world is realizing their limitations. Without another major threat to global safety, countries will continue to operate at their current level of international cooperation, which remain insufficient in solving many common threats.

[Shyama Nair]

Global cooperation has always been a tricky subject requiring nations to balance between their own national interests and the good of the global population at large. Ambassador Walker is right to point out that unfortunately, the balance often shifts in the direction of self interest which also tends to come at the expense of another nation. History has shown however that it is possible for nations to work together to achieve common goals. As such, President Obama’s appeal for increased global cooperation though not impossible, may be overly idealistic. To truly reap the rewards of global cooperation, Obama will have to understand its dynamics. Nations are able to come together most effectively when national interests mostly in accordance with global ones, though such a scenario is not common.

Despite President Obama’s plea, the utter lack of global cooperation was evident by the end of the recent UN climate talks in Bonn. For instance, large economies such as India and china refused to be talked into new global climate deals requiring them to reduce green house emissions. Likewise, industrialized countries are only willing to take on ambitious reduction measures if the emerging economies are prepared to do the same, leaving things at a standstill.
There are however reasons to remain hopeful. President Obama has in fact followed his declaration that the United States would take on a leadership role with several positive changes. For instance, this past week, the US government pledged to regulate its carbon dioxide emissions, having decided that it and five other greenhouse gases were in fact detrimental to health. Furthermore, the G20 summit in London appears to have produced some positive outcomes with nations having agreed on making some critical changes to help boost the global economy. This includes, promoting global trade by rejecting protectionism and trebling the IMF’s resources. The summit in London also borught about cooperation with regards to the nuclear proliferation issue where in a breakthrough agreement, both the US and Russia have “agreed to pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process, beginning by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new, legally-binding treaty”.
While most of these changes, including nuclear disarmament will require time to take effect, it is more important that the steps for change are being taken. Global coopearation is a challenging endeavour but it is crucial that we remain optimistic. In order for us to overcome challenges as a global population, it is imperative that nations begin to see past selfish interests that will only leave us in a rather Hobbesian state of nature, and start working towards common goals.

[Michael Schmidt]

Political realism in international relations has been the dominant practice throughout human history, extending from Sun Tzu to Otto von Bismarck all the way into the 21st century. This practice is encapsulated by a paraphrase of Henry John Temple’s famous quotation: “Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.” Ambassador Walker outlines this political trend in the 21st century with compelling support from recent developments in the international scene. Furthermore, the observation that national interests are “almost inevitably short-term” is an astute one with few counterexamples. One of the few contemporary exceptions is China’s investment and economic interest in Africa. However, while this case may be long-term in looking forward to Africa’s eventual development, it is in boldfaced self-interest that China makes investments in Africa despite human rights concerns. The most obvious example of this is China frustrating the UN’s attempts at acting against Sudan’s government on behalf of Darfur. Thus, with very few national interests that extend long-term without extremely selfish goals, it is no wonder issues such as climate change are so difficult to tackle through international cooperation.

Political realism, while being the most frequent practice throughout history, has not always been systemically used. When there is an overwhelming hegemonic power, such as the Roman Empire during the Pax Romana, it is difficult for nation-states to act in their own self-interest without the hegemonic power overriding most of those interests. While nation-states will still act out of their own interest, the rules are so skewed in favor of the hegemony that it is difficult to truly say nation-states have self-interests apart from the prevailing power. Some might argue that the United States is currently an “overwhelming hegemonic power” but this is simply not the case. As the world has grown larger since the New World was discovered and modern technology has advanced, it is almost impossible for a single power to be so dominant as to control the entire world’s affairs. Another situation where political realism begins to break down is when there are two dominant superpowers that all nation-states fall behind in conflict. This was quite apparent during the Cold War. Nearly all nations in the world chose to benefit from the patronage of the US or the USSR. Once again, it is important to note that nations sought patronage in the first place out of self-interest. However, once in the patronage relationship, the self-interest of the individual nation was compromised. Thus, it is not surprising that once the Cold War ended in the early 90’s, worldwide cooperation began in a conflict vacuum but quickly broke down as nations began to realize their own self-interest within the context of a system that was devoid of an overwhelming hegemonic power. Political realism has begun to take hold once again and Ambassador Walker’s plea for the world to attempt to keep the cooperative advancements made in the early 90’s is the best option for today. That is, until the system changes again.

[Sophie Vershbow]

President Obama's call for international cooperation is certainly cogent considering the global nature of the problems facing today's world. It's apparent that no country is in the position to tackle "major obstacles such as climate change, the global financial crisis, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation" unilaterally considering their wide spread impact.

This being said i must agree with Ambassador Walker's assessment that in these pressing times international cooperation has fallen to individualist self-interest. World leaders feel they foremost must appeal to their constituents and "will act in their own perceived self-interest even if that comes at the expense of other states and long term goals." I agree that Obama's statement is overly idealistic, yet i see it more as an abstract call for unity than a naive belief that international cooperation is alive and thriving.

The Doha Round was meant to encourage global cooperation in implementing World Trade Organization decisions. But, since it's creation in 2001 the increasing global economic crisis has lead participating countries to pull out of developmental agreements as well as distrust all-inclusive global interests. Escalating protectionism "can mean the failure to correct existing imbalances that favor the few at the expense of the many. For example, it can mean the collapse of negotiations over agriculture in the Doha round."

The four World Conferences on Women between 1975-1995 helped to connect women's rights movements worldwide. Global governments, NGOs, and international organizations were united under a common cause. Increasing polarization on issues of abortion, gender oppression, and women's human rights caused the 2005 conference to be cancelled in caution of moving backwards in global feminist progress.

Climate change has reached the forefront of global concern, however national economic interests are increasingly being put before international effort to quell the process. I agree with Ambassador Walker's assertion that "the lobbyists and shareholders of [national] businesses are not likely to let up on pressure on their members of Congress to reach global agreements that give competitive advantage to China or India." Obama recently announced that his pre-election hype on a cap-and-trade trade system may soon turn into a network that pays more attention to the economic interests of big businesses than improving global climate conditions and giving money back to his constituents.

In recent years human rights developments made by the UN, NATO, AU, and NGOs in the post-Cold War era have slowed in response to self-interested countries working to keep what economic edge they might have left in the global arena. Here I must disagree with Ambassador Walker's assertion that international initiative need not occur at this time, even if it means situations like the UN's inaction intervening in Darfur's present genocide. I believe that while pressing, gradual environmental clean-up and trade policy developments have slightly more time for global conditional improvement to lend way to international cooperation. Human right's crises require global cooperation through international organizations, NGOs, and major government leaders to ensure humanitarian aid and international intervention when deemed necessary.

In conclusion, I feel that President Obama's call for global cooperation is unachievable in a world without the leadership required to follow through on bold requests for action. I also agree that in these pressing times it might be overzealous to expect world leaders to put global initiatives in front of their own national interests. Ambassador Walker makes a harsh assertion in this matter, although considering the situation we find ourselves in it is one that be seriously addressed.

[Megan Bumb]

One of the most significant lessons I have gained from Ambassador Walker is the importance of using realism when confronting a problem. While I fundamentally agree with President Obama that the world must come together to solve the most pressing issues facing our time, the reality is, that achieving this unity is currently unrealistic. We have seen time and again that global efforts to solve problems have been unsuccessful. I believe this is so because, as Ambassador Walker points out, the inevitable consequence of having a nation state system is that to survive and prosper, each state must act in accordance with its own self-interest. With such a system, states in it of themselves are like businesses. As can be the reality for businesses in certain economies, the present reality for the world is that each nation must meet its own citizens’ needs before addressing the needs of others. And until more states gain economic security, it is unrealistic to expect successful global cooperation in most areas. However, two areas in which we must unwaveringly demand global cooperation are trade and foreign investment.
To accomplish economic growth, states have historically relied on three primary engines of growth, trade, investment and aid; though, foreign aid is a less effective tool. Trade has been the most accomplished source of growth because the jobs associated with trade are high paying and include great benefits. Foreign investment is a more efficient agent to spark growth than foreign aid. Egypt is a perfect example of a country that has benefited significantly from foreign investment. As a consequence of investments in fields such as petroleum, by 2015, the country will see a substantial decrease in poverty. Examination of Egypt’s recent growth shows that foreign aid to the country has decreased while the foreign investment has increased, as has the GDP; foreign aid has a small impact on financial growth. Thus, nations should spend their resources engaging in trade and foreign investments.
With that said, there are also limitations with trade and foreign investment. For instance, in America, so many jobs are low skilled and hurt by trade that increasing foreign trade cannot be the sole source of growth for the country. Further, the Middle East and Africa are not actively participating in the global market and the population in these areas has skyrocketed so dramatically that trade will not be a viable solution in these areas either. A current problem with investment is that when a country invests in foreign jobs and resources, they lose domestic jobs and resources (which in most countries are presently hurting). However, international agencies set up to fight poverty, like the World Bank, or to stabilize economies, like the IMF, cannot help the countries in greatest need of investment. This is so because these organizations, to continue existing, must make investments with countries that will realistically be able to make the money back. Despite these limitations, it is clear that nations must remain trading and investing in one other rather than disengaging into protectionism.
Protectionism will not lead to economic growth. The practice causes a country to lose jobs and pay higher taxes and prices. For instance, protectionism costs the US eight jobs for every one job the policy protects. In Japan, consumers pay five times more than they should for rice due to laws restricting the importation of rice and consequently more in taxes to implement those laws. Further, protectionism hurts the stability of the banking system. In the current debt crisis, third world countries and Eastern European countries will have an even harder time paying off their loans to the West and international lending agencies if they do not have the hard currency that foreign trade generates. History tells us that protectionism is not the solution to our current global economic problem. However, unlike previous times of global economic hardship, the world will find its growth solutions through contraction not expansion (due to diminishing natural resources.) And though it is unfortunate that we will not be able to tackle other important problems until the economy is more stable, that is the reality.

[Julian Brody]

Barak Obama’s statement is idealistic at best and naive at worst. As Ambassador Walker suggests, the self interest of nations serves short term objectives instead of long term goals. Cohesive action may exist as our best means of attaining such aspirations as global security, environmental preservation, and financial stability. Yet, in practice, protectionism and self interest prevent such unity from taking place.
William Zartman offered the theory of ripeness to determine the role of timing in conflict resolution. This theory, however, can expand to involve broader international cooperation. A look at history suggests, though cruel in its irony, that the world best comes together after tragedy. The western world developed a new economic order with the Bretton Woods system after the horrors of World War II. Instead of isolating and alienating former enemies, the Allies made a concerted effort to integrate Germany back into the international community and rebuild Japan. Today, both Germany and Japan enjoy relatively strong economies in large part due to the help of their historical foes.
One could argue that the post World War II cohesion of the international community was not due to preventing war, but rather, preparing for future conflict. We can interpret the reintegration of Germany as an attempt to isolate the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Yet the Bretton Woods system, though a measure to assert the U.S. control of the world’s financial system, still marked a concerted attempt to cohesively integrate the international political economy; a group of nations came together and achieved a common goal. Unfortunately, it failed due to the self interest of the United States when Nixon took the dollar off gold in 1971.
The world did not see the cohesion of the international community again until after the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the close of the Cold War in 1989. Again, international cooperation blossomed out of bitter rivalries. As Ambassador Walker suggests, the nineties enjoyed unprecedented cohesion involving trade, civil rights, and especially in international organizations such as NATO and the UN. This unity, however, was short lived, and the failure of Doha, the international community’s inability to cohesively confront threats such as North Korea, and a lack of a global environmental policy contribute to a bleak outlook on international cooperation.
Does the world need conflict to create cooperation? The current political climate provides the international community with many opportunities to once again unite. A unified response on Iranian nuclear proliferation, global warming, the recent outbreak of the Swine Flu, and the current financial crisis could once again spark international cooperation. Yet, as Ambassador Walker suggests, the world seems doomed for more of the same. Perhaps then, we should follow Ambassador Walker’s advice and take care of ourselves before seeking confronting broader objectives, such as global warming, that necessitate international cooperation.

[Megan Bumb]

One of the most significant lessons I have gained from Ambassador Walker is the importance of using realism when confronting a problem. While I fundamentally agree with President Obama that the world must come together to solve the most pressing issues facing our time, the reality is, that achieving this unity is currently unrealistic. We have seen time and again that global efforts to solve problems have been unsuccessful. I believe this is so because, as Ambassador Walker points out, the inevitable consequence of having a nation state system is that to survive and prosper, each state must act in accordance with its own self-interest. With such a system, states in it of themselves are like businesses. As can be the reality for businesses in certain economies, the present reality for the world is that each nation must meet its own citizens’ needs before addressing the needs of others. And until more states gain economic security, it is unrealistic to expect successful global cooperation in most areas. However, two areas in which we must unwaveringly demand global cooperation are trade and foreign investment.
To accomplish economic growth, states have historically relied on three primary engines of growth, trade, investment and aid; though, foreign aid is a less effective tool. Trade has been the most accomplished source of growth because the jobs associated with trade are high paying and include great benefits. Foreign investment is a more efficient agent to spark growth than foreign aid. Egypt is a perfect example of a country that has benefited significantly from foreign investment. As a consequence of investments in fields such as petroleum, by 2015, the country will see a substantial decrease in poverty. Examination of Egypt’s recent growth shows that foreign aid to the country has decreased while the foreign investment has increased, as has the GDP; foreign aid has a small impact on financial growth. Thus, nations should spend their resources engaging in trade and foreign investments.
With that said, there are also limitations with trade and foreign investment. For instance, in America, so many jobs are low skilled and hurt by trade that increasing foreign trade cannot be the sole source of growth for the country. Further, the Middle East and Africa are not actively participating in the global market and the population in these areas has skyrocketed so dramatically that trade will not be a viable solution in these areas either. A current problem with investment is that when a country invests in foreign jobs and resources, they lose domestic jobs and resources (which in most countries are presently hurting). However, international agencies set up to fight poverty, like the World Bank, or to stabilize economies, like the IMF, cannot help the countries in greatest need of investment. This is so because these organizations, to continue existing, must make investments with countries that will realistically be able to make the money back. Despite these limitations, it is clear that nations must remain trading and investing in one other rather than disengaging into protectionism.
Protectionism will not lead to economic growth. The practice causes a country to lose jobs and pay higher taxes and prices. For instance, protectionism costs the US eight jobs for every one job the policy protects. In Japan, consumers pay five times more than they should for rice due to laws restricting the importation of rice and consequently more in taxes to implement those laws. Further, protectionism hurts the stability of the banking system. In the current debt crisis, third world countries and Eastern European countries will have an even harder time paying off their loans to the West and international lending agencies if they do not have the hard currency that foreign trade generates. History tells us that protectionism is not the solution to our current global economic problem. However, unlike previous times of global economic hardship, the world will find its growth solutions through contraction not expansion (due to diminishing natural resources.) And though it is unfortunate that we will not be able to tackle other important problems until the economy is more stable, that is the reality.

[Marcello Maceira]

A Time for Every Season
In today’s world many of the obstacles we face are on a global scale. Pressing issues such as global warming, the financial crisis, terrorism and nuclear proliferation are not unilaterally solved but rather issues for the global community to address. In light of President Obama’s statement that “The United States must lead the way. But our best chance to solve these unprecedented problems comes from acting in concert with other nations.” We must ask ourselves if acting in concert with other nations truly works?
As Ambassador Walker notes “States will act in their own perceived self-interest even if that comes at the expense of other states and long term goals.” In the end big business plays a large part in dictating states self-interest. Elected officials must look out for their constituents who donate large amounts to their campaigns in order to have someone in government represent their interest. These constituents don’t want companies in developing countries gaining a competitive advantage, so issues like global warming take a backseat to a few companies profits. This is the same reason that Doha round failed: developed countries and developing countries disagreement on a variety of issues. In the end as Ambassador Walker points out “self-interest is almost inevitably short term” global climate is not seen as a short-term issues for most countries so its put on the back burner behind the short-term interest of the nation.
With today’s financial crisis it’s difficult for countries to devote the resources necessary to these global issues when there are larger issues on the home front. Wall Street in particular is to blame for the global financial crisis and this brings the United States stance as a “leader” into question. If much of this problem is due to our negligence in monitoring the financial sector who is to say we should be spearheading the effort on climate change and other important global issues. In the end I believe we must right our own financial crisis and this will take time. As our economy begins to recover so will the economies of the rest of the world and only then can we act in concert to solve these global issues. With the early 1990’s as a framework when the economy’s booming nations are much more willing to get involved in International initiatives.