People in IR seem overly concerned with legitimacy these days. I really wonder why. Who cares if Sudan, or Burma, or any of the eastern “toosmalltocareistan” countries doesn’t think your actions are legitimate? The only reason I care if countries like China and Russia think what I’m doing is legitimate is that they have big economies, and big economies allow big defense spending. They can intervene on behalf of the countries who feel slighted by our “illegitimate” actions.
If we invade a country to topple an oppressive government without a UN mandate it’s considered illegitimate. Well I hate to break it to people; it is very likely that the government that was toppled was also illegitimate. This point could be refuted by some American actions during the cold war, but times have changed, and those examples are irrelevant in the current context.
Sure there are lots of illegitimate governments around the world, but you can’t topple them all at once, and why would you start with your friends when there are so many that are both illegitimate and unfriendly? The only reason that the question really comes up is because when we occupy a country it seems less legitimate. Our leaders aren’t willing to commit wholesale war crimes which the previous leaders used to keep the population in line. Just because people are free to protest our occupation and the media is given comparatively free access to the country and citizens doesn’t make our occupation any less legitimate than the previous government.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again and again and again. Countries can’t just take what they want from the menu of developed world institutions. You can’t simply claim sovereignty and then walk away from the table. Sovereignty entails the protection of minorities, the rule of law, and some sort of popular method for choosing leaders. If you can’t meet these basic thresholds I’m sorry, but you don’t just get to take the principle of sovereignty and walk away from the table.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
(Illustration courtesy of The Economist)
In The Following Blog Are Not Necessarily Those Of The Author
(Illustration courtesy of The Economist)
Topics
- News (118)
- Random Thoughts (73)
- Global Economy (66)
- United States (58)
- China (42)
- Rant (36)
- International Relations (34)
- Canada (31)
- The Developing World (19)
- Oil Price (18)
- Canadian Politics (16)
- European Union (14)
- Climate Change (12)
- Fossil Fuels (11)
- US Presidential Election (11)
- Clean Energy (10)
- Draconian Policies (9)
- Canadian Election (7)
- Innovative Policies (7)
- Russia (7)
- Technology (7)
- Random Facts (6)
- Environment (5)
- Education (4)
- Russia at War (4)
- Economics (3)
- India (3)
- Iran (3)
- Middle East (3)
- Olympics (3)
- Science (3)
- Af-Pak (2)
- Afghanistan (2)
- Change of Opinion (2)
- Economist's Red Book (2)
- Greece (2)
- Intellectual Property (2)
- North Korea (2)
- Africa (1)
- Election 2015 (1)
- Israel (1)
- Pakistan (1)
- Palestine (1)
- Saudi Arabia (1)
- Terrorism (1)
- Venezuela (1)
Brief Conversational Thoughts
- Me at Oktoberfest - The greatest thing about multiculturalism is that you get to celebrate every culture’s drinking holidays. This leads me to the question of why Asian’s don’t have any good drinking holidays, or why they are holding out on sharing them with the rest of us.
- Overheard at lunch - "Are you one of those Asians that turns all red as soon as they have any alcohol?"
- Me: Missionaries going to hostile countries need to be more dedicated to their cause and more forceful in their ideology. George: Aren't those called economists?
- On natives learning the value of hard work instead of getting an apology- "If they didn't need to learn the value of hard work, they would have colonized Europe and we wouldn’t be having this conversation"
- On a worsening global economy – “I’m not that concerned about a global recession. I’m a student, it’s not like my standard of living can get much lower”
What I've Finished Reading Recently
- Development Redefined by Robin Broad and John Cavanagh – I don’t know how this got on my reading list, but it was clearly from a less than reputable source. If you know nothing, or very little about the rise and shift of the Washington Consensus then this book would likely be helpful. Otherwise it is probably not worth your time.
- Wealth into Power by Bruce Dickson – The Chinese Communist Party has coopted most of the new entrepreneurial classes in China. Because of this “crony communism” economic development may not threaten the power of the party as many outside commentators may suggest. There are issues regarding income disparity and the perception that some of the gains may have been ill gotten, but so far the party has been able to balance these concerns, and may continue to be able to do so going forward.
- History of the English Speaking Peoples by Sir Winston Churchill – Well it was a short 1400 or so pages, and there is no way that I’m going to remember which king did what when, but it was a massive insight into the rise of English power in the world from the Roman landings to the end of the Victorian era. Watching the evolutions of the parliamentary system, common law, and the relationship between church, the monarchy, and parliament throughout the centuries was fascinating. After reading his work, I have a much better appreciation for Churchill’s saying about not knowing history dooming us to repeat it.
- Termites in the Trading System by Jagdish Bhagwati – Preferential Trade Agreements are bad. Regional Trade Agreements are not much better. Their proliferation is causing problems for world trade as the hegemonic trading powers add non trade related issues to their agreements, and a spaghetti bowl of agreements is created. This creates distortions and inefficiencies. I got some concrete examples of arguments I had been learning about in econ! In this instance I think Bhagwati is correct. The world is working as the model predicts and something should be done. Sadly political courage is lacking these days.
- The Coming Anarchy by Robert Kaplan – This book contains essays all written during the 1990s in the wake of the fall of the USSR. It speaks to the problems which were perhaps ignored at the time, but are coming back with a vengeance now. Rising populations combining with stagnant growth are a recipe for disaster, and the giant city slums of the developing world are the ticking time bombs. It is eerie to read and see how many times Afghanistan is mentioned as a potential hot spot. It offers some compelling arguments about why it is unlikely that we will be dealing with a rapidly democratizing globe in the near future. Arguments which seem all the more compelling knowing they were written a decade ago. Brace yourselves for an international system where many types of governance are accepted and interact on a regular basis.
- Forgotten Continent by Michael Reid – I didn’t know a lot about Latin American history, which was the main reason for me picking up this book. Reading the preface, I found out that the author was The Economist’s Latin America editor for a pretty long time. The rest of the book unfolded like a 300 page Economist article. It certainly spoke to the history of conflict, both military and political across Latin America, and the ideas about how a winner take all mentality in a democracy can lead to a lot of instability is compelling. Latin America has problems, but it seems on the right track, and has no nukes. I guess this is why we don’t hear much about it. Still, applying this rubric of emerging democracy amongst a divided nation leads to some tough questions about how to deal with many of the poorer places in the developing world where politics less developed, and there are fewer resources for the winners to distribute.
- The Chinese Century by Oded Shenkar – Pretty much the staple arguments about why China will have a big impact from now on. If you don’t know much about that it’s a worthwhile primer, but if you know a lot about China already it probably isn’t worth your time.
- Common Wealth by Jeffrey Sachs – An interesting follow up to The End of Poverty. This book has much less in the way of story time and more ideas for addressing a broader range of problems. He goes beyond the MDGs and adds some other development ideas to his agenda. It still really pushes the .7% of GDP, but adds extra costs to fund other efforts as well. If we don’t deal with these issues, the rich world will suffer, and the cost will be greater than the cost of intervention. I’m amazed that despite knocking Easterly at the end of the book Sachs pretty much adopts his idea of the need for searchers but IN ADDITION, not instead of, aid bureaucracies and centralized control. The thing that perhaps stuck with me the most was that if all of the billionaires in the world (less than 1000) pooled all of their wealth and collected 5% interest, that revenue would exceed the combined aid budgets of the entire world. Take from that what you will, I think it’s pretty powerful.
- Why Cooperate by Scott Barrett - This book didn’t put forward much in the way of what I would consider new ideas. Cooperation happens for different reasons. The participation necessary depends on the type of issue that is being confronted. If you are already aware of how IR works, this is probably not a worthwhile read for you. If you need a primer on different types of problems and the coalitions necessary to address them, it’s a quick read.
- Nudge by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein – This book was certainly interesting. It lays out how we are faced with choice architectures every day and despite attempts to do otherwise, there will usually be someone in a position to construct the choice architecture in a way that could benefit the general public. While constructing an architecture that makes choosing easy, or that sets the default to be “the best” option, we risk creating a culture that would rather have other people make decisions for them, rather than thinking on their own. The authors caution against government nudging in inappropriate places, but what happens if people start demanding the government make decisions for them because it’s just so much easier than making them on their own. Instead of political parties promising that if elected, there would be more elections, we may find voters demanding that the party that wins no longer burden us with the nuisance of further elections. Clearly this is an exaggerated threat, but I think the solution is educating people more, not condoning ignorance by giving everyone a good default choice.
1 comment:
Sorry August, I had to respond to this one.
I was wondering if you could tell me what the range of Western institutions includes? Does Sovereignty tacitly imply - it would be nice if it did - the protection of minorities and "some sort" of popular method of choosing their leaders. Does China live up to this standard? I thought control of the "legitimate" use of violence over a territorially defined space is what is meant by sovereingty. The anarchic international state system was a Western gift to the world, and its only recently that we have added "respect for human rights" as being a necessary condition of sovereignty. Internal stability which respects international order are the goods (ends/goals) of sovereingty in the state system.
I think you would be better off sticking to the purely realist rationale for state sovereingty. Though, I believe, it is too simplistic, at least you will remain consistent and will be able to defend the labels you have for weak countries: "toosmalltocareistan". Why shouldn't we care about the conflicts in those countries? Because they don't pose a security threat to the region (or at least to us). The same, I think could have been said about Afghanistan and Iran thirty years ago. We were either too lazy or inept to do anything about those countries, now they are our biggest threats.
Post a Comment