Technology: Paving the Road for Development

            The Center for Global Development (CGD) asserts: "Technology plays an increasingly important role in delivering effective aid and development programs." (CGD)   Inventions, forms of communication, and innovative uses of the Internet are some of the means by which development can happen.   New technologies have the potential, if given the support required, to aid in eliminating or easing most other global development problems.  Without technological development, many other forms of development would not even be possible.

            Technologies that will aid development have to be developed themselves. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines research and development (R&D) as, “creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. R&D is a term covering three activities: basic research, applied research, and experimental development.” (OECD) When development efforts are put toward researching and developing new forms of technology, other developmental changes are aided in the process.

A good example a development in technology aiding another form of development is the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project.  OLPC developed a laptop to be given to children in the developing world, which was aimed to be “a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop.” (OLPC)  The OLPC project’s main goal was to give children in the developing world the connectivity and computing power that children in the developed world already had, but in a form that was sustainable for their living conditions.  This goal could not be accomplished without a technological development that made it possible to fit the necessary computing power into a rugged, sustainable, and, most importantly, affordable machine.  The technological development achieved by the engineers at the OLPC project, made way for an important educational development.

            Another example is the Grameen Foundation’s use cell phone technology as a tool to improve agricultural development.  According to the Foundation, the “Community Knowledge Worker (CKW) program uses mobile phone applications and human networks we have developed to provide poor farmers with relevant, timely agricultural information, including caring for animals, planting crops, treating pests and diseases, and getting fair market prices for produce and livestock. This information helps farmers improve their lives and livelihoods by increasing their productivity and income.” (Grameen)  By developing a cell phone application that gives farmers much needed information and connectivity, the Grameen Foundation has used technology as a means of facilitating agricultural development. 

            Even economic, private finance, and globalization development can utilize technology to be more effective.  Kiva is a, “a non-profit organization with a mission to connect people through lending to alleviate poverty. Leveraging the internet and a worldwide network of microfinance institutions, Kiva lets individuals lend as little as $25 to help create opportunity around the world.” (Kiva)  Kiva is an organization that allows for micro-financing to occur between lenders and entrepreneurs from across the world.  Through an innovative application of the Internet, anyone, anywhere can help finance a loan to help their choice of people seeking small loans, such as Cambodian farmer Saroeun Yem, who plans to buy seed, fertilizer and pesticide to maintain his farm. (Saroeun) 

            There are areas, however, where providing innovative technologies is not a particularly useful tool.  For example, political development is a method of addressing developmental needs on the highest level: those who make policy.  Whether it is because of corruption, or government inefficiency, political development seeks to strengthen fragile states, promote fairer government, and work toward the equality of citizens, among many other goals.  When conducting this form of development, the organization or body responsible for the work, is hammering away at the state itself.  Examples of institutions that organize political development include the United Nations, the United States Military, and the National Democratic Institute.  Technology, while it is routinely used by these development organizations, is not the means by which they are able to help in building and maintaining stable governments.

            The development of new technologies for other kinds of development is a first step, in a manner of speaking.  To have successful development in agriculture, for example, technological development must first be accomplished; whether that development is a new, more efficient piece of machinery, or a cell phone application that allows a farmer to connect with a body of agricultural knowledge.  Applied technology makes many other forms of development easier, more efficient, and even possible. 

            While the development of new technologies is often vital to development in other areas, it is important to note where and how that technology is being developed.  OLPC, Kiva, and the Grameen Foundation's cell phone application are all technologies that have been developed and maintained in the developed world.  These technologies are then handed to people in the undeveloped world through nonprofits or other development organizations.  The implications of this one-way transfer are complex, but development will really be happening when people develop their own necessary innovations.  Otherwise, the developed and underdeveloped worlds are trapped in a cycle of hand-me-down technology.

Works Cited:

"Agriculture | Grameen Foundation." Grameen Foundation | Combining the Power of Microfinance and Technology to Defeat Global Poverty. <http://www.grameenfoundation.org/what-we-do/mobile-phone-solutions/agriculture>.

"Kiva - About Us." Kiva - Loans That Change Lives. Web. <http://www.kiva.org/about>.

"Kiva - Lend Saroeun from Cambodia." Kiva - Loans That Change Lives. Web. <http://www.kiva.org/lend/353299>.

"Mission." One Laptop per Child. Web. <http://one.laptop.org/about/mission>.

Technology" Center for Global Development (CGD). Web. <http://www.cgdev.org/section/topics/technology>.

"SourceOECD: Factbook 2009." SourceOECD. OECD, 2008. Web. <http://lysander.sourceoecd.org/vl=2988869/cl=18/nw=1/rpsv/factbook/070101.htm>.

2 R2P Or Not 2 R2P?

             If conflict is what you want, look no further then Africa. East Africa, which includes countries like Ethiopia, Somali and Kenya, is plagued with the world’s worst food crisis.  The Middle East and North Africa is booming with political unrest. Nigeria is an environmentalists’ worst nightmare, gaining the attention of human rights activists and fair trade advocates around the world due to its oil corporations. And countries like Rwanda and Darfur are breading grounds for Civil War and unrest (Shah). The Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, “is a recently developed concept in international relations regarding a state's responsibilities towards its population, as well as the international community's responsibility should a state fail or refuse to uphold its basic duties. One important aim, among others, is to provide a more focused legal and ethical framework for "humanitarian intervention": the intervention by external actors (preferably through international consensus and the approval of the UN Security Council) in a state that is unwilling or unable to prevent or stop genocide, massive killings and other massive human rights violations” (“Responsibility to Protect”).

The idea of R2P seriously challenges the dominance of state sovereignty as a guide for international law because that sovereignty is no longer only a privilege, but also a responsibility. Concerning the stability of the international system, is it better for state sovereignty to remain sacred or for the international community to adopt the doctrine of R2P?

The Chinese proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime,” applies almost perfectly to the idea of Responsibility to Protect, or R2P. In a perfect world, R2P would be a process where one country, or a collection of countries, can help another by teaching it how to fish. However, this is not a perfect world, and instead of teaching countries how to fish, R2P has been a process where fish are handed out, often with interest attached.

Before R2P, the world would watch as countries like Rwanda and Bosnia had their people slaughtered, having to then deal with the guilt, silently witnessing genocide. Nevertheless, what one must first consider is the obligation of a country in regards to another. As human beings, we are only responsible for ourselves, evident in the Hobbsean state of nature, where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” due to mans need to protect himself. Of course, one can assume that even in our most natural form, as human beings we possess morals. Still, these morals are personal, and only once man is thrust into government do these morals become a public agreement of sorts – a shared ideal and belief. That is why guilt is evoked when one watches a child get bullied by another, and does nothing. Nonetheless, in our most pure state of nature, we would watch such an act, and be thankful we were still in one piece.

Darfur is a perfect example of the failure of R2P. “Darfur is a typical North-East African civil war, consisting of multiple overlapping conflicts interspersed with large-scale of ensives by the government army and its proxies and rebels. During 2001–2003, local disputes were exacerbated by the breakdown of local governance and combined with the ambitions of a frustrated provincial elite to fuel an insurgency, which escalated more quickly and bloodily than either side anticipated. The government response was both ham-fisted and ruthless—characteristics of Khartoum’s counter-insurgencies since the 1980s. The result was massacre, displacement and famine, an overall death toll probably exceeding 200,000, the deepening of distrust between Darfurians and the political leaders in Khartoum to the point of bitter hatred, and the fragmentation of Darfurian society into a state approaching anarchy, characterized by multiple local conflicts” (De Waal).

National organizations were created in order to help bring stability and peace to the conflict; however, none were able to achieve their goals. The Ndjamena Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement, signed on April 8^th 2004, was “the basis for all subsequent diplomatic efforts on Darfur,” yet the agreement was rushed. The AU, or African Union, was allowed to provide protection for civilians, but did not have the supplies to achieve it. And lastly AMIS (African Mission in Sudan) attempted to bring stability to the situation, but lacked the funds and resources to do so. The responses of the UN Security Council and the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) consisted chiefly of ad hoc steps rather than a systematic or strategic approach to the crisis” (De Waal).

The UNSC implemented a disarmament resolution in July 2004, however did nothing to monitor or even implement the resolution, and failed to act when said resolution was broken. “In August the UN demanded a series of steps to ensure security around displaced persons’ camps but also failed to take any follow-up actions when Sudan government actions stalled. Later the UNSC adopted a resolution enabling it to identify individuals obstructing the peace process and sanction them, but it has used this instrument only slowly, sparingly and ineffectively” (De Waal).

“Over the period 2004–2007, the international community pursued a range of objectives for Darfur that included improving security and humanitarian access, supporting the CPA, obtaining justice at The Hague, seeking a negotiated peace, dispatching a UN force and punishing those standing in the way of these goals. The multiplicity of these goals impeded a clear and coherent strategy. Some actions demanded the impossible while others set unrealistic deadlines. Few were followed up on” (De Waal).

Now that R2P is being enforced and used in international politics (albeit ineffectively), another more current example we faced was the No-Fly Zone in Libya. Firstly, why was Libya chosen, and not, for example, Bahrain? According to the United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, each case has its own merits and should be taken as a stand-alone. However, one can see interest play a large role in such decision-making. Libya is not a large-scale producer of oil, meaning the US has noting to loose with reaching a disagreement with Libya (economically). Secondly, one must take into account how much the ‘weak kid’ wants help to stop the ‘bully.’ The No-Fly zone will not be causality free, and means that bombing Libyan air forces is a necessity. This can be seen as Western interference, and can even anger the very people the US wishes to help.  Also, tying into national interest, and raison d’état, continuing with the No-Fly zone in Libya would require the taking away of much needed resources in Afghanistan.

So what should be done? When thinking back to the state of nature, if Obama, for example, cannot live with the guilt of not helping a country or its people, he can march on over there and make his difference. However, at this point, it seems unfair to both the population helping, as to the population receiving the help, to accept it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and although a country may seem to be helping another, everyone acts in their own interest, and politicians want to get re-elected or gain popularity.

The concept of R2P is a nice one – optimistic, inspiring and hopeful. However, our world makes it hard tell what help is necessary, and what help is for the sole purpose of flashing for money. Until our intentions become as close to pure as possible, attempting to defend others will backfire terribly.

Works Cited:

De Waal, Alex. "Darfur [Sudan] And The Failure Of The Responsibility To Protect." International Affairs 83.6 (2007): 1039-1054. International Political Science Abstracts. Web. 8 Nov. 2011.

"Responsibility to Protect." Dictionary Sensagent. Sensagent, Jan. 2009. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. <http://dictionary.sensagent.com/responsibility+to+protect/en-en/>.

Shah, Anup. "Conflicts in Africa — Global Issues." Global Issues: Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All — Global Issues. 31 July 2011. Web. 08 Nov. 2011. <http://www.globalissues.org/issue/83/conflicts-in-africa>.

Diasporas and Integration

Diaspora and Integration

“Sometimes we feel we straddle two cultures; at other times, that we fall between two stools.” This is what Salman Rushdie said in his book Imaginary Homelands talking about how people can feel attached to two nations at the same time or none at all, and this has happened throughout history. We know of the famous historical Diaspora where the Jews were expelled from the Roman Province of Palestine due to repeated uprisings and the following devastation by the Roman Army. They spread throughout the rest of the Roman Empires establishing communities, which tried to integrate into the local communities with varying successes and failures. We also know of the most recent diaspora in Somalia where due to a drought over 1 million Somalis left the country due to an extreme drought which has affected most of the country causing economic pressures. They have settled in refugee camps in the surrounding countries, trying to integrate within the society or waiting until the unfortunate situation in Somalia has passed over.

In the months from February to August, Somalia has experienced an extensive drought which has led to a high livestock mortality rate, and inflated grain prices. The cereal prices are now 260% higher than they were in 2010. Due to these events, many Somalis are facing starvation, with all of the country being at least under a stressed situation, crisis situations declared in the southern part of the country and a famine situation being declared in Mogadishu and the surrounding areas. UN aid groups, and independent groups attempted to bring aid to the famished groups, yet before this could happen the powerful Islamist Militant group the Shabab prevented the workers from distributing the food to the populace. In turn the UN and the African Union acted sending troops into the area, securing Mogadishu for the TFG or Transitional Federal Government, which is the internationally recognized government in Somalia. Most recently though there has been more direct action by outside powers with Kenya and even more recently Djibouti sending in troops to support the African Union, and the militant groups have responded by launching attacks against African Union troops and even launching incursions into Kenya.

These recent events have further increased the devastation which has enveloped the country since 1991. A side effect of this devastation and also the drought has increased amount of Somalis leaving the country, with 1 million having left the country. While many Somalis have left the country due to the instability, there hasn’t been such a large of an amount as this. Where will this lead though, will the neighboring countries reject the new refugees and treat them like second class citizens, will they try to disperse them or force them to leave, will they react by trying to help the neighboring country so they can move back , or will they let them integrate into society.

No one knows which one they will choose directly, but from this situation we can see one neighboring country, Kenya reacting by trying to stabilize Southern Somalia ( a hint of realism maybe), even facing heavy resistance from the militias. Yet what about integration, is it possible for these Somalis to integrate into Kenyan society, Kenya while being one of the more stable governments in Africa, still can be affected by a vast movements of poor people needing a way to support themselves, can the Kenyan economy stand up to the pressure?

In conclusion we can see that prolonged or even sudden events can provoke a diaspora in a country. Somalia has recently experience that first hand with 1 million Somalis leaving the country due to a devastating drought which has developed most of the country. We can also see how these events can lead to other nations experiencing the brunt of the immigrants and reacting to where they see fit. Yet we can also see if the people want to integrate into the neighboring societies attempted to change their paths. “Sometimes we feel we straddle two cultures; at other times, that we fall between two stools.”

Sources

New York Times: Nytimes.com

CIA World Factbook: CIA World Factbook.com

Good Reads: Good Reads.com

“New” Union

For about 20 years of existing of “new” Russia, among all international problems, the most pressing issue is relations among former Soviet countries. Intertwining of destinies of people, who used to live in one state, two hundred nations, who created a unique civilization, continue to excite all classes and segments of population. And this definitely is not only nostalgia. (Timosh)That is why there is no matter how people try to discredit the Soviet past, a sense of grandeur and glory od people of Soviet Union remains. Probably, due to this the desire for unity arises again.

Thus, Yeltsin, within the presidential campaign in 1996, announced the establishment of the Union State of Russia and Belarus and signed decree, according to which the Russian international priority is integration of former Soviet countries. However, none of this was accomplished. The reasons vary, but one thing is clear: political decisions require deep studies, adaptation of a concept, modeling, planning. Unfortunately, most of ideas remain political slogans of the moment. (McDowell)

For example, the Union State: no one actually knows what is this. There are no theory, no precedents in the world (a sort of the union of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but this formation is stimulated and temporary and has no prospects), no project, but a lot of declarations and questions. So, it leave us hope that Putin’s idea of establishment of Eurasian Union will gain real shape and find realization of both in scientific theory and political practice. (Buckley) Because this is a call of time, the obvious answer to the challenges of the modern world.

One of the manifestations of globalization of the society was the creation of geopolitical entities that form the global processes. More often those actors function а states, while states are loosing their subjectivity in politics, economics and social relations. This a new challenge: 45 000 MNC (multinational corporations), over 1000 transnational banks, 16 international financial centers, such institutions like IMF, World Bank and FRS with its own printing press, for dissenters – NATO and intelligent services. All of this made revolution in the economy – money is separated from production, it became not only way of payment, but also a commodity and the meaning of life. In response global and regional associations generated by the cultural and historical similarities – the Greater China, Europe, actively integrating Latin America, next in line – the Islamic world. (McDowell)

Today, three geopolitical centers define mainly global processes, leading a tough fight and at the same time forming a global field of tension. It is North America, Europe and China. They have potential to distinguish them а world leaders: independent economic space with the number of its own consumers over 400 million people, GDP equal not less than 20 trillion dollars, own world currency, armed forces, capable to operate anywhere in the world, in the ocean and space, geopolitical doctrine and the global strategy and its own development strategy. (Putin calls for 'Eurasian Union' of ex-Soviet republics) (Bryanskiy)

Russia belongs to the second echelon of world actors, who recognize its status of world-class power only due to the presence of nuclear potential, combined with the spatial position, natural resources, and the heritage of the succession of geopolitical greatness of the Soviet Union. But today Russia does not create its own potential and there is possibility to end up in the third echelon. That is why present Russian Federation want to change its way of development.

The project of Eurasian Union is highly relevant and may have a lot of perspectives, but there are some problems. First of all, there is fight for resources, control, infrastructure and markets between world’s geopolitical centers – USA, China, Europe. Also there is fight between Islamic centers: Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. One more problem – the elite of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are reluctant to share national sovereignty or power, Kyrgyzstan is bounded by the obligations а a WTO member, Tajikistan is not able to enter the common customs and economic space due to distance from Russia and Kazakhstan. (Weitz) In Caucasus, only Armenia showed interest, but it does not have the common boarders with Russia or with other possible members. Ukraine – most of population wish to live in Europe, rather than in Asia, oil and gas – the subject of envy, but there is European Union, which is about to seduce it.

So the real contenders for membership in alliance are Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Anyway, the Eurasian Union is necessary, but without the only focus on economics. It should be nations’ return to national values, connection between cultural and historical traditions with the results of the technological advances, а experience of Chinese. So, economics serve а a means of comprehensive development of people and society in the future Eurasian Union. Traditionally there is no liberal economic models or western values of life. (Weir)

The first success of the Eurasian Union probably will push the rest of the CIS to seek entry into it. However, the potential of the Union, even if the majority of CIS countries will join it, will be insufficient to compete successfully with China, Europe, America or transnational financial monsters. The contours for this alliance are SOC, BRICS, ASEAN and etc. (Cohen) The Eurasian Union should act jointly with Russia а a whole, and also start formation of an independent geopolitical center and economic space.

And finally, one more argument in favor of the Union. The Soviet leaders had such a proposition: “If the opponent is criticizing – it means we are going the right way”. The Putin’s proposal caused a panic and sever critics in the world. Also there were concerns about the revival of the Soviet Union. (Bryanskiy)Of course, those countries during the period of crisis do not care much of Russian well-being, primarily they care about themselves and their interests. Within the Union common foreign policy, the practice of joint defending of economic interests, collective security system will form. It is much easier to deal with every single country individually, that is why CIS should unite.
Works Cited
Bryanskiy, Gleb. "Russia's Putin says wants to build "Eurasian Union"." Reuters 03 10 2011.
Buckley, Neil. " Putin’s Eurasian push challenges west." Financial Times 06 10 2011.
Cohen, David. "China and the Eurasian Union." The Diplomat 07 10 2011.
McDowell, Daragh. "Putin's Eurasian Union deserves a Second Look." World Politics Review 18 09 2011.
"Putin calls for 'Eurasian Union' of ex-Soviet republics." BBC news 04 10 2011.
Telegraph, The Daily. " "Kazakhstan welcomes Putin's Eurasian Union concept"." 06 10 2011.
Timosh, Yuli. "Ukraine, Russia and the Eurasian Union." The Economist 15 10 2011.
Weir, Fred. "Russia: Putin advances Eurasian Union." The Glopal Post 27 10 2011.
Weitz, Richard. "Global Insights: Dim Prospects for Puton's Eurasian Union." World Politics Review 12 10 2011.

The UAR: A Failed Attempt at Integration

           This week in class we learned that integration involves two or more nations to share or give up some of their sovereignty in order to work towards other advantages, which can include a variety of things. We know from such organizations such as the European Union and the United Nations, that integration is possible, but we also know that there have been many failed attempts as well. One such failed attempt was the United Arab Republic, a short-lived union between Egypt and Syria. The question here is: why did the UAR fail and what can other nations take from this failure in order to strengthen their own integration attempts? 

            The United Arab Republic began in 1958 and ended in late 1961 when Syrian military staged a coup that took back their nation and then split from Egypt (BBC). The Syrians became unhappy with the union for a variety of reasons, the largest of them being that the Egyptians were given too much, and the Syrians too little. As we learned in class, in order for integration to be successful, everyone must receive an “equal piece of the pie”. The internal problems the opposition of both Turkey and Israel, so outside factors could not have played a major part in the disintegration of the United Arab Republic – the problem with the UAR was between Egypt and Syria.

            Syrian, at the time, was extremely unstable. It had just won its independence from France twelve years before. Their military was extremely divided, as was the political system, which the military was also very active in (Palmer). Because of these conditions within the Syrian government, Colonel Nasser only agreed to the union if there was a plebiscite, the many parties within the nation were dissolved, and the military gave up its political control as well as his earlier demands that would mainly benefit Egypt (Palmer). So why did the Syrians accept these conditions that would clearly put Egypt above their own country? At the time, the political instability, pressures from the populous, and outside pressures from the Soviet Union plagues Syria, so at the time that the union was born, it seemed like the best option for the country as a whole.

            This decision by Syrian officials to unify with Egypt shows the power not only of the people of a country, but also the effects that outside pressures could have. The Syrian government saw the danger of falling to the Soviets, so in order to reduce that risk, they gave up some of their sovereignty in order to both satisfy the people and stop the Soviet pressures. The country was extremely optimistic about the union at the beginning. They believed that this merge with Egypt would give them short-term and long-term benefits, and that it would also led to the eventual formation of a democracy once the populous was able to see the full benefits of having such rights (Palmer). The problems arose soon after the union, because once the short-term benefits of the merge were satisfied, they began to see the downsides of the union at its fullest.

            First and foremost, the Syrians felt as if they were second to the Egyptians for a variety of reasons. The Syrian half of the government had been filled with a large number of Egyptians, while the Egyptian half of the government remained fully Egyptian. The majority of high-ranking positions in the united sector of the government were given to Egyptians. Also, many Syrian political officials and military officers were sent to Egypt, which made them feel as if they had been exiled from their homeland. When the Syrians complained about the inequalities, President Nassir created a presidential council that would consist of three representatives from each region (Palmer).

            The elite politicians were not the only portion of Syria that became unsupportive of the United Arab Republic. The general population did not see any of the benefits that they had thought would come to them when the two nations united. They were also cut off from the rest of the world. Nasser closed the borders that Syria shared with both Iraq and Jordan, causing the trade to continue illegally, hurting both Syria and the civilian population (Palmer). The hardships that Syria faced were multiplied by a three-year famine and a mass exodus of skilled workers illegally leaving Syria for a better life in other countries (Palmer). These workers were then replaced by Egyptians which once again added to the tension

            Another one of the issues that the Syrians and the Egyptians had was that they were unable to work together in order to form a well-working government that would be able to communicate. There was a lot of confusion among the different departments because they did not know where their jurisdiction started and ended. They were also unable to fully understand each other. Both countries had had just recently gained their independence, Egypt from England, Syria from France, so their conflicting identities was a major source of tension (Palmer). Also, because Syria was made to feel like it was second to Egypt the feeling of once again being colonized began to surface (Palmer).

All of this tension, made worse through rumors and economic hardship, was the impetus that caused the coup on September 28, 1961 in Syria (United Arab Republic). The Syrian military retook control of the country and declared the union over.

            This union came almost immediately after both countries gained their independence from the grasp of colonialism. This is dangerous in itself, because the wounds were still fresh. Nasser’s conditions set up the Egyptians to receive a bigger piece of the pie. This feeling of inequality that the Syrians received was multiplied by the fresh wounds of colonialism, causing distrust to run rampant. This coincides with the theory of realism because the two nations only joined together because they could see the long-term benefits of it. But, when it became clear that the union was only benefiting Egypt, Syria quickly staged the coup that ended their union.

The union came into being because of the long-lasting hope that the Arab world would eventually be united. They identified themselves as Arabs and Muslims which allowed for the United Arab Republic to be created in the first place. But, their shared identity was not enough to hold the UAR together. When Egypt took most of the benefit and then began to isolate Syria from the rest of the world, the Syrians united to restore their national identity.

The possibility of future Arab integration is not lost because of this one failed attempt. These countries were too young at the time of the creation of the United Arab Republic for the attempt to work out successfully. In the future, we could see another attempted integration in the Arab and Muslim world, and it could be successful, as long the countries involved realize that in order for integration to be successful, all actors must be given the feeling of equality, since they are all giving up the same amount of sovereignty for the same advantages. They should model themselves after more successful models such as the European Union.

           

Works Cited

"BBC News - Syria Profile - Overview." BBC - Homepage. BBC News, 5 Oct. 2011. Web. 05 Nov. 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703856>.

Palmer, Monte. The United Arab Republic: An Assessment of Its Failure.  Middle East Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Winter, 1966), pp. 50-67. Middle East Institute <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4323954>.

"United Arab Republic (U.A.R.) (historical Republic, Egypt-Syria) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 06 Nov. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/615447/United-Arab-Republic-UAR>.

Is a North American Union Possible?

North America. Home to over 528 million people, it is the 4^th largest continent in terms of population. Of those, over 80% live in Canada, The United States, and Mexico. These three nations are also the most developed, having the top three highest GDPs on the continent. Obviously, they engage in a lot of economic trade and political cooperation. After the launch of the Euro in 1999, many started to wonder whether or not a similar arrangement would be successful in North America. This of course set off many debates among scholars, politicians, and average people on the street. All of them asking the same question, “Is this possible, and if so, is it a good idea?” Liberal theory suggests that it could work, but Realists and Constructivists would be more pessimistic about a North American Union’s chances of success. But, regardless of its chances, the NAU would most likely be beneficial to all three nations, if it is done correctly.

The United States, Canada, and Mexico already have many institutions and agreements in between them, the most prominent being NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect on January 1, 1994 (USDA). Its purpose was to “remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico” (USDA). When it was originally signed, most of the provisions outlined did not take effect right away. Some took years to gradually implement, but all of them were finally in effect by January 1, 2008 (TIME). The benefits of NAFTA have been numerous. Andrea Ford points out that “Intra-North American trade has more than tripled since NAFTA's inception, and the value of U.S. agricultural exports worldwide has climbed by 65 percent” (Ford). But, this success does not come without controversy. Many critics say that this agreement undermines the US manufacturing industry, because companies will close down their American branches in favor of cheaper Mexican labor (Ford). This fear, however, turns out to be false. U.S. manufacturing rose 58% between 1993 and 2006, compared to 42% between 1980 and 1993 (USDA). Even in the face of economic success, many are still wary about NAFTA, let alone a North American Union.

This brings us back to the question of whether or not a North American Union would work. Eric Hellener, a Canadian economist, notes some of the major obstacles standing in the way of a NAU. One of the primary concerns of Canadians, and one of the major points of critics, is that the United States would “inevitably dominate such a union because of the asymmetries of power in the region” (Hellener 91). Because of its drastically larger population and GDP, this claim does hold a lot weight. Another concern is that “Canada would be unable to convince the US to follow the European model of creating a new supranational currency and central bank in which the participant countries had an equal voice. Instead, the common currency for North America would become the US dollar, and Canada would have little influence over monetary policy in the region” (Hellener 91). Thus, if there ever was to be a NAU, it would have to come with political equality guarantees, and in order for this to truly be fair, we would have to give up our beloved dollar in favor of an entirely new currency. This is where the constructivists say that a North American Union would never work. They would cite American identity as a major inhibitor of any plan to deeply integrate North America. Another point that backs up constructivists’ arguments is the fact that not only would we have to give up our currency; we would have to integrate our languages also. Many Americans would undoubtedly have issues with this. Today, there is already controversy over schools making special accommodations for students who speak primarily Spanish, let alone proposing the requirement that all official documents be printed in English, Spanish, and French. Realists would point out that the US would also be unwilling to risk its security in favor of a political union with Canada and Mexico. Drug cartels are causing havoc in the northern Mexican states, causing the US to build up forces on the border. Thus reinforcing their point that Americans would feel that it would be too dangerous to integrate with Mexico. Those are only a few of the arguments against a North American Union, and it already seems impossible.

But, looking at this matter through the lens of Liberalism, it would seem that the benefit to all three countries would outweigh the costs. To prove this, we need not look further than the benefits that NAFTA has already provided. Canada and Mexico accounted for 37% of the total growth of U.S. agricultural exports since 1993 (USDA). Mexican wages grew steadily after the 1994 peso crisis, reached pre-crisis levels in 1997; and have increased each year since (USDA). From 1993 to 2007, trade among the NAFTA nations more than tripled, from $297 billion to $930 billion. Business investment in the United States has risen by 117 percent since 1993, compared to a 45 percent increase between 1979 and 1993 (USDA). These facts show just some of the economic benefits of integration, but are definitely not all that there is. If the NAFTA members were to further integrate, our economic and worldwide political power would increase exponentially. We are a resource rich continent. If we were able to integrate our economies, we would be the biggest economic powerhouse on the planet, creating millions of jobs and increasing the average wage for all North Americans. Realist arguments about security are largely baseless. The US already minimally guards its border with Canada, so we are already integrated with Canada in that sense. When it comes to the southern border, it would make the US more secure to be directly involved in Mexican law enforcement. A joint effort to clean up the crime ridden northern regions of Mexico, using American tactics and Mexican personnel, would make both countries more secure. Not to mention, an increased US presence would also pressure reforms within the Mexican government, promoting a crackdown on corruption within law enforcement. Constructivist arguments do not make much sense either. The “American Identity” is changing. Before this century is over, Whites will be a minority (CBSnews). As a nation, we are quickly moving away from a “WASP” mentality, and toward a more “integrated” mindset. Therefore, our “identity” will be in the perfect place by the time a North American Union is even feasible.

There are many arguments for and against a more integrated North America. We saw the beginnings with NAFTA and over the coming years will most likely see more integration on all levels. This integration would be beneficial to all involved. But, in the face of this current economic crisis, a true North American Union will most likely not happen for many years to come.

Works Cited

Ford, Andrea. "A Brief History Of NAFTA - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. Time Magazine, 30 Dec. 2008. Web. 06 Nov. 2011. .

Helleiner, Eric. "Canada as a 13th Reserve District? Federalism and the Governance of North American Monetary Union." Canadian Foreign Policy Journal (2004): 91-109. Print.

"North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) —." USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Web. 06 Nov. 2011. .

"Whites in U.S. Edge Toward Minority Status - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. CBS News, 10 Mar. 2010. Web. 06 Nov. 2011. .