Another Way to Share Information

We discussed in our break out sections how NGO’s can influence a state by other actors when the state blocks their attempted involvement. Figure 1 in our reading showed this process as the NGO sharing information to another NGO when they are blocked by State A. That state then takes that information and influences State B or an intergovernmental organization will take that information and influence State B. We discussed ways in which information can be shared – this can be using the media, relying on influential members in the government, etc. One example that I read about in Foreign Policy Magazine today that I thought was particularly applicable to our discussion was a Syrian defector showing pictures and videos from the civil war in Syria and testifying in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/07/31/syrian_torture_photos_prompt_calls_for_action_from_lawmakers). 

There is a lot of turmoil happening in the news and Syria has not been in the headlines since the escalation of violence in Gaza and the plane crash have taken over. This Syrian man has been able to share new information and bring back attention to an important event that has otherwise been blocked by the Syrian state to make a change. This article did not say that this man was brought in to testify by a NGO, but I imagine that he did have some help and contacts from a human rights organization to step up and share information in an influential way. A different approach from a different actor helped to gain access to a state that was otherwise blocking information from other sources. I think this is a really interesting example that is directly relevant to what we discussed this week. I think there are many other examples of cases in which we see this happen, but I thought it was interesting to view from a current day news cycle. This demonstrates another way in which information can be shared with a state that does not get all of the information it should in a traditional way. 

Diplomatic Celebrity?

We talked a little about celebrity diplomacy during class and afterward I wondered about the opposite -- diplomats that attain a sense of celebrity (and not the kind of celebrity that comes from being a distinguished diplomat). Does this sense of celebrity (albeit, likely small) coupled with a competent diplomatic background help them be more effective diplomats? 

A former U.S. diplomacy officer in Pakistan, Shyna Cram, reached a degree of celebrity when she wrote and performed a song in Pashto for Malala Yousufzai, the teenager shot by the Taliban in 2012 for promoting education for girls.   The song encourages girls to pursue their dreams and have hope for a better future.  Pakistan-U.S. relations are bumpy, to say the least, and when the song was written, Cram was otherwise unable to connect with those in Pakistan due to safety concerns.  The song provided a vehicle for Cram to share her frustrations with the violence and inequality, and extend her hand, or rather voice, in solidarity.   

Earlier this year another U.S. diplomat, Phillip Assis, sang during the semifinal round of Pakistan Idol.  He has also recorded a song in Pashto, which has apparently become a local hit.  Assis says that he frequently meets Pakistanis who saw his performance on television or have heard his song played and they are excited to meet him in person. 

The literal message of the songs Cram and Assis perform is important, but I think the symbolism is more significant.  By publicly singing and doing so in a non-native tongue, these officials are exposing a sense of vulnerability and humanity.  They are expressing their support of Pakistani culture as well as connecting with the population.  Both Cram and Assis took a risk in their attempt to connect with Pakistani citizens that could have compromised the public’s perception of their credibility.  This is a lot to put on the line, and further represents their strong desire to connect with the Pakistani public. 

These diplomats reached out to citizens in non-conventional ways, and attempted to bridge cultures to convey a sense of unity.  Their local celebrity attracted attention and increased their chance of recognition.  This audience gives them the chance to truly connect with Pakistani citizens and the opportunity to change perceptions of Americans in an area where anti-American sentiments are especially strong. 

So, does this sense of celebrity help these diplomats be more effective? I think it depends on the case.   After his performance on Pakistani Idol, Assis was invited to perform in Washington at a Pakistani Independence Day celebration.  I think this particular case represents a successful attempt at bridging cultures, and suggests that Assis’ performance had at least a small positive impact on Pakistani sentiments toward Americans.  

Foreign Intelligence Services: Autonomous or Attuned?

In Week #12 Jason presented our class with his 2 x 2 that was similar to Professor Jackson's 2 x 2 for Module #6 to use as breakout group topic of discussion. I believe that Jason had "diplomacy" across the two top blocks meaning it spanned across the intersections of "impermeable" and "autonomy" as well as "impermeable" and "attunement." Jason also had "hot-lines / espionage" in the top left quadrant of the intersection of "impermeable" and "autonomy."

I mentioned in class that I viewed both diplomacy and espionage falling under the broader umbrella of statecraft and thus both spanning across "autonomy" and "attunement." The link below of David Ignatius' July 22 Washington Post article, "The U.S. and Germany are rebuilding a spy partnership," confirmed my initial thoughts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-the-us-and-germany-are-rebuilding-a-spy-partnership/2014/07/22/b0bdc7e0-11e2-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html

To summarize, the relationship between Germany and the United States has been strained recently because of a couple of intelligence related issues. First, Edward Snowden released material about the National Security Agency's activities in Germany to include tapping Chancellor Angela Merkel's cellphone. Second, Germany recently expelled the CIA's station chief in Berlin for paying a "walk-in" German agent. While those activities would appear to be confined to the top right quadrant, those incidents do not tell the whole story.

Ignatius details how White House chief of staff Dennis McDonough flew to Germany within the last week to meet with his German counterpart, Peter Altmaier. Ignatius reports that a senior German official shared that his government was very satisfied with the meeting. While not a formal "no spy" pledge, it was sufficient to reassure Germans that their rights would be respected.

The article goes on to reveal that the German intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendiest, or BND, has been cooperating with the NSA on signals intelligence activities since 1962. The senior German official affirmed that the intelligence partnership has been "very extensive" and said "we are very happy with this cooperation." He didn't dispute U.S. estimates that the NSA had helped disrupt more than 50 terrorist plots, including more than 20 in Europe.

Finally, to tie it into Module 6's topic of the "Public Sphere," the German official was quoted: "The problem we face in Germany is not about intelligence collection anymore, but about public sentiment. The public is extremely upset, and the German government has taken this into account." Pressed about why the German government hadn't been more open about the extent of past cooperation, the official said "it's a very bad moment to say it's "all right," after the Snowden revelations.

Buzz, Bite and Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg may no longer be mayor of New York City but he is still able to make resonating statements regarding national politics and more recently, international issues. 

Earlier this week, Michael Bloomberg flew to Tel Aviv to protest the FAA flight ban to Israel.   He went on to say that “Ben Gurion International Airport is the best protected airport in the world… It was an overreaction for the FAA to halt U.S. flights here – and a mistake they should correct.”  The ban followed the landing of a missile within a mile of the Tel Aviv airport on Tuesday of this week. 

Bloomberg’s legitimacy stems from his own history leading New York City, his successful business career and news network, and involvement in numerous philanthropies.  Frankly, people respect and look up to him.   If Bloomberg is going to neglect the FAA travel ban and fly to Tel Aviv to make a statement, well, people are going to pay attention.

Bloomberg’s decision to act is deeper than simply opposing the FAA travel ban.  He has a close relationship with Israeli leadership and Israel stood by the U.S. following the September 11 attacks which occurred not even two months before he took office.  By extending his support to Israel, he brought attention to their plight and made a statement of solidarity.  In his support of continued flights to Tel Aviv, Bloomberg asserted that Israel had a right to defend itself against Hamas, and that cancelling flights to Israel was in effect handing Hamas a small victory.  This is a strong, politically charged statement for someone whose legacy is predominately based in domestic affairs.

Early Thursday morning the travel ban was lifted.  If the ban had remained in effect in spite of his safe travels, it would have appeared frivolous.  Maybe Bloomberg’s actions and the attention he attracted to the situation (his own “celebrity,” perhaps) had something to do with it, or maybe it didn’t.  But his decision to speak out in support of Israel came at the right time, and put the FAA in a tricky situation regardless.  Similar to our reading on celebrity diplomacy by Andrew Cooper, Bloomberg’s combination of “buzz and bite” offers him the power to persuade other elite decision makers in order to promote a desired end. 

Resonating Questions for a Global Public Sphere

This week I found it really helpful when we discussed our reactions to the 2x2 by Jackson and the 2x2 Jason created. After class, I have been thinking a lot about how social media can serve as a global public forum on many different levels. In regards to social media, how would a company that only interacts domestically fit in to the 2x2 when it uses social media to interact domestically? Does that mean that the company creates a global public sphere if it only physically interacts on the domestic level put attempts to create a global public sphere through the use of technology? What about news sources that also use social media in an attempt to facilitate a global public sphere but filter their news to only appeal to a specific domestic level? Does an opportunity for a global public sphere, even if there is only domestic interaction in that sphere, still count as a global public sphere? With other types of global public spheres, do these questions have similar answers? What about the issues that Mike discussed in his post this week? How would they relate?

These questions are operating under the assumption that social media and technology can create a global public sphere by transcending territorial boundaries and giving the opportunity for people from all over the world to discuss issues. 

World Events and the Global Public Sphere

After watching and listening to Professor Jackson's soliloquy for Module 6, I immediately thought about how this past week's conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the rowing of the Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 are playing out in the global public sphere. The media coverage of these events has the public following these stories and drawing conclusions of culpability.

The Palestinians are seeking sympathy from the global public sphere and in particular from the Arab world as the death toll increases inside Gaza. Their leaders are calling it a genocide by the Israeli military who have been conducting airstrikes. On the other hand, most reporting in the United States media has focused on how Hamas keeps launching rockets that are targeted for heavily populated areas throughout Israel. Therefore, the American media has portrayed Israel as justified in targeting Hamas political leadership and its military infrastructure within Gaza even as Palestinian casualties continue to mount. The public sphere can sometimes zoom in on a story like four Palestinian boys that were killed by an airstrike while playing on the beach. In focusing on some of these dramatic individual stories, sometimes the public loses its context of the bigger picture.

The second big story was the downing of MA Flight 17 from what appears to be a Russian supplied Buk SA-11 surface to air missile that killed all 298 passengers from 11 different countries. The Netherlands lost 191 of its citizens. Malaysia lost 44, and Australia lost 27. This event has re-focused attention on the support that Russia has been providing rebels in eastern Ukraine. While the infiltration, occupation, and annexation of Crimea by Russia resulted in rhetoric and some sanctions, this shot down of the Malaysian airliner has resulted in outrage globally. Although the facts are not yet clear, it seems that the global public sphere will prompt some sort of action taken against Russia and President Putin if the evidence is convincing.

BRICS Summit

At a BRICS summit on Tuesday, July 15^th, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa signed a declaration that would establish a bank. While opening a bank doesn’t sound that significant in itself, this particular bank is intended to compete with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in regards to funding international development and emergency financing.  Each of the five countries will fund the BRICS Development Bank, with initial projected capital amounting to an anticipated $100 billion.  Plans have already been made regarding the bank’s headquarters (Shanghai) and nationality of their first president (Indian).

Nearly 42% of the global population resides in the countries that make up BRICS, which also accounts for a fifth of the world’s GDP.  While they make up an enormous portion of the world economy today, the BRICS group only accounts for roughly 11 percent of IMF votes. 

Anticipated membership of the Development Bank is expected to increase rapidly by developing nations who have expressed dissatisfaction with the IMF.  Concerns with IMF revolve around a lack of voting power and strict austerity measures when funds are dispersed. 

When reading this article, I was reminded of our discussion at the end of class.  Lenders that provide funding to governments confronted with economic collapse hold a tremendous amount of leverage.  They can set stipulations regarding reform, and influence how and where aid can be applied.  The interests of US and Europe are both heavily weighted in the IMF and World Bank, allowing their influence to be applied to emerging economies and developing countries when their services are needed.  UN Development Program researcher, Gail Hurley, pointed out that, “As the balance of wealth and power shift, the emerging economies are increasing expressing their rights within these institutions.  There is a consensus that the governing structures of these institutions have to change.”   

However, there is now another option in addition to the IMF and World Bank that developing countries can explore, one that threatens the influence of the IMF and World Bank, and by extension the influence of the US and Europe.  The economic autonomy of states previously turned away by the IMF or World Bank may be bolstered the BRICS Development Bank, and their sovereignty strengthened in the eyes of their citizens.   The BRICS Development Bank may soon become a larger source of global influence and wield greater leverage when it comes to fulfilling their interests. 

States, Markets & Civil Societies

We have talked a lot in these past two weeks about the role of state authority and the dynamic of that relationship with the private authority of corporations. As Mike mentioned, class was really helpful in talking about the concepts Jackson introduced, the way states exert control over corporations. I also really thought it was helpful when Jason talked to us about the triangle relationship among states, markets, and civil societies. I thought it would be interesting to use this discussion to relate to a modern case study.

Here is the article I refer to below: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/16/us_sanctions_russian_banks_and_energy_companies

The news reported yesterday that Obama has issued strong sanctions against Russia in an attempt to pressure Moscow out of the Ukraine conflict. This is an interesting relationship because you have three states – Russia, Ukraine, and the United States-, open markets in Europe, markets with China, and US markets – and the civil societies of these states and neighboring countries. In this particular example we see the US, a state, trying to pressure another state to act in a particular way. These sanctions, however, may not have the effect the US hopes for because there are multiple markets that still remain open to Russian firms, even if the US markets don’t. The article also notes that Russia and China developed an international development bank to avoid the Western dominance in the international financial system. We can observe that states are working with other states to leverage the markets in their favor and avoid the state repercussions that could be felt on their civil societies. These sanctions have the potential to negatively affect Russian corporations (named specifically were energy and finance firms) and this is another way states can leverage corporations. If these sanctions result in being too expensive for the corporations, this may affect the other markets they interact in as well as the civil society affected by those corporations. These are just some of the ways in which we can observe the states, markets, and civil societies leveraging each other in a modern case.

In a complex case, with multiple states, markets, and civil societies, it is interesting to observe how all of these have the ability to leverage one another on the international stage. 

Obama administration denies Chinese firm due process, appeals court rules

This blog concerns an article in today's Washington Post and relates to Module 5's topic of how state public authority attempts to control private corporations. The bottom line of the article is that a US appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Obama administration failed to give constitutional due process to a Chinese-owned company barred for national security reasons from investing in wind farms in northwest Oregon. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-denies-chinese-firm-due-process-appeals-court-rules/2014/07/15/53d4e3ea-0c5d-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CIFUS) is an interagency committee established in 1950 and chaired by the Treasury secretary. It usually conducts a 30-day review of foreign investments deemed sensitive to national security and can extend that for an investigative period lasting an additional 45 days. After that, the president has up to 15 days to issue a decision. 

In 2012 CIFUS rejected a transaction by a wind-farm investment owned by two Chinese executives of Sanyi, a Chinese construction-equipment firm that manufactures wind turbines. President Obama ordered Ralls in September 2012 to divest itself of all four wind farms because they fall within or near restricted airspace of the Naval Systems Training Facility in Boardman, Oregon.

Although not directly related to this case, the United States Justice Department has indicted five members of of the Chinese military on charges of hacking into computers and stealing trade secrets from leading steel, nuclear plant and solar power firms. The Chinese approach to intelligence collection directed towards the United States is very different than the KGB approach during the Cold War. 

Foreign intelligence services create international private corporations as a cover to conduct espionage. Additionally, foreign intelligence services often target private citizens with access to defense technology as opposed to government employees. This blog provides further evidence that states must provide legal review of the activities of private corporations for a variety of reasons.

Clock hands and Colonialism

During his lecture for this module, Prof. Jackson mentioned a few of the more ambiguous cases of power struggles between states and corporations.  One that stood out to me was “underdevelopment through functional specialization.”  Remnants of colonialism still linger in many parts of the world. Many countries were exploited for centuries and once colonialism lifted, their comparative advantage nurtured in areas where profit was minimal.  This restricted development, and in short, perpetuated a cycle of poverty through a prevalence of low-skilled, low-wage jobs that can be seen today.

One such example is Bolivia.  Recently, President Evo Morales decided to change the direction of the clock on their congress building.  He did so to reflect their position in the southern hemisphere and in an attempt to distance themselves symbolically from their colonization of their northern counterparts.  President Morales feels as though this decision was a “clear expression of the de-colonization of the people” under his presidency. 

Despite this radical political ploy, Morales’ presidency has been characterized by conservative politics that ultimately maintains Bolivia’s dependency on foreign corporations.  His regime has supported foreign investment in mining and agriculture, and corporate regulations are soft.  As pointed out by Max Fisher in his article on Vox, Morales’ radical rhetoric and visible changes such as that to the clock on the congressional building are politically attractive, but, “at the end of the day, voters typically prefer to have a stable and predictable government; they want their clocks to run clockwise.” 

Despite all the change, advancement, and connections that have occurred from increased globalization, the public sector remains firmly grounded in tradition.  In contrast, the private sector has been pushed to advance and meet the needs and demands of an increasingly growing global market.  Corporations have, and will continue to remain a large influence in Bolivian politics.  Bolivia is only a single example, however it’s current plight is one experienced by many other countries.  The big question is, how can Bolivia move forward?

The Relationship between States and Corporations with regard to Regulation

Tonight in class we discussed in breakout groups some of the ways that states exert control over corporations. The class was a great opportunity to clarify some of the concepts introduced by Jackson in his soliloquy and furthered mentioned in the five tedious readings for the module. Two recent articles in the Wall Street Journal demonstrate how government regulation of fracking is playing out in the United States and Germany.

http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/north-dakota-fracking-behind-the-oil-train-explosions-1404761720-lMyQjAxMTA0MDAwODEwNDgyWj

The first article describes how in North Dakota's Bakken Shale oil field, nobody installed the necessary equipment to make volatile crude oil safer to handle. Oil tapped from shale is generally more volatile than traditional crude oil. The volatility makes it a safety hazard to transport by train. Last year a crude-by-rail accident in Quebec killed 47 people. Several energy corporations considered  building stabilizers to remove the most volatile gases before transport, but ultimately declined the option. Robert Hall, a National Safety Transportation Board member, says the decision on whether to stabilize is driven by commercial considerations. "The regulations are silent," he says.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/germanys-fracking-follies-1404771522?tesla=y&mod=djemMER_h&mg=reno64-wsj

In July 7's WSJ, the short article discusses how even with the Ukraine crisis and the German dependency on Russian energy resources, the German Environment Minister, Barbara Hendricks, announced that most forms of hydraulic tracking will be banned until 2021. Germany imports 90% of its gas supply, and it has up to 2.3 trillion cubic meters of domestic shale gas. Chancellor Angela Merkel has not yet weighed in on the issue.

The two articles highlight what Kristin mentioned in class as the ongoing push and pull between governments and corporations.

The Power of Rhetoric

As pointed out by a few of our classmates, ISIS’s provision of public services for Iraqi citizens and their use of violence threatens state sovereignty by providing the very things the state should be providing its citizens.   This offers ISIS a sense of legitimacy, garnering support from citizens within the state and in some cases, internationally.

This week news broke of an American teen, Shannon Conley, who was arrested for attempting to travel abroad and join ISIS.  The story follows the teen’s escalation of hostile and radical behavior prior to her attempted departure to Turkey where she hoped to unite with ISIS forces.  A Muslim convert, she had allegedly met a Tunisian man online whom she planned on marrying, and then proceeded to join the U.S. military in order to gain skills she could use once overseas.  Upon questioning, she reported that she “needed to go overseas and be trained in jihad.”

When I heard this story I was reminded of the importance of rhetoric in establishing legitimacy. Globalization has increased the opportunities terrorist organizations have in reaching sympathetic ears and potential allies.  The legitimacy of ISIS as an organization must be believable, and persuasive rhetoric in addition to positive action lend them a sense of authority bestowed upon them by a public hungry for change.  More importantly, by earning respect and admiration they succeed in undermining the good that the state has attempted to establish in Iraq. 

Ms. Conley’s actions are not unique, and she joins a growing list of Americans arrested for attempting to join terrorist organizations abroad.  The propagandistic actions of the ISIS group are calculated, capable of influencing those overseas and in our own backyard. 

Transnational Corporations

We have been looking at the role of transnational organizations in regards to violence and public authority. Our group has discussed the role of private security firms in a few different aspects. I would like to observe the role of transnational corporations and how that affects public authority, especially among state actors and international organizations; does violence have a role to play for this?  

Last week I explored the topic of the role of legitimate violence among states. Taking this from a different perspective- How is the role of legitimate violence and public authority affected when an international organization steps in to impose rules against transnational corporations that operate among different state actors? This week there was a news report that the United Nations wants to legislate against transnational corporations (found here: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2459002/un_to_outlaw_corporations_human_rights_abuses.html ). If an international organization starts to impose legislature against transnational corporations, how does that affect the public authority if at all? If the states that are members of the United Nations give that organization authority to impose against those organizations without taking away from the state’s public authority?

From what we talked about in class yesterday, I would argue that the United Nations does not take away from the public authority of the states. In fact, the actions it takes are legitimized from the legitimacy the UN has for the members that are part of that organization.  However, this could be observed as a way states are giving up some of their own autonomy for an international organization to carry out their own actions.

How does this argument relate to the role of Private Security Firms? What do you think?