Globalization and Its Effects on Global Development

Tags

globalization, growth rate, integration, internationalization, market reforms, markets

by Bojana Simeunovic

Globalization represents integration of economies through markets across frontiers, driven by the reduction in costs of transportation and communications due to technological advancements, and economic liberalization which is equivalent to reducing policy barriers to trade and investment (Frankel, 2000; Wolf, 2005, 326). Besides its economic aspect, the phenomenon also includes integration of cultures, governmental traditions, political systems and social norms.

However, globalization as internationalization is nothing new: for instance, many of the large empires and religious movements represented forms of globalization. How is then the current wave different from the earlier ones? What is now called globalization represents “an exponential acceleration of the integration process” (Feketekuty, 2000). This definition dates back to the Canadian visionary Marshall McLuhan who wrote in 1962 “that the electronic age was turning all humanity into a ‘global tribe’—a concept later termed global village.” This concept is sometimes exploited, and the level of globalization exaggerated, as to mean something completely different. Some argue that there are no limits to globalization and that distance and national borders are no longer relevant; that nation-states and geography had lost their preliminary significance. History teaches us that globalization is not a never-ending process (Wolf, 2005, 326). As Dani Rodrik (2001, 347) argues, global integration has become a substitute for a development strategy, and this leads to many failures. However, before addressing this and other major effects of globalization, let us briefly overview global development in the past 100 years in order to understand how the concept evolved, instantaneously faded and gradually reemerged.

Already by 1900s majority of innovations in the transportation and communication industries have already been achieved, such as railroad, steamship, telegraph and refrigeration. As John Maynard Keynes described: “The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth…” (Frankel, 2000, 310). The booming of economic integration was interrupted by the outbreak of the WWI in 1914 and had not re-emerged until the end of the WWII in 1945. According to Wolf (2005), there are four major reasons for this reversed globalization: geopolitical insecurity, macroeconomic instability (Global Depression), protectionist interests and collectivist ideas (nationalism, imperialism, socialism and communism). As many argue, the world that emerged in 1945 was far more fragmented than the one that entered the war in 1914. Nevertheless, the determination of the victors not to repeat the same mistake again led to the creation of the IMF, World Bank and GATT, later WTO. These organizations helped reinstate the 19^th century globalization.

This could be confirmed through various examples. For instance, between 1920 and 1990 the average ocean freight and port charges per short ton of U.S. import and export cargo fell from $95 to $29 (Frankel, 2000, 309). Moreover, as air shipping has increased, various products such as fresh-cut flowers, perishable broccoli, live lobsters, and even ice cream could be sent between continents. Between 1940s and 1990s, the cost of a three-minute telephone call from New York to London fell from $244.65 to $3.32 (Wolf, 2005).

The real breakthrough came during the 1970s, when the Americans finally retained the same levels of globalization that they experienced on the eve of WWI. Ever since that period some four billion people were brought “within the purview of the global market” (Wolf, 2005, 327). One of the main reasons why globalization flourished during this period is because countries that opened internationally also re-considered their domestic policies, and adopted market policies both externally and internally. For instance, China decreased its import tariffs from 40.6% to 6.4% in the period between 1992 and 2002, and thus its exports exploded from $200 to $600 billion between 1992 and 2004 (Wolf, 2005, 327).

One of the major outcomes of these market reforms aimed at increasing levels of globalization (as well as of a decrease in costs of transportation and communication) is the rise of multinational corporations, more precisely the integration of production across national borders. As Wolf (2005) argues, what these MNCs created is “specialization of production within manufacturing on the basis of specific sources of comparative advantage.” Yet, labor and long-term capital markets remain less globalized to this day. Only about 3% percent of world population lives outside of its birth country, in comparison to approximately 10% in the 19^th century (Wolf, 2005, 328).

From this and many other examples, a conclusion is clear: Although some claim that international integration in terms of trade and globalization levels has reached its maximum, it remains far below the levels of both national and regional economic interdependence. Frankel (2000) looks at the US as an example to justify this claim, in case of which trade accounts for 12% of GDP. Given that the United States’ output is about one-forth of gross world product, “if Americans were prone to buy goods and services from foreign producers as easily as from domestic producers, the US import-GDP ratio would be equal to .75[…] yet these ratios are only about one-sixth of the hypothetical level.” Globalization is far from complete and highly volatile in terms of its reversibility.

Pros and Cons of Globalization

Firstly, globalization increases the number of competitors reducing monopoly power in the market place and corporate power in the political arena.

Second, market openness can have permanent effect on the growth rate (not just the level of real GDP), since it speeds absorption of frontier technologies and global management best practices, spurring innovation and cutting costs of production (Frankel, 2000, 320). International trade has expanded 16-fold since the foundation of the GATT—the result is a six times larger world economy. One of the OECD studies shows that nations relatively open to trade grow about twice as fast as those that are relatively closed (Micklethwai & Wooldridge, 2001, 366).

On the other hand, some claim the opposite. Analyzing Asian countries that are cited as examples of successful integrationist strategy application, Dani Rodrik (2001) concludes that globalizers are mistaken: integration is the result, not the cause, of economic and social development. “A relatively protected economy like Vietnam is integrating with the world economy much more rapidly than an open economy like Haiti because Vietnam, unlike Haiti, has a reasonably functional economy and polity” (Rodrik, 2001, 352). Moreover, there seems to be no negative relationship between trade restrictions and economic growth. Dani Rodrik and Francisco Rodriguez found that reasons for country’s low economic growth are ineffective institutions, geographic determinants and/or inappropriate macroeconomic policies, rather than failure to liberalize trade policies.

One of the major pro-integration arguments regards poor countries: forces of globalization reduce poverty levels and help poorer nations catch up with the Western capitalist countries, by promoting convergence and thus reducing inequality in income worldwide. This notion is contrary to Heckscher-Ohlin theory, which suggests that those who own the abundant factors within a country gain, whereas those who own scarce factors of production lose from trade. The creation of this gap between the rich and the poor is usually taken as a negative effect of trade and globalization. However, many studies have shown that only between 5 and 30 percent of the increase in this gap could be attributed to trade; the rest is due to technological advancements and inadequate redistribution policies within poor countries. It is proven that there is a tendency for income inequality to grow in the first stages of industrialization. Moreover, income redistribution then becomes a superior good that countries are able to purchase once they acquire certain level of wealth. Income gap decreases at the later stages of industrialization, and therefore globalization, because trade reduces inequality in the long run (Frankel, 2000, 322).

Much serious effect of globalization on the poorer states is the idea that globalization is equitable with development. Focusing on international integration, “governments in poor countries divert human resources, administrative capabilities and political capital away from more urgent development priorities such as education, public health, industrial capacity and social cohesion” (Rodrik, 2001, 348). Globalization is not a shortcut to development; economic growth requires implementation of imported liberal policies and domestic institutional reformation as well. Good example of this sort of failure are majority of the countries in Latin America in which lack of institutional reforms led to a significantly lower level of economic growth in comparison to Asian countries, such as China. Reducing tariffs and nontariff barriers is just a one in a series of steps of economic liberalization that eventually leads to prosperity. To name a few of necessary reforms: tax reform to make up for lost tariff revenues, socials safety nets to compensate with WTO rules, labor market reform to enhance worker mobility across industries (Rodrik, 2001, 348). As Rodrik concludes, ‘globalization above all’ prevents countries from pursuing more development-friendly policies and thus results in lower levels of economic growth.

Another major concern of anti-globalists is environment. In this case, government intervention becomes highly important for dealing with such types of externalities. Also, majority of environmental problems are global, and a single country could do little to solve the problem alone. Moreover, if it is the only one to abstain from production for certain environmental reasons, a country could easily become a looser in the long run. It is per se that industrialization leads to environmental degradation and industrialization is part of globalization. Nowadays, leading countries have attempted at increasing awareness about levels of pollution and overall damage to the environment, but not much has been achieved so far.

While environmental debates stand on a firm basis of strong argumentation, other anti-globalist concerns receive less attention. One such is the idea that globalization means the triumph of giant companies. John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge argue that globalization works in the opposite direction: lower barriers make capital easier to raise, technology easier to buy, markets easier to reach, and ties with national governments ever less important. Companies are not becoming more important than nation-states—governments still consume more than 40% of Western Europe’s GDP (Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 2001, 361). Moreover, geography does not render itself to globalization.[1]

Lastly, Micklethwait and Wooldridge address another backlash of globalization: “[It] means a race to the bottom in labor standards” (2001, 365). This misconception is based on the idea that producers favor lower hourly wages over labor productivity. If this argument were correct, all of FDI should be concentrated in the countries with the lowest wage and the weakest labor standards; but the US is the world’s largest recipient of FDI, and about 80% of its FDI goes to other rich countries. Companies need healthy and skillful workforce as much as they need low-paid unskilled labor, maybe even more so.

What Should We Do

Distance remains one of the main inhibitions of international trade. This includes not only shipping costs but also informational barriers (linguistic, cultural, historical and political differences), which could also be called ‘social distance’ (Frankel, 2000, 315). Face-to-face contact remains highly important for negotiations and exchange of information. Studies show that two countries that speak the same language trade about 50% more than two otherwise similar countries. Colonial links also have significant influence on trade partnerships. Free trade areas increase trade within a group of members by reducing tariffs and other barriers, simultaneously creating tendency towards trading mainly within that group.

The puzzle remains: Is Toyota factory in the United States less or more American than a General Motors factory in China? Modern companies have global interests. The existence of multilateral institutions and a web of international commitments makes it very difficult for protectionist interests to capture legislatures (Wolf, 2005, 329). This however does not mean that globalization is not reversible; integration is not nearly to be finished. In the coming years, developed countries should focus on solving problems such as the resource curse, persistent protectionism and inadequate conditions in the poor countries. They must secure macroeconomic stability and provide solutions to persistent geopolitical instabilities, for the international market to expand and fruits of globalization to trickle down to the poor.

References

Wolf, Martin. (2005, April 5). Will Globalization Survive (Third Whitman Lecture). Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.

Frankel, Jeffrey. (2000, August). Globalization of the Economy. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/jfrankel/NyeGlobWPwFigPost.pdf

Feketekuty, Geza. (2000). Globalization—Why All the Fuss?: Year in Review 2000. Britannica Book of the Year, 2001. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com.library3.webster.edu/EBchecked/topic/1518171/Globalization-Why-All-the-Fuss-Year-In-Review-2000?anchor=ref816739.

Rodrik, Dani. (2001, March/April). Trading in Illusions. Foreign Policy.

Micklethwai, John; and Wooldridge, Adrian. (2001). Why the Globalization Backlash is Stupid. In Art, Robert; and Jervis, Robert (eds.) International Politics 9th ed. (2009).

---

[1] Take for instance Los Angeles, America’s major manufacturing center. Although some of those low-tech factories could produce at the cheaper rate somewhere else, they stay within the region for various personal or professional reasons—designers, suppliers and distributors are all available in the neighborhood.

Cartoon retrieved from:

http://contiitgs-2013.wikispaces.com/Globalization%20and%20Cultural%20diversity 

The Euro—a Currency Without a State

Tags

EU, Euro, European Fiscal Policy, Eurozone, financial crisis, monetary, unity

by Bojana Simeunovic

Euro Zone is the economic and monetary union that includes Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain (ECB the, 2012). The currency is European, but treasuries are national and economies are only partially integrated. (“Is anyone is Charge”, 2011, 24-26). All members have a veto on key decisions, which must then be ratified by respective parliaments. Triggered by the global financial crisis, the problems within the Eurozone slowly started to emerge. Today, the area has been spanned with a financial crisis that threatens to break the monetary unity and cause the failure of the single currency, imposing damage to capital markets and economic regional integration, as well as political cooperation among the EU members. Countries are wondering whether to help others or save themselves.

Although majority of the newspaper headlines and current debates revolve around finding a solution to Greece’s debt crisis, we must not be lulled into believing that it is the Greek debt that is the root of the European problem. The crisis has been only partly about the sustainability of the sovereign debts of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain. Moreover, it has always been a political crisis, an institutional crisis “about the failure of the euro zone to develop the necessary mechanisms to ensure financial discipline among its member states and to come to the aid of countries when they ran into financial trouble” (Nixon, 2011). If Greece were a special case, the solution would be to isolate it from the rest in order to prevent contagion effect; but many argue that this is not the case. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, “the euro zone was destroyed at Deauville in October 2010 with the insistence that bond holders would be required to take losses as the price of future bailouts, and it was buried at Cannes with the announcement that Greece was free to choose to leave the euro” (Nixon, 2011). In order to understand how contagion effect works, and why many argue the option of ring-fencing Greece would lead to the failure of the entire project, we must look back at the shortcomings that were apparent already at the launching of the single currency.

On the one side, the ECB has been established as a supranational institution, the euro as a single currency, and the single monetary policy operating according to a clearly defined mandate. However, other instruments of macroeconomic policy, such as fiscal policy and wage policies, have remained under national direction (Issing, 2008). It was clear at the very beginning: the lack of the ECB’s political counterpart emerged as a main shortcoming of the EMU. Various politicians, who have proposed the so-called European Economic Government, have addressed this issue; but as soon as their national interest is at stake, they tend to ignore it entirely. There is no unified European Fiscal Policy; none of the finance ministers has a right to a decision that is not in harmony with his/her respective country’s national interests. “Not only is this impeded by the need to agree on the position with the national government and obtain the approval of parliament, but—depending on the situation—there may be strong political incentives to renege on a commitment previously entered into in the framework of coordination (Issing, 2008).”

While monetary policy is coordinated on a supranational level in order to secure the price stability, fiscal policy remains national responsibility, aimed at determining how macroeconomic resources are allocated across the public and private sectors, and implementing policies of income distribution (Issuing, 2008). Moreover, stabilization remains thus a national responsibility, subject to the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, “aimed at ensuring that national policies are compatible with the requirements of EMU.” The ECB therefore has a strictly limited role because its responsibility in the fiscal policy regulation is only as a guardian of macroeconomic stability.

Knowing how the model works, one cannot help but ask: Does one size of the single monetary policy fit all? It is clear that a euro-level policy could easily contradict the national interest, and it is no wonder that this type of a question persists in debates. Upon the creation of the euro—and later with each state’s accession—statistics showed that similarities had outweighed the differences and that uniform policy could function; but what happens when the country falsifies its data and the statistics are fraud?

Greece certainly did so, and there are speculations that other euro countries were not quite ready to join the EMU. Moreover, even those who fitted the data at the entrance were not able to keep up with the criteria, e.g. Germany. Nevertheless, financial penalties were not imposed upon a single country that failed to meet the criteria (as it was agreed under the Stability and Growth Pact). Therefore, to claim that Greece is a special case, and responsible for the crisis, is not only wrong but also hypocritical.

Today, many point at the stalemate in which the Eurozone countries are still stuck: Should they allow countries to default and break the currency union, or should they try to save the euro by creating an unpopular fiscal union backed with Eurobonds. As Greece remains the center of the debate, I will now focus on the possible scenarios and actions already taken by the leading countries to tackle the issue of financial crisis through finding solution to the Greece’s problem.

Some analysts believe the solution of Greece defaulting, leaving the Eurozone and re-introducing the drachma would be ruinous for both parties. As outlined in the July issue of the Economist, the new drachma would make Greece’s debt ‘even more onerous’ with inflation kicking in and import prices rising immediately. Greece would have to print money to finance its deficit, and as exports make up only a small portion of the country’s GDP, the benefits of a devalued currency would be unsatisfactory. The country would still need external finance, but who would lend to it? (“If Greece Goes”, 2011, 13).

The ECB, the European Commission and the majority of national ministers had stood against any restructuring of the Greece’s debt, orderly or otherwise, for the fear of the contagion effect. Euro-federalists in particular have been proposing a move towards the United States of Europe, stressing an eventual introduction of European Finance Ministry to coordinate fiscal policies (“Charlemagne: Default Options”, 2011, 38). For now, this does not seem likely, for Europe is not a federalist state and uniformity of national and supranational interest seems unattainable.

The Economist has been favoring an orderly restructuring of Greece’s burden, defaulting its debt to 80% of GDP. As it is argued, this would hardly impose any threat to the markets, which have long expected a default. This measure cannot be divorced from more fiscal control from the Brussels; but there seems to be a serious problem with this approach: the Greeks.

In any decision-making process, the citizens must support their government in order for any kind of reforms to take roots. Apparently, this does not count or Greece. For a long period now, the Greeks have been protesting against the austerity measures, both violently and peacefully. With an increased fiscal control from the Brussels, a very serious social upheaval could be inevitable as such step would impose a direct threat to Greece’s sovereignty. The Germans at least tried it.

At the end of January, the German government proposed that a European commissioner be appointed to hold power over the Greek national budget and taxation. “Since the European Central Bank already controls the Greek currency, the euro, this would effectively transfer control of the Greek government to the European Union, since whoever controls a country’s government expenditures, tax rates and monetary policy effectively controls that country” (Friedman, 2012). The Commission rejected the proposal, yet the basis of German’s argumentation is not illogical: nobody trusts Greeks anymore, which is reasonable. However, Greece is not an individual or a corporation; it is a nation-state “a uniquely legitimate community whose members share a range of interests and values” and their popular will is the main determinant of the state’s actions (Friedman, 2012). How is it then possible that the Germans, of all the states, proposed something like this?

As George Friedman argues, about 40% of German GDP comes from exports, mainly from the European Union. Therefore, they have a vested interest in facilitating consumption and demand for their exports across Europe. Using the EMU, Germany has enabled other Eurozone states to access credit “at rates their economies did not merit in their own right,” facilitating irresponsible lending practices across Europe. The Germans blame the Greeks for deceiving their creditors and the union, but the truth is that they “willingly turned a blind eye (Friedman, 2012).” Friedman concludes by suggesting that defaulting turns out as a least painful solution to Greece, since in most cases “borrowing becomes more attractive after default, as it clears the way to new post-default debt.” Greece has already defaulted on its debt in the past, he claims and succeeded in attracting international lending.

On February 22, the solution seemed to be at the corner. Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said for the Wall Street Journal “the accord closes the door on a scenario of an uncontrolled default, with all its grave economic and social implications.” The deal included a €130 billion rescue which would cut country’s debt by €107 billion. However, many see no solution in this. As it stays closed to financial markets, Greece could remain dependent on the Eurozone life-support for years to come.

According to a survey conducted by Emnid, a German pooling firm, 60% of Germans oppose the latest Greek rescue (Karnitschnig, 2012, 4). German political elites tend to fall under this group of skeptics as well. Angela Merkel’s effort to pass the deal through the German parliament failed this week, when one of the senior members said Greece should leave the currency union. As The Wall Street Journal reports, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich also said “the chances that Greece can renew itself and become more competitive are surely greater outside the union than within it.” However, rather than kicking it out, Greece should be given incentives which it could be unable to refuse, he continued. Interior Minister is one of the first Germans to say that Greece’s exit could be divorced from the failure of the entire zone, because “banks and other investors in Greek debt have had time to write down holdings, removing the danger of a sudden shock” (Karnitschnig, 2012, 4).

Euro remains a currency without a state. Assuming that contagion effect could be avoided, I argue that Greece should leave the Eurozone. However, the crisis is European, not Greek; it is as financial as it is political. Therefore, isolating Greece is only a first step towards a constructive solution. In order to survive, Europe needs a united fiscal policy. There are two scenarios: either the introduction of the single currency would finally start fostering political integration, or Europe would decide to stick with a known Keynesian remark, “If I owe you a pound, I have a problem; but if you owe me a million, the problem is yours.”

It is clear that the future of the euro will be decided largely in Germany, as “it has the deepest pockets, and its post-war renaissance is intimately bound up with the European integration” (Is Anyone in Charge”, 2011, 24-26). However, the German dilemma of preserving the system vs. imposing discipline takes too long to unravel. The German public is lulled into believing that Greeks are responsible and demand justification for any future bailout. Merkel, consciously creating this image for the domestic audience, leaves a somewhat different impression internationally. She is aware that it is in Germany’s best interest to uphold the free-trade zone in Europe in order to secure the demand for its exports. Furthermore, a reemergence of German nationalism and pre-war sentiments must be avoided at all costs. The deeper into the crisis, the more mutually exclusive these interests get. Maybe, George Friedman has its right when he argues that this is not a Greek or an Italian crisis anymore, yet “a crisis of the role Germany will play in Europe in the future.” The euro will survive in the short run; for the long run, it is hard to speculate.

References

“Charlemagne: Default Options”. (2011, June 25). The Economist.

Fidler, Stephen. (2012, February 22). “Greek Deal Brings Relief, Concern”. The Wall Street Journal.

Friedman, George. (2012, January 31). “Germany’s Role in Europe and the European Debt Crisis”. Retrieved from http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/germanys-role-europe-and-european-debt-crisis.

“If Greece Goes…” (2011, June 25). The Economist.

Issing, Otmar. (2008). The Birth of the Euro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200-236.

Karnitschnig, Matthew. (2012, February 27). “German Minister Urges Greek Exit From the Euro”. The Wall Street Journal.

“Map of Euro Area 1999-2011”. (2012). The ECB. Retrieved from http://www.ecb.int/euro/intro/html/map.en.html.

Nixon, Simon. (2011, November 22). “Debt Crisis Is a Symptom of Wider Failings”. The Wall Street Journal.

“Rearranging the Deckchairs”. (2011, August 6). The Economist.

Photos retrieved from:

http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2011-09/euro-schuldenkrise-merkel

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/33634

 

Causes for the Creation of The First Austrian Republic and the Consequences It had on Austrian Society before World War II

by Mario Krastanov

Austria-Hungary played a major part in starting World War I and, because of its actions throughout it, brought about its devastating end for the people living in the country’s territory. Austria suffered a number of setbacks as a result of the Peace Treaty of Saint-Germain of 1919: the former empire was divided into several independent states, which left Austria’s exhausted post-war economy in an even worse position. Furthermore, the First Austrian Republic was created. But why was this division necessary? What were the consequences of the creation of the First Austrian Republic for the Austrian people? How did these consequences determine Austria’s fate in the eve of World War II? Those are the questions I will attempt to answer in my research paper.

The Treaty of Saint-Germain
 

After World War I was over in November of 1918, the victorious countries (Great Britain, France, and the USA) sat together in Paris with the intention to reshape the map of Europe. The three super powers paid special attention to the states which lost the war: Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

The Paris Peace Conference began on the 18. January 1919, the date being deliberately chosen by the French to match the date of the Unification of Germany of 1871, when France got humiliated by the newly formed German Empire. Due to the treaties of Neuilly and Sèvres, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire lost some of their territories to other states, while the Treaty of Versailles concerned Germany and the consequences it had to suffer for its actions throughout the war. But perhaps the most important treaty was the one signed in Saint-Germain, which determined Austria-Hungary’s post-war fate. The Saint-Germain treaty was of particular importance because of several reasons: firstly, it was Austria-Hungary who started the First World War. Secondly, the empire was still a big state with the capability to gather a huge army, which is why the French, the British, and the Americans were concerned that, if left in its current state, Austria-Hungary may cause further international conflicts. Last, but definitely not least, the empire proved itself unreliable during World War I: in the early stages of the war, Russia attacked Germany and Austria-Hungary in response to the latter attacking Serbia. According to the treaty of the Dual Alliance, Austria-Hungary was obliged to assist Germany to defend its territories in case it gets attacked by another country. The Austrians, however, didn’t provide sufficient military assistance to prevent the Russians from marching into Germany. This exposed Austria-Hungary as an untrustworthy ally, which was further evidence that the empire may possess a threat to international peace and security in the future. Therefore, the victorious allies were determined to prevent Austria from ever again being able to cause a big and destructive conflict such as the First World War.

The first step towards this goal was to divide the big empire into “nation states.”^[1] Many minorities (Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenians, Poles, Rumanians, Hungarians, Croatians) lived in Austria-Hungary’s territories. However, according to the Wilsonian principles of self-determination, people in the empire were allowed to create their own independent states.^[2] Supported by the victorious super powers, states like Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia came into existence, which left Austria with only a third of its former territories during the Habsburg empire.

As former Austrian chancellor Klemens Von Metternich feared, nationalist movements of small ethnical groups in Austrian’s territories would mean the destruction of the empire. His concerns proved to be true: the territorial division that Austria suffered after the end of World War I had a huge impact on Austria’s economy: the former empire (and Vienna in particular) relied on shipments of goods from all of its territories. When they were lost, the state still received some goods, but these were not sufficient to keep its economy strong, especially after it has been exhausted by a long and expensive war. Throughout the next several years, people starved and were unemployed. In addition, little to no investments were coming into the country because of its market instability; inflation (partly an effect of the huge reparations that Austria had to pay after the end of World War I) made the country’s currency weak.

Moreover, the formation of new countries started a number of border disputes, the most noticeable of which were about Austria’s province Carinthia and the region of Tirol. Although the Carinthian dispute was recently resolved, it led to a series of shootings between Slovenians and Austrians immediately after the end of World War I. Even today, Slovenians have their own names for cities in the province: the city of Klagenfurt is known as Celovec, and the small town of Villach is also called Beljak (one may see these names on road signs across Slovenia). The Tirol dispute, on the other hand, is still ongoing: the northern part is currently in Austria’s territory, while South Tirol is part of Italy. The Austrian government was able to keep North Tirol because of social benefits such as tax reductions for the people living there.

Another step towards preventing Austria from causing new international conflicts was a clause of the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which prohibited Austria from forming any alliances with Germany without a permission by the League of Nations to do so.^[3] This measure was actually in contradiction with the Wilsonian principles of self-determination, on which the settlement was based.^[4]

Lastly, the Saint-Germain treaty declared the creation of the First Austrian Republic. The provisional government of Karl Renner, which ruled Austria after the end of World War I, was removed by the first elections in the new republic, which took place on 19 February 1919.

Immediate consequences of the Saint-Germain treaty

Most people didn’t want an independent Austria at first. They had the idea of German Austria – a state, where Germans and Austrians could live together: “They regarded German Austria as a stepping stone to integration into a larger German Republic.”^[5] Nevertheless, not wanting a bigger Germany than the one that entered World War I, the Allies forbid this, thus making Austria an independent republic.

The result of the 1919 elections was a government, which consisted of a coalition between two parties: the Social Democrats (liberals) and the Christian Socialists (conservatives). At first, there was a surprisingly strong co-operation between the two parties, and though the first chancellor, Karl Renner, was a social democrat, the consensus between the parties remained intact for the first year of the newly formed republic.^[6]

The immediate situation, which Renner found himself into, was a disastrous one: Austria’s economy was devastated, and the currency Renner needed to support it with was weak because of a rapid inflation. In addition, many people were unemployed, especially nobles and members of the bureaucracy during the rule of the Habsburgs – these were highly educated people, which, however, couldn’t find their place in the new post-war society, which was only concerned about its survival.

Following Otto von Bismarck’s example from the late 19th century, Renner introduced a series of benefits for the working class in an attempt to raise people’s satisfaction. This, however, backfired on the chancellor and his government, as such actions further drained the country’s treasury, which was not only almost empty as a result of World War I, but sufficient income through taxes couldn’t be gathered to fill it back because of the territorial cuts that Austria suffered.

Since Renner and his ideas failed to bring stability to the new republic, the next elections in 1920 went a completely different way: they were comfortably won by the Christian Socialists, who went on to become Austria’s largest party until 1945. This significant change may seem surprising at first, though it was actually quite logical because of the different views and ideologies that each party had.

The Social Democrats

After the end of World War I and the division of Austria, people of the former empire were concerned about their future, not knowing what to expect next. They turned to the Social Democrats because of two major reasons: they had a lot of political experience before and during World War I (in the period 1911-1918), when they were the strongest party in the parliament. Furthermore, the Social Democrats were the ones that ran the country immediately after the end of the war (the provisional government of Karl Renner) and had a plan for reviving Austria, which, at first, seemed to offer stability to the devastated post-war country. In addition, the Social Democrats strongly supported one very important people’s desire: the creation of German Austria and a union with Germany. Although such unification never occurred, the party’s attitude towards this matter was satisfactory to many voters.

Upon establishing the 1919-1920 government, Karl Renner and the Social Democrats tried to implement several social and tax reforms, though these measures didn’t bring the benefits that the party was counting on.

Moreover, the Social Democrats had a flaw in their political views, which proved troublesome in the long run: the party mostly favoured the people living in the big cities, especially in Vienna. They counted on their votes, though these weren’t enough for the Social Democrats to establish their own powerful government without the need of a coalition. As the new elections came in 1920, the tide started to turn in favour of their rivals.

The Christian Socialists

Before the start of World War I, the Christian Socialist (also known as the Deutsche Christen^[7] among the people) were the largest party in the Austrian parliament during the period 1907-1911. They were supporters of the monarchy due to the party’s conservative views on politics. Nevertheless, the Christian Socialists managed to find their place in the new Austrian republic, realising that it would be unwise to try to bring the Kaiser back to the throne. In addition, the party also voted for an Austrian unification with Germany, but was rather passive when it came to serious talks about it.^[8]

In the 1919 elections, the Christian Socialists won enough votes to enable them to form a coalition with the Social Democrats, thus slowly starting to make their way back to their previous strength.

After the 1920 elections, the Christian Socialists became the largest Austrian party and managed to preserve this superiority until 1945. This was mainly due to their conservative views, which essentially came from their affiliation with the Church. As opposed to the Social Democrats, which were supported by people living in the big cities, the Christian Socialists were relying on the voters in smaller towns and villages. These people were highly religious, thus the Christian Socialists’ friendly relations with the Church enabled them to win the votes of more people (since the number of people living in smaller towns was greater than the number of people living in the big cities).

Austria between 1920-1934

After the Social Democrats lost the 1920 elections, Austria entered a short period of political instability: in two years, the government changed three chancellors (Michael Mayr, Walter Breisky and Johann Schober, the latter of which had two short terms in office). In the meantime, the economic crisis in the country continued to cause problems for the people, most of which were unemployed and desperate about their future. In 1922, however, a glimmer a hope seemed to have appeared for the troubled Austrians – the Christian Socialists established a strong government with Ignaz Seipel as chancellor.

One of Seipel’s first actions was to ask the newly formed League of Nations for a loan. The chancellor would use the money to strengthen Austria’s economy and improve social life. Members of the League of Nations did not hesitate to help Austria – European countries such as France were concerned that, if left in a situation of a deep crisis, Austria may become an easy victim to the spread of communism.

When Seipel received the loan, he quickly used it to enforce several key sectors – healthcare was improved, which was widely appreciated by the public, and tax reforms satisfied people even further. But perhaps the most important benefit from the loan was that it managed to significantly reduce unemployment in a really effective way: many people were hired and put in projects for the constructions of houses and residential communities. Killing two birds with one stone was a boost for Seipel’s and his party’s image: as seen on videos from that time, people were happy to once again find employment, especially when building their own future homes.^[9]

This success, however, was politically not well appreciated by the Social Democrats – they were seeing their rival party building a better life for the Austrian people and perhaps felt threatened for their own survival. In addition, because of the extremely different ideologies and views of both parties, they were unable to tolerate each other in a constructive way. They didn’t trust each other, and this led to a chain of events, which caused a blow to Austrian society and left its mark on the political scene of the country. The Social Democrats had a private militia (known as the Schutzbund) as early as 1923, which consisted of extreme party supporters. Its goal was to protect the party’s interests and members. Upon hearing about this, the Christian Socialists established their own militia called the Heimwehr.

In spite of the initial consensus between Social Democrats and Christian Socialists (during the government of Karl Renner in the period 1919-1920), the extremely different ideologies and views of both parties caused major political tensions: “Between the to groups there was not much ground for normal ‘civil society,’ and what remained was fractured.”^[10] The existence of the militias was a proof of this claim and an event, which occurred in January of 1927, showed the climax of the conflict. In the small village of Schattendorf in Burgenland, the two militias engaged in a short shooting, which resulted in the killing of a man and a child by Heimwehr members. These were arrested and brought to trial, but were ultimately not found guilty. This was the spark, which caused a major strike by Social Democrats supporters and the Schutzbund – they wanted to see their rivals suffer for their mistake. During these riots (on the 15 of July, 1927), the demonstrates set the Justice Ministry on fire. Members of the police were called by the Christian Socialist government in order to put the demonstrations down. Although policemen actually shared the Social Democrats’ political views, they stood up against them, professionally executing their orders, thus proving themselves as reliable force.

The incident of Schattendorf had much deeper consequences then street fights in Vienna: the people, which were just starting to get over World War I and its devastating consequences, were burdened with a new crisis. “The republic [and especially its citizens] suffered a body blow from which [they] never fully recovered.”^[11]

After Ignqz Seipel’s death in 1932, Engelbert Dollfuss became chancellor of the Christian Socialist government. Following his predecessor’s idea for bringing stability, he asked the League of  Nations for another loan. He used the money to again try to prevent the spread of unemployment, which, by 1932, had reached the half million mark. In addition, an Austrian Nazi party was becoming more aggressive in its attempt to propagandise German National Socialist ideas. Because people were once again desperate about their future, they were bound to become an easy victim to this new threat. People were starting to see Nazi ideas as a possible salvation from their current misery, and were considering the possibility of unifying with Germany, which, in 1933, was turned to an authoritarian state by Adolf Hitler.

A possible Anschluss with Germany was the last thing Dollfuss wanted for Austria. Therefore, he decided to completely transform the country’s governing system. This, however, required a series of well planned and well executed steps.

First and foremost, Dollfuss decided to get rid of the Schutzbind, which helped him get a dominant position over the Social Democrats. Dollfuss also banned Austria’s Communist party, and although it wasn’t a powerful rival at that time, the chancellor wanted to have as fewer opponents as possible.

Dollfuss also created the so-called Fatherland Front, which was supposed to be a rally organization for every conservative and religious Austrian. By signing a concordat with the Pope, Dollfuss won himself the formal support of the Catholic Church, which, in the eyes in the Austrians, meant that the chancellor’s actions had to be right.

In May of 1933, Dollfuss announced the creation of the Ständestaat – a form of government, which had many similarities with Benito Mussolini’s Fascism in Italy: all parties rival to the Christian Socialists were banned, and Dollfuss proclaimed himself leader of Austria. These actions were backed up by a constitution.

The Ständestaat was a curious outcome of the constant post-war crisis in Austria. It seemed that people were so desperate for some stability that they were ready to give up anything for it, including a democratic Austria. The quick shifting between democracy and authoritarianism, however, didn’t bring anything positive to the Austrians in the long run.

Austrofascism and the Anschluss

“At no time during the short history of the First Republic had Austria’s existence as an independent state been so clearly defended and officially propagandised as it was during the period when Dollfuss’ government first dismantled parliamentary democracy, then destroyed it, and finally created a dictatorship”^[12]: this quote shows that people weren’t able to see through the chancellor’s propaganda and, slowly and unconsciously, they accepted the new direction of the country’s governance.

Using demonstrations of Social Democrats supporters, Dollfuss ordered the police to arrest former Schutzbund members, accusing them of stockpiling weapons and planning a revolution against the new government. The Social Democrats supporters, however, didn’t give up without a fight, and the result was the February 12 – February 16 Austrian Civil War of 1934. As a result, the few remaining forces of the Schutzbund were completely defeated, and the last supporters of the Social Democrats were brought to trial, effectively ending the party’s influence on Austrian politics for the next eleven years.

This conflict reflected on people’ desperation yet again – was there ever going to be peace and security in Austria? The successful coup against Dollfuss, which led to his death, was another blow to people’s moral and brought about their further uncertainty for their future.

As Kurt Schuschnigg took over Dollfuss’ place as chancellor in 1934, he was immediately being pressured by Germany – Hitler still wanted an Anschluss with Austria, which Engelbert Dollfuss has cleverly managed to avoid. Finding himself against the wall, Schuschnigg agreed with Hitler’s demands from the 1938 meeting in Munich under the threat of a German military offensive against Austria.

Nevertheless, the chancellor saw one last chance, which might help him prevent an Anschluss – through a referendum. If people voted against a unification with Germany, Hitler would have to quit his attempts to include Austria in German territories, otherwise he would go against the principles of self-determination, thus causing the western powers to intervene.

The German dictator, however, would not be denied “[…] on March 11 Hitler ordered operation Otto, the invasion of Austria, to go ahead.”^[13] This brought about Schuschnigg’s resignation. Seizing this opportunity, Hitler (through figureheads) did a referendum of his own. Hearing about German progress (through Hitler’s propaganda, of course) after the Führer came to power, the Austrians were desperate enough to give up their own independent country by voting with “yes” to an Austrian Anschluss with Germany, hoping it will finally stabilise economical and political crisis in Austria and through that – achieve a better social life.

Conclusion

Over the course of the Second World War, Austrian soldiers would die for Hitler’s causes, and Austrian citizens would suffer the consequences of the Anschluss in the devastated, occupied post- World War II Second Austrian Republic.

In the end, it was the stubbornness of both Social Democrats and Christian Socialists to work together and solve the post-World War I crisis in favor of the Austrian people that brought desperation and uncertainty among Austrians. The constant fightings for power and the will to bring the “rival party” down led to many conflicts, which backfired on society and made it take the wrong choices when it had to determine Austria’s fate: the emergence of Fascism in the country and its Anschluss to Germany are two clear examples of this. Nevertheless, the violent history of the First Austrian Republic would prove to serve as a valuable lesson for future governments in Austria after World War II.

Works cited:

Beller, Steven. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge University Press. 2007.

Boyer, John. Christlichsoziale Politik als Beruf. Vienna, 2010

Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/517198/Treaty-of-Saint-Germain

Moser, Karen et al. Österreich Box 1896-1995.Filmarchiv Austria, Vienna. Austria, 2010.

Segar, Kenneth; Warren, John. Austria in the Thirties: Culture and Politics. Riverside, CA, USA. Ariadne. 1991

Schindler, Franz. Die soziale Frage der Gegenwart, vom Standpunkte des Christemtums. Vienna. 1905

---

^[1] Beller, Steven. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge University Press. 2007. p198

^[2] Beller, Steven. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge University Press. 2007. p199

^[3] Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/517198/Treaty-of-Saint-Germain

^[4] Beller, Steven. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge University Press. 2007. p199

^[5] Beller, Steven. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge University Press. 2007. p200

^[6] Beller, Steven. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge University Press. 2007. p203

^[7] Schindler, Franz. Die soziale Frage der Gegenwart, vom Standpunkte des Christemtums. Vienna. 1905

^[8] Boyer, John. Christlichsoziale Politik als Beruf. Vienna, 2010

^[9] Moser, Karen et al. Österreich Box 1896-1995.Filmarchiv Austria, Vienna. Austria, 2010.

^[10] Beller, Steven. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge University Press. 2007. p209

^[11] Beller, Steven. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge University Press. 2007. p212

^[12] Segar, Kenneth; Warren, John. Austria in the Thirties: Culture and Politics. Riverside, CA, USA. Ariadne. 1991

^[13] Beller, Steven. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge University Press. 2007. p239

Gender and Education: Afghanistan’s Struggle with the War Effort. Women and Education in Afghanistan – An Overview of the Situation Since 2001.

Tags

Afghanistan, Education, Gender, Pakistan, Taliban, Women

By Yuri Fenopetov

Glossary and Acronyms:

Taliban – Taleeb, a Seeker of Truth, sometimes also used as a description for a student of Islam.Sharia – Islamic law.Burqa – A veil worn by women, covering the body from head to toe. Pashtunwali – Non-written ethical morals of indigenous people living in Pashtunistan, an area divided by the Durand Line, which constitutes today’s border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Madrassa – A school for the study of Islam, strictly only for young males, lead by a Mullah.

ISI – Inter-Services Intelligence.AUF – Afghan United Front.UNAMA – United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. UNICEF – United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund.

Afghanistan, Kabul, November 1996. The Taliban have just captured the Afghan capital Kabul after a bloody armed conflict that swept through most of Afghanistan’s rural areas and major cities for the past two years. The fundamentalist group was now in full grasp of most of the country and began to exert control, issuing a decree relating to “women and other cultural issues:”

Women you should not step outside your residence. If you go outside the house you should not be like women who used to go with fashionable clothes wearing much cosmetics and appearing in front of every men before the coming of Islam.

Islam as a rescuing religion has determined specific dignity for women, Islam has valuable instructions for women.[1]

The decree continues to list basic rules and responsibilities women have according to the Taliban’s interpretation of Sharia Law. Under Taliban rule women, in particular, were subject to discrimination. The discrimination often took cruel forms such as described in the decree presented above, disallowance to education, physical violence and public execution.

The fall of Kabul to the Taliban movement ignited a vicious civil war between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the de-facto Taliban, and, the Islamic State of Afghanistan, or “Afghan United Front” – the so called “Northern Alliance,” a military alliance between the former Afghan Government and non-Pashto warlords with support from mainly Russia and Iran. The conflict left many civilians dead and raised the need to discuss the treatment of women’s issues in Afghanistan. The war continued until 2001, when the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia invaded Afghanistan and together with the AUF fought the Taliban to regain full control of the country, an initiative now known as Operation Enduring Freedom.

Taliban fighters were eventually pushed back by the invading powers, mainly into rural areas and over the Afghan-Pakistani border, where they have enjoyed close ties all throughout the former civil war until present day with factions of the Pakistani military and the Pakistani ISI secret service.[2] The movement shifted its strategy to smaller, well-targeted and coordinated attacks, then retreat into safe-havens in Pakistan’s tribal areas, in an effort to counter governmental reforms and security, and particularly a foreign presence. Nevertheless, today, despite incidents of tensions between the Afghan people and the occupying powers, there is a firm effort of the international community to rebuild a war-torn Afghanistan.

When discussing the course of development of a country like Afghanistan, which remains one of the poorest countries in the world,[3] a key necessity is to focus on education. Apart from economic incentives to build roads, hospitals, and eradicate opium cultivation, it is essential to stress the importance of educating the Afghan population at all levels, specifically both male and female subjects. It is my strong belief, that education is a necessary pillar for any society to progress in terms of living conditions and economic advancement. To see if the Afghan war effort by the occupying powers has encouraged the process of developing education, and if it was successful in making education possible for women, we can ask ourselves the following questions: In regard to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1974 (2011), how successful was the effort to achieve gender equality in forms of access to education for women in Afghanistan since 2001 by the international community? What were and are the challenges posed by these developments to the effort and, most importantly, can these challenges be overcome?

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1974 was adopted unanimously in March 2011, after recalling former resolutions on Afghanistan. The Resolution extended the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan until 2012. The Council realized that there is no military solution to the situation in Afghanistan after ten years of foreign military occupation. The Resolution repeats the support of the international community to the Afghan people in rebuilding Afghanistan. Therefore, a guiding principle of the Resolution is to reinforce Afghan ownership with specific focus on:

a.      Promoting support for the government’s development and governance priorities.

b.      Strengthening the co-operation with international security forces.

c.       Providing support for the implementation of the Afghan-led reconciliation and reintegration programs.

d.      Taking into account progress on electoral reform.

e.      Working in co-operation with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in various areas.[4]

Apart from addressing political and military issues, such as opium-cultivation, refugees, protection of humanitarian workers, these main points also reiterate the importance of education, specifically in the context of economic development, tolerance, and universal human rights.[5] Point e of the Resolution goes into more depth in regard to the protection of civilians, especially issues regarding women:

… to cooperate also with the Afghan Government and relevant international and local non-governmental organizations to monitor the situation of civilians, to coordinate efforts to ensure their protection, to promote accountability, and to assist in the full implementation of the fundamental freedoms and human rights provisions of the Afghan Constitution and international treaties to which Afghanistan is a State party, in particular those regarding the full enjoyment by women of their human rights;

The Afghan Constitution, referred to by the Resolution, evolved from the Afghan Constitution Commission mandated by the Bonn Agreement, an international initiative intended to re-create the State of Afghanistan. The Constitution was adopted in 2004 with the signing of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. In respect to the Resolution, the Afghan Constitution states that men and women enjoy equal rights.[6] The Constitution goes even further in including a clause concentrating specifically on the education of women: “The state shall devise and implement effective programs for balancing and promoting of education for women.”[7] Furthermore, the Constitution requires each political party to nominate a certain number of female candidates. Clearly, we can see that there is a firm drive from both the Afghan Government, considering the Constitution, as well as the international community, in the context of the Security Council Resolution, for making education possible for women in Afghanistan since the departure of the Taliban in 2001.

The Taliban regime is notorious for its treatment of women. Their interpretation of law is based on Islamic Law, or Sharia. Women are forced to stay inside their domestic spheres and in case of ever leaving the house, have to wear a burqa. Additionally, females are not allowed to work, and consequently are forbidden to enjoy formal education, except the study of the Quran, the latter also being true for the male. These measures are interpreted as being necessary to create “secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct.”[8] – Basically, a worldview that is reminiscent of early 8^th century rural Muslim society, and still much of today’s rural Afghan tribal-based society.

It is important to take into account that the Taliban movement was very much a nationalistic movement of mainly ethnically Pashto peoples of which the majority lives in the Pashto-belt that stretches across southern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan. Thus, the Taliban’s Sharia is strongly influenced by non-written ethical morals called Pashtunwali. Due to these circumstances, other ethnicities that live in the more historically liberal orientated areas of the North, such as the cities of Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif, have suffered in many ways when Taliban forces conducted their conquest of Afghanistan and consequently began their exert of control, mainly due to ethnical and political tensions. Most fighters that the Taliban recruited, and continue to recruit, are young, male, madrassa-educated orphans who have rarely enjoyed the presence of females in their lives. Thus, the implementation of policies regarding women was not a difficult task. However, as explained earlier, the Taliban have been driven back in 2001, forcing them to fight from the background: from remote tribal areas in southeastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan that lack proper governmental oversight and control. The reemergence of the Taliban poses a great challenge to the Afghan Government and remains one of the foremost important political topics of today’s discussions concerning Central Asia, or even global stability. Returning to women and education, we can look to statistical information to see how successful the drive of the Afghan Government and the international community has been in giving women access to education since 2001.

During the Taliban regime, the literacy rate for women was 5.6 percent.[9] In 2011, the Australian Government Agency for International Development aid programme recorded the literacy rate for women enjoying a significant increase to 12.6 percent.[10] School enrolments have increased as well: from about one million in 2001, of whom virtually none were girls, to seven million in 2011, of which 2.5 million were girls. Although a large part of the young female population still does not attend any educational facilities, this progress shows a significant improvement that will affect the literacy rate of women positively in the coming years. However, we must take into account that a large portion of the Afghan population is in school age. About one in every five Afghans is in the age group between seven and twelve years old. In 2006, mid-way of our analysis, it was reported that 74 percent of girls drop out of primary school before finishing.[11] We can conclude that initially sending children to school is not that much of a problem than keeping them going to school until graduation. 51 percent of parents mention that the main reasons for girls to not go to school are accessibility.[12] The educational infrastructure in Afghanistan remains insufficient. Only 40 percent of schools are conducted in permanent buildings. The remaining percentage constitutes classes that take place in UNICEF shelters or “desert schools” that take place in the deserts near villages.[13] State development agencies, such as the United States Agency for International Aid, and other non-governmental organizations have built and continue to build numerous schools in Afghanistan. Additionally, much of the schoolbooks used remain woefully insufficient and a standardized educational curriculum does not exist. There has been improvement conducted by international experts to improve the number of schoolbooks and their content, as many still contain extremist Islamic teachings. Additionally, according to statistics of the Afghan Ministry of Education, 80 percent of teachers lack proper credentials and rarely exceed secondary school education equivalents. These issues remain main challenges to the effort in improving educational circumstances. However, the number of schools built might increase accessibility, and the educational material might increase globalized educational standards, but they do not omit the remaining fact that a majority of girls are still dropping out of primary school. The other reasons for the high-rate of primary school dropouts by girls were mainly marriage, family obligations or the fear of a remaining Taliban presence; the latter being an issue of security and the former being issues of traditional Afghan cultural practices.

Afghanistan remains one of the worst affected countries by violence against education. Movements such as the Taliban and other fundamentalist militant groups exert violent attacks on girl schools, which have often had to operate underground during the Taliban regime with teachers fearing execution. Although the Taliban are now in the background, attacks on girl schools still persist. In 2008 alone, there have been 670 incidents of violent attacks on education, the majority of which have been girl schools.[14]

On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, one of the main challenges to keep girls in primary school is deeply vested in cultural practices that are based on conservative Afghan traditions. Gender relations in the Afghan household construct a very distinct gender order. Women generally deal with housework and childcare and stay outside the decision-making spheres of the traditional Afghan community, which is dominated by the male. It is the duty of the male to protect the female from “other corrupt” males who can do harm to the family’s well being. However, domestic violence remains a key issue in providing gender equality and safety for women. Women are thus stuck between two worlds of having no place in public spheres of Afghan life, and fear of violence at home. According to the Afghanistan Woman Council, domestic violence can include “emotional abuse, physical abuse, economic abuse, sexual abuse, using children, making threats, using male privilege, intimidation, isolation, and a variety of other behaviors used to maintain fear, intimidation, power and control.” Although domestic violence exists all around the world, it is reinforced by the common acceptance of domestic violence as being normal in much of the broader traditionally conservative Afghan society, which makes it extremely hard, additionally to it taking place at home, to condemn and oversee – even more so in rural parts of Afghanistan. Women are essentially classed as second-class citizens and denied basic human rights.

The gender order impedes on empowering women to choose their own life-paths by ‘Western’ standards. Through forced marriages and family obligations, women have to give up their educational possibilities and ambitions, which are represented in the high dropout rate of girls from primary school. Child marriages account for 43 percent of all marriages, and the mean age of a girl when marrying is 17.[15]

We can observe the developments of gender discrimination in Afghanistan through the situation of education. A combination of factors, such as poverty, conservative Afghan traditions and the effects of war contribute to the circumstances. Women remain exposed to hostilities and conflict, even with an increase in positive developments concerning the number of school enrolments by girls and legislative measures concerning women. The absence of political participation of women remains a key issue in Afghanistan. The relatively high number of women in parliament, which as mentioned earlier is vested in the Afghan Constitution, does not change the reality that women continue to be virtually non-existent in local-level decision-making.

We can conclude that the effort by the Afghan Government and the international community is leading Afghanistan into the right direction, but the reality of women’s position in Afghan society remains a crucial challenge. Apart from building schools and chasing down militant groups, the effort has to reach a firm stage that can fill the existing need to raise effective awareness concerning women’s issues. More work needs to be done in changing cultural practices, that will require sensitive and diplomatic approaches, in respect to the noble culture of the Afghan people and its history. It is my strong belief that this process requires much effort, attention and most importantly: time.

In a broader perspective, there should be a much stronger approach to demonstrate friendly intentions and a much higher level of adaptability by the international community, both politically and culturally. The result should be a firm and lasting commitment that is based across three levels: an international agreement, a regional agreement and a domestic agreement. One cannot simply eradicate issues Afghanistan faces quickly or in the form of ‘shock therapy’, and most crucially not be able to steer Afghan affairs without the consent of its peoples. An international solution needs to be found to end the ongoing war in Afghanistan, a regional solution to tackle foreign interference, proxy fighting, militancy, drug trafficking and bring stability to Afghanistan’s borders, and a domestic solution that will represent all ethnicities and layers of Afghan society fairly, and establish confidence in a unified and peaceful Afghanistan.

---

[1] Rashid, Ahmed. Taliban. London: I.B. Taurus, 2010. 247. Excerpt from the decree announced by the General Presidency of Amr Bil Maruf and Nai Az Munkar (Religious Police). Translation from Dari.

[2] Human Rights Watch. Afghanistan. Crisis of Impunity: The Role of Pakistan, Russia and Iran in Fueling the Civil War in Afghanistan. <http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701.pdf>.

[3] International Monetary Fund. Statistics Database. <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/index.aspx>.

[4] United Nations Security Council Resolution 1974 (2011). Points are revised for simplicity reasons.

[5] Daily Times of Pakistan. Mar 24, 2011. <http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20113\24\story_24-3-2011_pg7_7>.

[6] Article 22 of the Afghan Constitution.

[7] Article 44 of the Afghan Constitution.

[8] Dupree, Nancy. Afghan Women under the Taliban in William Maley. Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban. London: Hurst and Company, 2001. 145-166.

[9] Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan. <http://www.rawa.org/facts.htm>.

[10] Australian Government. Australian Agency for International Development. <http://www.ausaid.gov.au/country/country.cfm?CountryID=27886219&Region=AfricaMiddleEast>.

[11] Skaine, Rosemarie. Women of Afghanistan in The Post-Taliban Era: How Lives Have Changed and Where They Stand Today. MacFarland, 2008.

[12] United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative. <http://www.ungei.org/infobycountry/afghanistan.html>.

[13] Najafizada, Maysam. Afghanistan: Education in a War Zone. Dec 19, 2008. Transitions Online. <http://chalkboard.tol.org/afghanistan>.

[14] Reuters. Violence, tradition keeps millions of Afghans from school. Jan 1, 2011. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/01/us-afghanistan-education-idUSTRE7000P220110101>.

[15] Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. <http://www.childinfo.org/marriage_countrydata.php>.

Picture retrieved from :

 

The League of Nations – Creation, History, and Collapse

Tags

Diplomacy, League of Nations, Manchurian crisis, Treaty of Versailles, United Nations, Woodrow Wilson, World War І

by Mario Krastanov

After the end of the destructive World War I, the victorious Allies (the USA, France, and Great Britain) wanted to ensure that a similar tragedy would never happen again. In an attempt to achieve this, US President Woodrow Wilson proposed the creation of an international organization, called the League of Nations, the goals of which was to offer countries peaceful, diplomatic means for resolving their disputes, thus avoiding military conflicts. Although this idea was welcomed by many countries worldwide, the League of Nations did not last for long: the organization collapsed due to misunderstandings between its members and their lack of willingness to act in key moments. But what led to these misunderstandings? Could they have been avoided? Why was the League considered so important by the great powers? Moreover, why did the United States never join the League of Nation, even though it was their president, who pointed out its importance? These are the questions the author will attempt to answer in this paper.

Background of the League of Nations

 

“The First World War killed fewer victims than the Second World War, destroyed fewer buildings, and uprooted millions instead of tens of millions – but in many ways it left even deeper scars both on the mind and on the map of Europe. The old world never recovered from the shock.”^[1] This quote by Edmond Taylor is an excellent description of one of the most terrible and bloody conflicts humanity has ever encountered. Europe was devastated and, because of the many colonies that European countries had, the war left its mark on almost every corner of the world. The economies of once powerful empires such as Russia, Germany, and Austria were exhausted, which resulted in a deep and continuous social crisis throughout the post-war world. People were therefore desperate to find a way to avoid any future conflicts that may escalate and reach similar scales.

One possible solution for achieving just that was brought up by US President Woodrow Wilson. Based on his internationalist ideas, Wilson believed that, if united towards a common goal (international peace and security), states would never again have to suffer from another destructive conflict such as the First World War: “Wilson and his idealist philosophy altered the aims of the allies […] Wilson saw the need to take definitive actions to make war obsolete.”^[2]

Wilson’s foreign policy advisor, Colonel Edward House, shared the president’s conviction, and together they drafted an official resolution for the League of Nations – an international organization, the aim of which was to impose disarmament and collective security agreements, as well as to ensure that countries would join a “universal alliance, committed to something called ‘collective responsibility.’”^[3] Representatives of member states were to meet on a regular basis in order to address and resolve any disputes through diplomatic means.

Creation of the League of Nations

         Wilson’s draft of the League of Nations was first presented in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, where the victorious allies were trying to rebuild the devastated post-World War I world. Many states quickly realized the importance of such an organization and on April 18, 1919, Wilson’s proposed covenant for the League of Nations was approved and included in the Treaty of Versailles. The League covenant entered into force a year later (January 10, 1920). Several months after that, the League’s headquarters were moved to Geneva.

A very interesting question might arise here: Why was the League of Nations considered so important by many states, especially such as Great Britain and France? Until the outbreak of World War I, there was an organization (known as the Old Congress System, which originated from the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna in 1815), which was supposed to ensure peace and security in Europe, guaranteed by the superpowers of the time (Prussia, Austria, Russia, and Great Britain, later joined by France). There were problems with that system, which could not have been foreseen in the early 1800’s – in 1871, Prussia ceased to exist, replaced by the German empire, which, however, suffered defeat in World War I and could, therefore, along with Austria, not take any decisions regarding the shaping of the post-war world. In addition, the Russian empire was brought down and, by 1919, the state had an entirely different governing body. In other words, three of the five superpowers of 1815 were no longer maintaining the Old Congress System, and the other two were exhausted by World War I, barely managing to ensure their own survival. It became clear that a handful of powerful states could not guarantee continuous peace – all countries had to work together in order to achieve international stability. “The spirit of the times, however […] pushed towards the creation of a more comprehensive global organization.”^[4]

France and Great Britain realized this and welcomed Woodrow Wilson’s idea for collective responsibility in the name of world peace, but why was France so interested in the League of Nations? On the one hand, it was the only remaining superpower on continental Europe and therefore had to always fear attacks from multiple fronts: “France dared not stand alone.”^[5] This is why the French were more than happy to sign the League of Nations covenant: It ensured that, if a member state is under attack, the League is to provide assistance in order to restore peace. On the other hand, France’s involvement in the First World War proved to cost “too dearly, and it [France] had been living off capital for nearly a century.”^[6] Though no one else knew of this so far, France was in “constant danger of isolation.”^[7]

Great Britain, which “for 200 years had steered clear of open-ended alliances,”^[8] was perhaps one of the most unusual states, which entered an international organization such as the League of Nations. Nevertheless, “Great Britain’s determination to prevail against the immediate threat”^[9] was enough for the state to accept a “doctrine of collective security.”^[10] Furthermore, Great Britain’s involvement in the First World War was dictated by national interests (such as defending its territory from a possible German invasion coming from Belgium). Therefore, it was in the island state’s best interest to join an alliance, which would offer protection. Most important, the US proved to be a great military power during the war, which convinced Great Britain that, if it were attacked, the US would come to its aid as a member of the League of Nations. What the British did not know at the time was that the United States would never actually join the League themselves.

Smaller countries (especially in Europe, such as Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Denmark and others) also welcomed the idea of collective security. Hungary and Czechoslovakia, for example, have just been declared independent after the end of World War I and they were worried that, if an opportunity presented itself, the former empires might try to retake their old territories.

The Republic of China also feared its powerful oversea neighbor, Japan, which is one of the reasons for the Kuomintang’s decision to enter the League.

Organs of the League of Nations

 

According to Article 2 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,^[11] the organization consists of an Assembly (with representatives of every member state), a Council (the four members of which are chosen by the Assembly for a period of time), and a Secretariat at each seat of the League.

Purposes of the League of Nations

 

As Article 11 of the Covenant of the League of Nation states, it is “the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace.”^[12] This article reveals one of the most important purposes of the League: solving disputes through negotiations within the organization.

In the beginning, the League of Nations had a truly remarkable influence on its members, which managed to use diplomacy instead of war in their conflicts: “A series of disputes – between Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia, between Italy and Greece, and between Greece and Bulgaria – were resolved under its [the League of Nations’ ] auspices. Though relatively minor, these were just the kind of incidents that had in the past triggered regional conflicts.”^[13] This was considered a great success for the newly formed organization, as it did show the effectiveness of its core potential – the use of peaceful negotiations through diplomacy, for which the League was created.

This principle of open diplomacy addressed another important issue as well: all member states were obliged to publish all existing and future international treaties. Since one of the reasons for the outbreak of World War One was misunderstandings among allies due to secret treaties, the League of Nations sought to prevent future conflicts based on hidden understandings between countries.

Economic equality among member states was also considered important by the League of Nations member states. The covenant included (but was not limited to) laws regarding the regulation of tariffs in international trade and norms about existing and future professional arrangements between countries (including Custom Unions).^[14] The primary concern here was that tense trade relations between states may result in military conflicts, the very scenario, which the League wanted to avoid at all costs.

The League of Nations also proved itself useful by helping states to rebuild after the end of World War I. For example, in 1922 the Christian Socialists came to power in the newly formed Austrian Republic, nominating Ignaz Seipel as chancellor. One of Seipel’s first actions was to ask the League for a loan, which he used to finance huge construction projects, thus creating houses for most of the Austrian population, which had lost their homes during the war.

Another objective of the League of Nations’ policy was to impose arms regulation treaties in order to limit countries’ opportunities to go to war. The desired outcome was to change the role of a state’s army, limiting its function to a domestic defensive force only. Protection and integration of minorities was also important, as revolts can sometimes escalate and thus endanger international security.

In its first five years, the League of Nations served as a true instrument of diplomacy: Nations were willing to sit down together and negotiate their way out of any crisis that threatened international security. Nevertheless, some countries (such as Italy and Japan) were able to recover more quickly from the war than others (at least presumably) and started to look for means other than diplomacy to extend their influence in the world. These countries, however, were not the only for the League and its members.

Struggles within the League of Nations

         One of the League’s most vital objectives was to gain the support of as many superpowers as possible, which were to ensure and promote global peace. This, however, proved to be problematic because only a few truly powerful states remained, since Germany and Austria were severely weakened as a result of the First World War. Furthermore, Russia (i.e. the newly formed Soviet Union) refused to join the League of Nations, mainly because Germany was already in it. The United States also refused membership due to its isolationist policy. This meant that only a handful of states remained that were powerful enough to actually provide political and military might for the League of Nations and its goals: France, Great Britain, and Japan.

The British government quickly became one of the most dominant forces in the League due to the huge support of the British population. The British people were very weary of new military confrontations, which is why they saw the organization as a salvation from new conflicts. The British government itself, however, was rather skeptical about the League’s success: “Winston Churchill in 1926 lamented a naiveté of many League supporters ‘who intended it to create a heaven upon earth, provided human beings and events would allow an interval of fifty years, say, to occur in which to build this wonderful edifice’ .”^[15] The fact that the League of Nations’ most zealous supporter doubted the organization’s potential probably contributed to “its subsequent hesitancy to act,”^[16] and thus to its eventual demise.

The other state, which was truly interested in the League’s survival and success, was France. As the only superpower remaining on continental Europe, France constantly feared potential attacks on its territory, mainly from Germany (though it was now a weak state, Germany has proved that it can, if necessary, militarize and mobilize very quickly). Because of this, France tried to create an alliance with the Soviet Union, which would make Germany think twice before starting a war with the French. Such an alliance, however, was never made.

In other words, “The net result of this was that the League of Nations was primarily a Franco-British institution in both membership and philosophy,”^[17] despite the fact that many other nations were also represented in the organization. Though the Soviet Union eventually joined the League as Germany left it (as a result of Hitler’s rise to power), Stalin was never truly committed to the League of Nations. Japan also left the organization in the mid 1930’s, which meant that Great Britain and France were basically left alone to deal with any upcoming conflict.

One of the primary causes for the League’s weakness, however, came from a different continent, North America. Although US President Woodrow Wilson  proposed the creation of the League of Nations, his country never joined it.

Wilson’s ideas for world peace through collective responsibility were widely popular among the populations, both in the United States and abroad. Still, the President had to face a difficult challenge when pushing for a US membership in the League: A Republican-controlled Senate refused to approve the US involvement in the organization, believing that this would “too seriously restrain American foreign policy choices.”^[18] In an official statement, the Senate made a list of reservations to the League of Nations Covenant. If these had been met, the US probably would have joined the organization. However, Article 2 of these reservations stated that “The United States assumes no obligations to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations — whether members of the League or not […], or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of any treaty for any purpose.”^[19] This particular reservation could not have been implemented within in League of Nations’ Covenant, as it is in clear contradiction with some of the organization’s core principles, namely ensuring global security, or enforcing it, should peace be violated. Other reservations included the US government being allowed, if it deemed necessary, to increase its armament without the consent of the League of Nations, which was again incompatible with the organization’s rules.

Although the reasoning of the Senate was understandable in the context of  United States’ foreign policy at that time, these reservations hampered (and eventually prevented) US membership in the League of Nations. Still, why did this have any consequences for the League and its success?

World War I had brought many European countries’ economies to their knees, thus weakening even the most powerful countries on the continent. The League of Nations’ strength was supposed to come namely from the United States and European countries, as they were highly developed both economically and socially. The United States in particular had the best economy of the post-war period, as they entered the war in its last year (meaning the US was not as exhausted as other countries were at the end), and the increase of US armaments improved domestic economic stability. The League, therefore, relied to a large extend on the military and economic aid that the United States could provide.

After the Senate prevented US League of Nations membership, the organization lost its most vital supporter. Consequently, it was up to the European countries alone (primarily Great Britain and France) to vouch for the League and its success. Woodrow Wilson’s promising plans for world peace suddenly did not seem as solid as the League and its creators had thought they would be. As mentioned previously, Great Britain and France were not as powerful as they were before the outbreak of World War I, which is why they saw the League of Nations as a solution to their domestic problems (in addition to the organization’s peacekeeping objectives).

While the United States did not join the League, it tried to help strengthen Europe by granting huge loans to countries in need. Germany and Austria (among others) received large amounts of money in order to combat their post-war crises. Unfortunately, this action backfired, threatening global economic stability and weakening European states even further:

The 1929 financial crisis on the US market caused a drastic change in the United State’s policy, especially in international relations. The loans, which the Americans were giving to the Germans, stopped. This action had terrible consequences: With no loans, the German government was unable to pay its war reparations to Great Britain and France. In turn, without receiving the reparations, Great Britain and France could not afford to satisfy their debts to the United States, thus weakening the US along with the European economy. US President Herbert Hoover found himself in an awkward position, both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, because of the depression in the US, Hoover decided not to attend European meetings in the early 1930’s, the goal of which was to discuss and solve the economic crisis. The President was aware that the United States could not afford to give further loans to Europe, though he also knew that this directly affected the American economy.

The lack of foreign support had an even worse impact on European countries: Because of the poor living conditions, people were desperate and were willing to try anything in order to improve their current situation. This not only strengthened already established fascist governments (such as Benito Mussolini’s regime in Italy) but also made way for emerging nationalist movements, resulting in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. In the long run, this would prove to be perhaps the worst outcome of the 1929 depression.

The Manchuria Crisis

         Aside from the weak economic situation of the time, another major issue for the League of Nations came in 1931, when the Japanese military took offensive actions against China in the region of Manchuria. As military strikes began, China appealed to the League for support, as the current government was neither strong, nor coherent enough to stop the Japanese invasion on its own.

The League was, however, hesitant in its actions. France insisted that the organization should be primarily concerned with Europe and that it did not have the necessary resources for a successful intervention in Asia. Great Britain did not want to fight the Japanese at all, as they had been allies during World War I. In addition, Britain’s interests in Asia were limited to Hong Kong and a possible British market there, and the government was, therefore, unwilling to fight for a cause that would most likely not turn out beneficial. Furthermore, Great Britain did not have sufficient resources to spare for a military mobilization, which made the state look weak in the eyes of other countries.

As the conflict escalated, the League was accused of being passive: “League members, especially Britain, were charged not only with betraying China [a member of the League of Nations], but also betraying the League’s principles themselves.”^[20] The League of Nations did not impose sanctions on Japan, which made the organization look even more helpless than it actually was. Ultimately, the crisis in Manchuria turned out to be a test, which the League did not address at all.

Other conflicts, such as Italy’s invasion in Abyssinia, again did not trigger determined actions by the League, which called into question the organization’s very existence: Why was the League of Nations needed, if it could not do what it was supposed to do, namely ensuring that world peace was established and preserved?

The fact that countries could take over territories and get away with it with little to no consequences was later notoriously used by Adolf Hitler. After realizing how weak the League of Nations and its main supporters, Great Britain and France,  were, the Führer decided that it was safe enough to start militarizing Germany, as well as to commence a series of expansion attempts that were against both the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations. Nevertheless, Hitler’s estimate of British and French weakness proved to be highly accurate: The number of appeasements that Great Britain and France made to Hitler’s demands is evidence of this.

Conclusion

 

It was actually the League of Nations’ passivity then, which actually led to the outbreak of World War II. If the League had acted sooner and in a more united way, Hitler’s expansion attempts could have been thwarted and war might have been avoided. The economic crisis of the 1930’s and the lack of willingness to act at key moments (the Manchuria and Abyssinia crises), however, undermined the League’s authority and thus the authority of its member states, which was later used against them. This was the actual spark for the Second World War, which would eventually cause the deaths of tens of millions of people.

It is debatable whether or not the United States’ isolationist policy contributed to the downfall of the League of Nations, but a US membership in the League would definitely have helped the organization achieve its goals easier, since the United Sates were the only true superpower of the post-war world.

Whatever the case may be, the League of Nations ultimately collapsed. Nevertheless, it did not disappear forever. The League was disbanded in 1945 only to make way for a new organization, the United Nations, which would last longer and achieve greater successes than its predecessor.

Using the term that referred to the victorious allies of the Second World War,  “The United Nations,”  the new organization was established in a treaty signed in San Francisco on June 26, 1945. Its intended purposes were very similar to those that the League of Nations had, preserving peace and security through the use of diplomatic negotiations between states. This time, however, the creators wanted to make certain that they would not repeat the League of Nations’ biggest mistake, its passivity. To avoid this, the UN Security Council was established: “The structure of the United Nations was to give a much stronger position to the traditional great powers through the UN Security Council.”^[21] In addition, it is believed that “the most significant thing about its [the United Nations’] creation, perhaps, is that this time the USA did not back away.”^[22] The United States emerged as the most powerful state after the end of World War II (just as it had been at the end of the previous war), although this time the US joined the organization to maintain world peace. As future conflicts would show, the United States’ determined actions were valuable in containing international conflicts (for example, the Korean War of 1950-1953) that otherwise might have escalated and led to another major catastrophe.

World peace is and always will be worth fighting for. However, there are means other than war to fight for it: diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise are some of them. In the end, “Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by men.”^[23] International organizations such as the United Nations can help humanity by solving such problems. At the end of the day, it is up to all of us to find the best way to live together in a peaceful, friendly world.

Works cited

1914-1929: World War One and Wilsonian Diplomacy. Office of the Historian. U.S. Department of State

Doyle, Michael. Ways of War and Peace. W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.

Egerton, George. Great Britain and the Creation of the League of Nations. University of North Carolina Press Chapel Hill

House, Edward. Proposal for a League of Nations. Draft of Colonel House, July 16, 1918

Kennedy, John. Address by the President to the nation, 1962.

Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1994.

Lodge, Henry. Reservations with Regard to the Treaty [of Versailles]. Record, 66 Cong., I Sess., pp. 8777-8778; 8768-8769, 8781-8784

Schulzinger, Robert. U.S. Diplomacy Since 1900. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Stiles, Kendall. Case Histories in International Politics. Sixth Edition. Longman, 2010.

Sullivan, Earl et al. Multilateral Diplomacy and the United Nations Today. Westview Press,1999.

Taylor, Edmond. The Fossil Monarchies: The Collapse of the Old Order, 1905-1922. Penguin, 1967.

The Covenant of the League of Nations. Lillian Goldman Law Library; Yale Law School. 2008

The League of Nations, 1929. Office of the Historian. U.S. Department of State

Townshend, Charles. The League of Nations. BBC History, 17.02.2011

Wilson, Woodrow. Final Address in Support of the League of Nations. Pueblo, CO. 25 Sept, 1919

Wilson, Woodrow. Policies and Proposals of the United States and the Allies. Official statement by President Wilson to the Special Representative (House)

---

^[1]Edmond Taylor,The Fossil Monarchies: The Collapse of the Old Order, 1905-1922 (London: Penguin, 1967).

^[2] Kendall Stiles. Case Histories in International Politics. Sixth Edition. (Longman, 2010). p. 25

^[3] Robert Schulzinger. U.S. Diplomacy Since 1900. (Oxford University Press, 2008). p. 81

^[4] Charles Townshend, The League of Nations. BBC History, February 17, 2011.

^{[5] 6 7}Henry Kissinger. Diplomacy. ( Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1994).

^{[8] 9} Henry Kissinger. Diplomacy. (Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1994).

^[10] Henry Kissinger. Diplomacy. (Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1994). p. 223

^[11] The Covenant of the League of Nations. Lillian Goldman Law Library; Yale Law School. 2008

^[12] The Covenant of the League of Nations. Lillian Goldman Law Library; Yale Law School. 2008

^[13] Charles Townshend. The League of Nations. BBC History, 17.02.2011

^[14] Edward House. Proposal for a League of Nations. Draft of Colonel House, July 16, 1918. p. 512

^{[15] 16 17 18} Kendall Stiles. Case Histories in International Politics. Sixth Edition. Longman, 2010. p. 27

^[19] Henry Lodge. Reservations with Regard to the Treaty [of Versailles]. Record, 66 Cong., I Sess., pp. 8777-8778; 8768-8769, 8781-8784

^{[21] 23} Charles Townshend. The League of Nations. BBC History, 17.02.2011

^[23] John Kennedy. Address by the President to the nation, 1962.

The White Man’s Burden Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good By William Easterly

Tags

foreign aid, international organizations, planning economies, Postmodern Colonialism, The White Man’s Burden, Western imperialism, William Easterly

Review by Stephen Rains

 

The “White Man’s Burden” has changed form over the past century since Rudyard Kipling wrote the original poem at the height of Western imperialism, as William Easterly describes in his book of the same title.  The original idea of the White Man’s Burden was that it was the responsibility of the advanced western nations to “civilize” the “rest,” an idea which has changed means, but not form.  Instead of direct colonialism, Western nations intend to aid developing countries which have failed to help themselves, by introducing western-style markets and government.  William Easterly wrote The White Man’s Burden to expose the fallacies of foreign aid as it currently exists, which he argues does more damage than the good intended by it, as cited through statistical information and extensive anecdotal evidence.

As an employee of the World Bank for sixteen years, William Easterly became very familiar with the systems of foreign aid.  His familiarity bred disillusionment with international institutions and how they distribute aid donated by wealthy, western nations.  Easterly’s intentions for writing The White Man’s Burden is to reveal how foreign aid has failed to deliver on its all-inclusive plans to end poverty, reduce preventable deaths, and bring economic prosperity to developing nations, among the many ideals of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

Easterly proposes that not only has foreign aid failed to deliver in these promises, but it has also disrupted local cultures, contributed to continuing debt of developing nations, aided broken or despotic governments, and even financially aided countries involved in genocide.  His purpose is to expose the system as being broken, and to institute a rethinking of how aid should be implemented.  Rethinking the system of foreign aid involves identifying what works and who is responsible for how the system operates.

Easterly identifies the players in the current framework of foreign aid as “planners,” in regard to their method of planning economies and governments of developing countries through foreign aid.  These individuals are associated with large, utopian, macroeconomic plans which intend to fix or “adjust” markets, financial institutions, and governments of developing countries from a top-down approach, usually, but not solely, by working through governments already in place.   Easterly juxtaposes “planners” with “searchers,”  who take a bottom-up approach of using practical, accountable, grassroots methods of development which would aid developing countries by enabling them to work through institutions already in place, and use market-type forces to correct institutions and governments when they go wrong.  The bulk of the book is explaining and providing evidence for why planning does not work and how searching could.

Easterly lays the foundations for his argument in explaining the “Legend of the Big Push.”  Planners such as Jeffrey Sachs argue that poor countries are stuck in a “poverty trap” which hinders their economies from taking off; to which the only solution is a “Big Push” in the form of massive amounts of foreign aid.  As foreign aid was not able to achieve economic prosperity for the majority of countries that received it, planners respond that in order for aid to be properly distributed, a free market must be introduced.

Easterly does not argue in The White Man’s Burden that free markets in any way do not work; he is in fact in favor of free markets when they are formed organically in a country, not introduced or incentivized by one country upon another in the form of “Shock Therapy.”  Easterly argues that markets “evolve slowly on their own from the actions of many agents; the Western outsiders and Planners don’t have a clue how to create these norms and institutions,” (Easterly, 2006:77).  Developing countries must find out what works best for themselves and build markets or develop markets which already exist.  Enforcing a top-down approach to markets often forces Planners to work with unsavory characters in the governments of developing nations.

According to Easterly, Planners form two camps when considering aid to governments of developing nations.  The first perspective, taken by the United States, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank is that governments of poor countries are typically bad and should be forced to change.  The second perspective, typically identified with the United Nations and Jeffrey Sachs, is that the governments of poor countries are not necessarily bad and should be allowed to determine their own strategies for development (Easterly, 2006: 115).  Easterly argues that there are examples of developing countries to support both perspectives.  In either case, imposing democracy, which is closely associated with higher per capita income, does not work.  One reason Easterly gives for the failure of imposed democracy is politicians in developing nations can appeal to often-uneducated voter’s “gut instincts of hatred, fear, nationalism, or racism to win elections,” (Easterly, 2006: 127).  Once bad government is established, donors and international institutions are stuck with giving loans to “gangsters,” as described by Easterly.  Even if the governments are not necessarily despotic or corrupt, there exist other barriers to distribute foreign aid.

One such barrier is the bureaucratic nature of aid institutions and often the governments to which aid is distributed.  In order to receive financial assistance from aid institutions, developing nations not only must deal with the bureaucracy of the single aid institution, but also the several aid agencies (and their bureaucracies) who work in conjunction to aid developing nations.  When the receiving country has satisfied the requirements and promises for adjustment necessary for aid, they must then work through the bureaucracies of their own country to distribute the funds.  Another issue arises as the donors are typically Planners who want to see macroeconomic adjustments, which are hugely expensive and rarely address the immediate needs of the population.  Easterly argues that if aid agencies should “specialize more in solving particular problems in particular countries, rather than having each agency responsible for everything,” and “hold each agency responsible for progress on its particular problem, which might encourage it to cut red tape,” (Easterly, 2006:175).  Even when aid agencies do realize some success, the long-term benefits of continued aid are few.

One such agency that has seen some success is the International Monetary Fund.  Though Easterly recognizes the role the IMF played in relieving the Asian Financial Crisis, for example, he also notes that success for the agency is the exception rather than the rule.  Easterly makes the analogy that the IMF doing a financial aid program in countries with little political stability “was like recommending heart-healthy calisthenics every morning for patients with broken limbs,” in that these countries have neither the political or economic infrastructure to use the loans effectively to relieve their debt, and often end up requiring further loans.  One point Easterly makes is that if the IMF did not loan to unstable countries, market forces would take over:  the country would not be able to spend beyond its revenues, and if it spent loans irresponsibly and did not pay back lenders, it would not be granted further credit, which could be an incentive for getting its act together.  One tragedy of the IMF and World Bank loans is the correlation between countries receiving above-average amounts of loans from these institutions and becoming Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs).  Since these institutions repeatedly lent to HIPCs, they contributed to the debt load, which often resulted in debt being forgiven, destroying incentive to change.  Easterly concludes that “the IMF needs to find a way to get rid of its intrusive and complex conditionality. We have seen that its conditions are not effective in making sure the loans are repaid anyway, so it’s hard to argue that they are essential for the functioning of the IMF,” (Easterly, 2006: 235).  Easterly changes his focus to areas where international aid can be effective.

In the area of health aid, international organizations have been much more successful, which he attributes to the accountability naturally ascribed to this field of aid: if people are dying of disease in larger numbers, it is typically easy to take notice.  Despite its successes in the area of improving health, Easterly argues that due to a Planner’s mentality in which the focus is satiating the politically-driven aid system, millions of people are still dying from easily preventable diseases every year.  By focusing on the AIDS epidemic in African countries, more resources are being spent delaying the inevitable deaths of far less people than those who are dying of easily preventable and curable diseases.  To add to this tragedy is the focus on treatment of HIV/AIDS, which is far more costly than the education which could help prevent the spread of the epidemic.  Education and prevention methods do not reach the poor due in part to “the religious right threaten[ing] NGOs that aggressively market condoms with a cutoff of official aid funds, on the grounds that those NGOs are promoting sexual promiscuity,” (Easterly, 2006: 254).  Even if misguided, at least health aid is attempting to prevent unnecessary deaths.

In the next part of his book, Easterly looks at aid in the form of “Postmodern Colonialism,” and the new means in which the White Man’s Burden is implemented.  Instead of direct colonialism, the West uses foreign aid and its conditions to spread western ideals throughout the developing world, however the form remains consistent:

Even with the best of motives, colonial officials suffered from all the same problems that characterize today’s White Man’s Burden:  excessive self-confidence of bureaucrats, coercive top-down planning, desultory knowledge of local conditions, and little feedback from the locals on what worked, (Easterly, 2006: 281).

 

Easterly states that it was classic colonialism which caused many of today’s broken governments.  In order to alleviate this tragedy, the West implements aid programs which share many of the ideals of classic colonialism.   When aid as a form of imperialism doesn’t get results, more sinister forms of the White Man’s Burden arise.

Military action as a form of promotion of development is more commonly associated with classical colonialism as it goes by different names in more recent times, such as “nation-building,” “regime change,” or the “war on terror.”  Despite these “benevolent” intentions, Easterly cites many countries involved in Cold War conflicts where Western, (usually US-led) military intervention resulted in exacerbation of already bloody conflicts.  By taking military action, Planners’ “utopian goals– universal peace, democracy, human rights, and prosperity – substitute for modest tasks that may be more doable by Searchers, such as rescuing innocent civilians from murderous attacks,” (Easterly, 2006: 335) and again ignore the prospects of homegrown development among poor nations.

Easterly sees homegrown development as the key to long-term prosperity of developing nations.  He cites that recently-developed nations are more often than not countries who did not receive significant amounts of foreign aid or spend a lot of time in IMF programs, (Easterly, 2006: 345).  He argues that, even though he is a proponent of free markets and democracy, countries should take a route to prosperity which best suites them, even if it isn’t exactly democratic capitalism.  He cites the success of China, India, Turkey, Botswana, and Chile as examples of homegrown development, that “even when the West fails to ‘develop’ the Rest, the Rest develops itself.  The great bulk of development success in the Rest comes from self-reliant, exploratory efforts, and the borrowing of ideas, institutions, and technology form the West when it suits the Rest to do so,” (Easterly, 2006: 363), which supports his argument for Searchers as a means of foreign aid in the future.

As the purpose of The White Man’s Burden is largely a critique of foreign aid and not a prescription for it, Easterly emphasizes that his book is not a plan for foreign aid.  Instead, “it points to the Searchers with knowledge of local conditions, experimental results from interventions, and some way to get feedback from the poor, who will find out…all the variable and complicated answers of how to make aid work,” (Easterly, 2006: 369).  He does offer some examples of piecemeal solutions that have worked in some countries and may be adapted to others, as well as advice that promoting the same ideas for foreign aid which have not worked in the past is not a productive way forward for the future.

Easterly provides many examples of both statistical and anecdotal evidence to support his argument.  The evidence often correlates aid from the west to an instance of negative results in developing countries, statistical information, or figures related to foreign aid.    He often presents evidence attempting to discredit or disprove common theories about foreign aid, such as the “poverty trap,” which he provides evidence against on page 39 in table 1.  He draws on many personal experiences from his time spent at the World Bank, as well as many anecdotes presented between chapters which reinforce his points about the success of Searchers in foreign, or homegrown, aid.  One example of use of figures to emphasize his point is when he discusses the amount of foreign aid given to some of the world’s least democratic, most corrupt, and overall worst governments as defined by the World Bank itself: “The top fifteen recipients of foreign aid in 2002, who each got more than $1 billion each, have a median ranking as the worst fourth of all governments everywhere in 2002 (ranked by democracy, corruption, etc.),” (Easterly, 2006: 133). These are themes presented throughout the book.

Whether the themes are successful or not is another matter.  As far as Easterly’s ability to defend his argument, he is largely successful, though his disdain for foreign aid in its current form outweighs his argument for how it could be better.  His purpose for writing the book, despite the fact that it is meant as a critique, is to present the difference between Planners and Searchers.  The vast majority of the book, however, is dedicated to discrediting top-down approaches to foreign aid, and lacks in supporting homegrown approaches.  In defense of the author, the structure of foreign aid has been a top-down approach and therefore there is much more information about how the system has worked in that fashion, and Easterly provides ample amounts of evidence for his critique of the current structure.  Unfortunately, as there is not large-scale research on bottom-up approaches to foreign aid, there is not as much statistical evidence available.

Easterly is tenacious in his insistence on the ineffective nature of foreign aid as it currently stands.  The “poverty trap” envisioned by Jeffrey Sachs is quickly dismissed as Easterly presents evidence showing the per capita growth of countries supposedly in the “trap.”  The macroeconomic design of per capita income shows growth overall, but does not prove that the majority of the population of the countries had income growth, only that the average income rose.  Easterly points out that poor countries often have despotic, corrupt leaders, so it is logical that the aid received by the poor countries could have assisted the per capita income growth, yet not have affected the common residents, who remained in a “poverty trap.”  The idea of the cycle of poverty being able to be broken with external assistance is refuted aptly by Easterly, as he evidences often throughout the book that foreign aid is closely correlated with failed states.

One argument Easterly offers does not seem to follow:  if poor countries must rely on bottom up approaches to effect change, yet the elites and leaders of poor countries are often violent “gangsters,” then how do the common poor citizens without any power institute change without bloodshed?  It is utopian itself to assume that piecemeal aid at the bottom will affect change at the top, and expect donors to be satisfied and patient enough to wait for change to happen.  How many people have to suffer while change occurs so slowly?  Easterly does not answer these questions as there is no information to support whether or not piecemeal grassroots aid works on a large scale.

An area of Easterly’s argument that is logically sound is his approach to discussing the inefficiency of bureaucracies in distributing foreign aid.  By having countries deal with bureaucrats at multiple aid agencies for every sector of foreign aid, much energy is wasted which could be spent distributing aid among the poor.  If aid agencies were not so concerned with coordination of their efforts, they could each specialize in specific areas instead of all major institutions focusing on all areas of development.

Easterly is overly cynical at times, however.  In his approach to the International Monetary Fund he proposes that countries may have been better off without loans from the IMF, as its country would “learn” to spend responsibly.  He does not go into detail about what a tough lesson that could be.  He is treating developing nations as though they were individuals borrowing from a local neighborhood bank who overdrew their accounts, instead of very complex nations of individuals whose lives and livelihoods often depend on the ability of their country to pay its debts.  When countries become insolvent and credit freezes up, people starve.  Over time there may be adjustments made to correct the behavior of these governments from the inside, but how many would suffer in the meantime?

Though it sounds callous and is very unfortunate, Easterly is logically sound in his critique of foreign aid in the area of health concerning treatment of AIDS.  It is both sad and unfortunate that so many are afflicted with the disease, but it is more unfortunate that “the $4.5 billion the WHO (World Health Organization) plans to spend on antiretroviral treatment for one more year of life for three million could grant between seven and sixty years of additional life for five times that many people,” (Easterly, 2006: 252).  There is little to argue with against those figures.

Easterly presents a mediocre argument against foreign aid used as a tool for modern imperialism. Though he dedicates an entire chapter to the subject, he concedes early on that “most advocates of foreign aid are horrified at the idea of imperialism and colonialism, new or old,” (Easterly, 2006: 271).  This weakens his argument in this chapter, and it shows in his emphasis on classical colonialism and its effects as opposed to the effects of “postmodern imperialism.”  His argument for imperialism becomes more effective when he discusses military action as a means of spreading liberal hegemony under the guise of liberation.

The conclusion of The White Man’s Burden in which Easterly discusses homegrown development is not very convincing.  By citing five countries who have developed largely outside the realm of foreign aid and attributing their prosperity to homegrown development, Easterly is making a blanket statement for all developing countries to prosper in this manner, which completely ignores the immense complexity that each country faces with development, and contradicts his earlier argument that such complexity is why top-down foreign aid does not work.  Though there may be “searchers” in every developing country who would like to find relief from poverty and starvation, there is no guarantee that they have any means to implement change.

The evidence Easterly presents supports his points well, even when his logic is sometimes lacking.  It would be very difficult to dispute the statistical correlation between the amount of time countries have spent in IMF programs prior to the states failing: the eight failed states as of the 1990s spent an average of fifty-five percent of the ten years prior to failing in IMF programs (Easterly, 2006: 218).  Though this is statistical information and does not necessarily prove causality, it is certainly convincing, as are many of the figures and anecdotes used to support the various themes in the book.  As opposed to theories or conjecture, Easterly uses real-life examples of foreign aid repeatedly failing to deliver on its promises.

William Easterly’s intention in writing The White Man’s Burden is to expose the failings of foreign aid as it is currently implemented, which he argues is responsible for more damage in developing countries than good for which it is intended, and he supports his argument with extensive facts, figures, statistics, and anecdotal evidence.  Though his argument has its faults, as do all arguments, Easterly makes a strong case for reforming foreign aid.  If the West followed Easterly’s advice and worked on piecemeal, grassroots issues which actually aided the poverty-stricken, the Rest would have better means to develop themselves and ease the burden on the West.

   Works Cited

Easterly, William (2007) The White Man’s Burden, Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin Books

A Call For Patience: An Analysis of the Short Run and Long Run Economic Effects of Immigration on Origin and Host Nations

Tags

Brain-drain, Emigrants, Host nation, Humane policy, Immigration, Native countries

by Stephen Rains

The United States, as well as many countries which are home to large migrant (local and international) populations, often worry about the possible political, social, and economic consequences of using migrant workers as an important source of (mostly) unskilled labour.  The immediate political and social aspects, especially concerning the subject of national identity, are often mulled over thoroughly, sometimes for decades, before being addressed by the host nation in a responsible way.  Concerning the economics of migration, however, a much different process occurs; due to the nature of economics, particularly Adam Smith’s oft-elusive “Invisible Hand,” supply and demand drives not only the production of goods, but also of labour, both to assemble/mix/build/etc. the good in question, but also in the entirety of the service industry.   These labour markets to not appear from thin air, and often in the unskilled labour market jobs are fairly interchangeable, allowing for much flexibility between seemingly quite different jobs; a phenomena not often seen in the so-called “primary sector” of labour, or skilled labour market. 

            In developed nations, and in consumer societies in particular, these positions are what keep the consumer machine humming: “labour movements from one country to another change the economic prospects of both the destination and origin countries.  From an individual point of view, emigration is an income-maximising strategy,”[1] and the positions are so varied and particular and diverse that it’s ensured, as long as there is growth, there will be a consistent growing demand for cheap unskilled labour.  So how is it possible to reconcile that fact with the immigration policies that exist in many modern, developed nations?  If they know that cheap immigrant labour is necessary, why do they continue to struggle so hard and spend so much money to control and even prevent it?  National Security of any nation is surely one of the main factors, but often the economic consequences of migration, of both the country of origin and the recipient nation, are used to both support and suppress immigration.  When empirically examining the short-run and long-run effects of migration on the native and host economies, and examining their effects on the supply and demand of labour and wage prices over time, it quickly becomes apparent that migration not only has a positive net effect on both the developing native and developed host economies, but also that it is imperative to maintaining the economic health of such consumer societies, as well as enables many impoverished families in the migrants’ country of origin to live at a higher standard of living than was previously possible.

           

1) Short and Long Run Effects of Migration on Emigrants’ Native Countries’  

    Economies

            In examining the short-run effects of migration on the emigrants’ native countries, there is a term often used to describe a very real and very unfortunate circumstance known as “brain-drain,” in which the best and the brightest from a nation choose to study and/or find a career in their host nation, and, as opposed to gaining knowledge there then subsequently returning to their home country to put their newfound skills to positive use, the unfortunate part arises when those highly-educated/trained and often highly productive laborers choose their new host country as their home country over their land of origin, keeping all their new skills within the host country’s borders.  The result in the short run is an increased fiscal responsibility among those remaining in their home country, as well as a negative impact on income levels, as lack of properly educated/trained people for certain positions can result in lower wages offered for these positions.  It would seem “brain-drain” is a devastating consequence of emigration.[2]

            As it turns out, however, though “brain-drain” is observable in some places – China for example – it is now postulated that the “brain-drain” effect of emigration is usually only seen in the short run; seasonal workers (in the US, mostly from Mexico and Central America, for the author’s example) will make up for a large portion of it by returning from their seasonal work with not only considerably more money than they earned before, but also with new ideas, and the capital to get small businesses of their own started.[3]  Another result of the “brain-drain” in many countries – again, China is a superb example – is that the incentive is created in the native country to introduce competitive higher education and employment opportunities.  In addition, often when either seasonal or semi-permanent immigrants return home, they find their families have saved money and even started the family business themselves, made possible by the sheer volume of remittances sent during their time abroad.

            Remittances, or the savings which many immigrants send home to help their families, accounts for the second largest source of external finance after foreign direct investment,[4] and a large portion of many emigrant-prone countries’ GDP (over 27% of Moldova’s GDP in 2004[5]).  Remittances are generally seen as a good thing, in that they have the economic potential to spur growth in home countries through creation/expansion of small businesses, however they do come with some strings attached.  For example, as well as depreciating the value of their own currency, remittances basically mean a “home” nation is spending more than it produces, causing further incentive to emigrate.  However, “even if remittances are used for consumption, they may free other sources of finance that can be used for investment.  The increased consumption due to remittances is in itself productive for the economy, because it has important multiplier effects on wages, employment and business opportunities.”[6]  The important question then is, as education and employment opportunities increase and “brain-drain” becomes less of an issue, emigration decreases, and remittances reduce, how will the native economies adjust, especially in terms of spending and income?  “This is likely to result in a reduced aggregate demand in the short run, and projections regarding macroeconomic indicators should consider this,”[7] but the hope is that the economies adjust and become more self-sufficient, “developed” economies.

             In the long run, however, countries run the risk of doing what other post-emigration countries have done and get carried away with spending, much in the way that Ireland did.  Being so proud of their nation’s economic rise, as well as their break from relying on Britain due to their entrance into the EU, they went on a credit-fueled shopping spree, resulting in a devastating credit and housing bubble that wrecked their once-miraculous economy, which further resulted in new waves of emigration.[8]  Well it is the hope that these nations acquire the ability to develop, there is the ever-present danger of newly developed economies copying their forbearers and overdeveloping – a root cause of the Global Financial Crisis.

           

2) Short and Long Run Effects of Migration on Immigrants’ Host Nations’

    Economies

            If a debate even exists as to whether or not migration is good for native countries’ economies, it cannot be denied that a ferocious, often highly rhetorical debate exists in the destination countries over the topic of immigration.   In nearly every destination country, immigration is associated with spread of disease, crime, drugs, and foremost, a drain on national services such as education, healthcare, and security, but also as a cause of unemployment among natives of the destination country, due to the “they took our jobs” rhetoric used in politics and the media.  The truth of the matter, as far as economics is concerned, is that despite potential problems in the short run, in the long run immigration has a positive net effect. 

            When examining either the short run or long run effects, it is vitally important to consider the job positions filled by both legal and illegal immigration.  While MigrationWatch, an international migration watchdog group, claims that immigration has very little positive economic impact on the native countries’ population[9], other studies vehemently oppose that finding.  In the United States, where immigration is one of the most hotly contested issues in politics, the economic impact must be considered carefully as it is certainly a complex issue, and the stake of the economy possibly relies on the conclusions. 

            The US is undeniably built on immigrant labor; it is in fact a nation of immigrants; one would be quite hard-pressed to produce a Native American in any economic or political position of power.  The current debate therefore resides particularly in the aspect of illegal, undocumented immigration, and what impact it has.  Ramanujan Nadadur argues, “although illegal immigrants impose a fiscal cost at the state and local levels, this cost should be addressed by efficiently allocating resources between the federal and state governments,”[10] and that illegal immigration has a net-positive effect on the US economy.   As a whole

            Classical economics holds that immigration benefits the host country because it   subsidises the labour supply.  In short, the sending country bears the costs of      raising a worker to the age when s/he is ready to enter the labour market.  As a         result, the sending country pays for the labour productivity of the receiving             country.  According to this argument, immigrants also positively benefit the        economy by increasing demand, spurring investment, and keeping receiving-         country industries competitive through enhancing capital productivity,[11]

which can be viewed in terms of providing low-wage labour for jobs “native” Americans won’t do for same wages,[12] therefore enabling businesses to operate at below-market labour prices, in turn allowing them to use the extra capital for investment.  Lest the anti-immigration advocates use this idea as an excuse for wages being reduced, this idea must be clarified and put into the context of immigration in the US from a perspective of the effects on primary versus secondary sectors of labour.

             The primary sector consists of all skilled labour, which requires education and training.  Americans typically seek the stability and opportunity of the primary, skilled market, and need not worry, because due to the legal status and lack of education (32% of illegal immigrants in the US did not complete 9^th grade, compared to 12% of legal migrants and 2% of native born Americans) among illegal immigrants, not to mention inherent racism in the system, there are many barriers of entry into the primary sector, let alone ability for migrant workers to be upwardly mobile, and therefore they present no threat to either the primary sector’s availability of jobs to Americans, nor to the wages within them.[13] Though wages are affected in the secondary sector, it may also not affect the wages of average citizens.

            The secondary sector of labour in the US consists largely of an untrained workforce with a lack of higher education.  Because Americans (and Western Europeans) typically seek stable, higher-paying primary sector jobs, employers are forced to turn to immigrant labour for less-stable demand in the secondary market.  Americans would want too much money for those types of jobs[14], and if businesses built on immigrant labour, such as seasonal agricultural and service oriented businesses, were to adhere to anti-immigration laws, they would clearly suffer, to the point of their marginal benefit being unable to meet even their marginal costs, forcing the business to close.  In fact, in the secondary sector, illegal immigration offsets a consistent labour shortage, making argument for immigration inducing fierce job competition in this sector invalid,[15]and in fact, illegal immigration potentially increases productivity:  illegal immigrants have comparative advantage for manual, labor-intensive jobs, as native skilled workers tend to avoid this type of work, and natives have a comparative advantage for primary sector, due to their higher levels of education among other reasons.   So, although native unskilled workers may experience wage losses, they are offset by overall increase in income to the native population,[16] as well as decreased consumer costs on products and services that use illegal immigrant labour.

            The topic of consumption among illegal immigrants, both of goods and services (particularly public services) is another fiercely debated issue of illegal immigration.  Rarely mentioned is the fact that illegal immigrants also consume:  it is estimated that 90% of wages earned by immigrants in the US are spent in US, totaling a $450 billion consumption capacity.[17]  What are mentioned often in this section of the debate are the public costs associated with illegal immigration.  As they are unable to get health insurance due to their legal status, illegal immigrants are unable to have regular medical care and often must report to emergency rooms for medical services, which in the US is very expensive.  Taxpayers indeed bear the burden of this cost, however it is also not often mentioned that illegal immigrants also pay taxes (including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, for which they do not qualify). 

            Another “cost” of immigration is public education, in which illegal immigrant children are required to attend school; furthermore, if they require language lessons, the school must provide them.  This is not clearly a cost, however, as education is shown to increase productivity and reduce crime. 

            This is good, because unfortunately, another major source of public costs stemming from illegal immigration is the cost of incarceration for those who commit crimes while in the US (including being in the country illegally…).[18]  Lack of education and opportunity tend to result in higher crime rates, after all.

             Another popular argument concerning fiscal costs of illegal immigrants, often used by both pro and anti-immigration advocates, is whether the taxes they pay actually cover the costs they incur.   There is not sufficient research on the actual amount of taxes paid by undocumented workers for a myriad of reasons, of which include the fact that many undocumented workers use false Social Security numbers for their employment (resulting in possibly billions of dollars being unaccounted for in the Social Security fund), but “it would appear from the limited studies that illegal immigrants do make tax contributions … however, it seems that illegal immigrants are a net fiscal cost because estimates of their tax contributions do not match the costs they impose in terms of public services.”[19]  Taxes, however, do not come close to painting the entire picture of the contribution illegal immigrants make to the US, and to their respective countries of current residence.

            In fact, statistical data has shown that states that enact strict anti-immigration policies in the US suffer economically because of it.  States are able to enact their own anti-immigration laws in three forms: enforcement of federal laws, restrictions on housing and employment unless legal status is proven, and laws requiring all government transactions to be conducted exclusively in English, all of which have a negative impact on local economies.[20]   In terms of unemployment, results show “that these laws had a 1-2% negative effect on employment,” and that “consistent with the effect on employment, payroll was also negatively affected” in jurisdictions where these laws were enacted.[21]  Further research shows that the laws further failed in there objective of actually making the illegal immigrants “self-deport,” but that they are instead simply switching jobs within the same jurisdiction, which is why the employment numbers are not as drastic as expected.[22]

            Much of the results in these studies concerns illegal immigration in the US, and it must be stated that immigration is perceived differently everywhere.  In Greece, for example, migration is blamed for many of the nation’s social and economic woes.  As a main entry point for migrants into the European Union, 150,000 immigrants entered the country without papers in 2010 alone.  Of the 54,000 pending asylum applications, there is an approval rate of just 0.3 percent.[23]  Such a population of “floating” individuals with no opportunities is bound to cause crime and social unrest, and yet Greece experiences the same employment issues as the US in terms of immigration:  there are two labour sectors, and the secondary has a demand for jobs which Greeks were unwilling to fill (which may be changing now due to the nation’s economic crisis). 

 

Conclusion

            In observing both the short run and long run economic impact of migration in both the emigrants’ native countries and the immigrants’ host countries, it would appear that the overall net impact is a positive one.  Unfortunately, even if this information becomes widely known and widely accepted, it cannot help the plight of the migrant unless humane policy, free of stereotypes and bigotry, accompanied with education reform and strive for understanding is introduced as well.

 

Bibliography:

Hoti, Avdulla.  “Determinants of emigration and its economic consequences:  evidence from Kosova.”  Journal of Southeast European & Black Sea Studies. Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2009, 435-458.

Margaronis, Maria.  “Greece in Debt, Eurozone in Crisis.” The Nation. July 18/25,  2011.  Pg 11-15.

Mayer, Catherine.  “This Is the House That Ireland Built” Time Magazine. 12/13/2010, Vol. 176 Issue 24, 60-63. 

MigrationWatchUk, http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefingPapers#Economic .12/05/20011

Nadadur, Ramanujan.  “Illegal Immigration: A Positive Economic Contribution to the United States.” Journal of Migration Studies, Vol. 35, No. 6, July 2009,  pg 1037-1052.

 Pham, Huyen and Van, Pham Hoang.  “The Economic Impact of Local Immigration       Regulation:  An Empirical Analysis.” Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 32, Issue 2, 2010. Pg 485-518.

 

---

[1] Hoti, Avdulla.  “Determinants of emigration and its economic consequences:  evidence from Kosova.”  Journal of Southeast European & Black Sea Studies.  Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2009, 435.

[2] Hoti,

[3] Hoti, 441.

[4] Hoti, 441.

[5] Hoti, 442.

[6] Hoti, 441.

[7] Hoti, 456.

[8] Mayer, Catherine.  “This Is the House That Ireland Built” Time Magazine. 12/13/2010, Vol. 176 Issue 24, 60-63. 

[9] MigrationWatchUk,  http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefingPapers#Economic . 12/05/20011

[10] Nadadur, Ramanujan.  “Illegal Immigration: A Positive Economic Contribution to the United States.” Journal of Migration Studies, Vol. 35, No. 6, July 2009,     pg 1037.

[11] Nadadur, 1041.

[12] Nadadur, 1041.

[13] Nadadur, 1043.

[14] Nadadur, 1042.

[15] Nadadur, 1044.

[16] Nadadur, 1045.

[17] Nadadur, 1046.

[18] Nadadur, 1046-1047.

[19] Nadadur, 1049.

[20] Pham, Huyen and Van, Pham Hoang.  “The Economic Impact of Local Immigration Regulation:  An Empirical Analysis.” Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 32, Issue 2, 2010. Pg 486.

[21] Pham, 488.

[22] Pham, 488.

[23] Margaronis, Maria.  “Greece in Debt, Eurozone in Crisis.” The Nation. July 18/25, 2011.  Pg 12.

 

What can the international community do to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

Tags

China, Iran, Middle East, Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear, Russia

by Andreea Radulescu

Note: The following paragraphs are not meant to be a research paper, but a political analysis on the ongoing Iran issue! The links added at the end are only for the purpose of helping the readers understand the background of the conflict!

The issue of nuclear weapons started back in 1945 when the first atomic bomb was used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Until the Cold War era ended, the Western and Eastern hemisphere have been going through an arms race that visibly escalated every year due to the action-reaction process. In other words, the US and the Soviet Union considered to be a massive threat for one another and they sought to secure their nations by creating a “weapon shield” meant to protect them in case of an attack. However, in 1968 was adopted the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its provisions were based on the fact that all states possessing nuclear weapons were not allowed to transfer them to states which did not produce nuclear armament. Also, the states which were non-nuclear were not allowed to build any weapons of this kind.

Iran, a Middle East country, has been in conflict with the Arab World and the Western hemisphere for quite a long time now. The great leaders of the world have been suspecting for a few years that Iran has been developing plans to acquire nuclear weapons, even though the Islamic state is one of the 191 countries which signed the NPT.

Putting the issue into a general framework, global powers such as US, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia or China along with regional powers such as Israel have absolutely no interest in permitting Iran, a country rich in uranium, to become a nuclear power. One of the major reasons is that these nations have learned from the past. Massive retaliation is not the answer to preserving security in global affairs and the world does not need an active nuclear Islamic country especially in these times of economic weakness. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that a series of measures have already been taken in terms of sanctions and resolutions which condemn Iran’s action. The real problem is that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has inspected the Iranian facilities where uranium is processed and they have not found proof of certain installments for the building of a nuclear weapon, even though Iran would have the space and means to do so. Moreover, the Iranian government denies any accusations, claiming that the uranium they have is used only for civil nuclear power.  Stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is an achievable goal.

The powers of the world may choose a certain course of action they want to adopt in order to keep Iran from building a nuclear arsenal. First, we can refer to a hawkish approach which powers like US or Israel are more likely to put into practice. US can be considered a superpower on the international arena, and ever since the Bush administration, it was tempted to militarily intervene in Iran. Moreover, Israel is the only regional power that feels threatened by Iran and thus, it would be the only nation that would attack Iran without any restraints. Additionally, US would support Israel if it would militarily intervene in Iran, due to the fact that they are allies. America would not agree to lose the influence it has over the Middle East because its power would be weakened and its image would suffer severely. However, if Israel would strike first against Iran, the Islamic nation would not be able to resist to a second strike, because it would not have the means to defend with.

Nevertheless, a military action against Iran would not resolve the problem at all, even though this measure is still taken into consideration both by US and Israel. These allied countries should change their perspective and adopt a more diplomatic way to solve the issue, because an intervention by force would do more harm, especially now when the Middle East and Northern Africa are going through governmental uprisings and political instability. If US started to cooperate more closely with the great powers of Europe and the UN, it would be a step forward in resolving the Tehran issue on amiable grounds, especially because US would show that they learned they should work multilaterally.

Diplomacy is an approach preferred more by Europe. The European powers learned from the lessons in the past and they are acting multilaterally, condemning Iran for its intentions of acquiring nuclear weapons. France, Germany and the United Kingdom have been cooperating with the UN in drafting a series of resolutions in which the countries were imposing a series of sanctions on Iran. However, it is important to bear in mind that each of these countries has interests or at least wants to exert their influence globally. Germany, for instance, has invested in several businesses in Iran and the trading between the two countries flourishes every year. A diplomatic approach, even though it was adopted by Europe, it would not lead anywhere, for the simple reason that the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not willing to start open talks neither with Europe nor with US. The Iranians believe that the reports provided by IAEA are false and misguided and consequently, they continued to develop whatever projects they have planned.

Making a choice between military and diplomatic action, or between hard power and soft power, is difficult, especially when the interests of so many nations are in the game. Military action would work only to repress any attempt of Iran to acquire nuclear armament, but on the long-term the Iranian government will find other alternatives for building nuclear weaponry. However, US cannot make the same mistake they did during the war in Iraq in 2003, by invading the country on a false presumption that the nation had nuclear weapons. Iran must be given by the great powers the benefit of doubt, until more certain evidence confirms the country’s intentions of acquiring nuclear weapons. Diplomatically, the Iranian leader might be willing to cooperate with the great powers, only if these nations are giving the Islamic country alternatives to make itself heard on the international arena, because, in the end, this is what Iran is aiming at.

Economic sanctions would be the middle way approach that must be taken by US along with European countries. In addition, this is the scenario when countries such as Russia or China should come into the general framework. Until now, the European Union has imposed sanctions on trade, financial sectors, energy and technology sectors and the US has put a total economic embargo on Iran by banning foreign companies to invest in the countries along with an arms ban. All these sanctions had a visible effect on the Islamic nation in terms of being more difficult for it to procure the raw materials to create a nuclear armament. Despite all the economic sanctions imposed, Iran has allies and cooperates with two of its neighbors more deeply than the other powers imagined.

First, Russia is a key factor in the Iran issue. After the Cold War ended, Russia tacitly tried to find other allies and to spread some of its know-how in terms of technology and armament to countries not so well-developed such as Iran. This action turned out to be a good alternative in the fight against the American hegemon. Russia could help the other powers to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by introducing sanctions against the Islamic nation. If Russia takes such a measure, Iran will feel surrounded and pressured to give up to any plans of building a nuclear armament. Moreover, Russia could cooperate with the US in transferring technology and other resources to Tehran in exchange for Iran to put a limit on the uranium enrichment. Consequently, Iran will have an alternative on how to ascend to being a recognized power in the Middle East and on the whole international political arena and it will not be considered a threat anymore by Europe or US.

Second, China is an interesting actor in the Iran issue. For some years now, China has created a so-called ‘open door policy’ with Iran because it had an increased need for petrol and other natural resources. China is a growing global power and it needs as many allies as possible as well as it needs to maintain friendly relations with its neighboring countries. On the one hand, China could adopt a multilateral approach and it could support the international community in any economic sanctions they might make against Iran. Such a position would be totally understandable for China, because even though it has economic relations with Iran, the fact that a neighboring country has the capabilities to become a nuclear power worries China because it might represent an imminent threat for its buffer zones. On the other hand, a close relationship with Tehran might affect the economic relations that China has with the US which are crucial for both economies. Whatever course of action China decides to take, it is clear that cutting relations with Iran and stopping the energy trade would be a step forward to show the Islamic nation that it cannot just advance with the nuclear procurement as it pleases. However, it is important to take into account that China must have an important incentive to take a decision like the one mentioned, because once it loses Iran as an energy provider, it has to find another ally willing to trade with Beijing.

All in all, US together with the major European countries and the UN should take a unanimous decision on how to act with regards to the Iran issue. It has come to a moment when all possible approaches are still on the table, Iran is perhaps developing its plans to acquire nuclear armament and the Iranian protesters are raging against the Embassies of UK and France in Tehran. It has been shown that lack of communication and the introduction of harsh sanctions do not have much effect on the Islamic nation, since they keep claiming that IAEA reports and declarations are false and misguided. Europe and US should unite their forces in trying to find a middle path between a dovish and a hawkish approach in resolving the Iran issue. With respect to the other regional countries such as China or Israel, they should make sure Iran will not procure any nuclear weapons. Both regional powers should collaborate with their allies by trying to offer eloquent solutions in resolving the problem. Additionally, they should preserve the status quo of the region because otherwise, their interests they have in preserving a close relationship with Iran would vanish. In the end, the international community should make itself heard that it would not permit Iran to escalate into being a nuclear force, by trying to offer the Islamic nation other viable alternatives of making itself seen as a rising powerful government on the international arena.

Bibliography

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058579/Russia-China-warn-America-Iran-nuclear-strike-tensions-rise.html

http://www.franceonu.org/spip.php?article3868

http://www.twq.com/06spring/docs/06spring_shen.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#The_U.S._stance

http://www.payvand.com/news/09/feb/1218.html

Welcome!

Welcome to the Webster University, Vienna

International Relations Student Union`s blog!

By starting this blog, the newly-formed Union is eager to give an opportunity to its members and all IR students in general to publish their thoughts, opinions, and everything that they find related to the IR sphere.

Here we provide a brief extract of the preamble of the Union`s Constitution to express our general beliefs and goals:

“In obligation to those who have chosen International Relations as their field of study, and to those who have interest in pursuing topics of interest within this field, We decree that an unbiased, peer-evaluated, and wholly Democratic Union shall exist in which the vote of one member shall carry no more weight than the vote of another, and in which gender, ideology, race, creed, nationality, as well as Personal, Professional, Teacher/Student, or Any Other Connections shall have no basis for special treatment or endow any power Whatsoever. We exist to represent the interests of All students who have a desire to study in this illustrious field.

In forming said Union, We recognize the inherent responsibility We have to every Webster University Vienna student, studying International Relations or otherwise, to maintain a high level of Academic Integrity in our own studies, and to beseech the International Relations Department faculty to return, in kind, an equally high level of Academic Integrity in their teaching of present and future students. Webster University Vienna being our chosen institution of Higher Learning, We as well recognize our responsibility of loyally representing our University both in our attitudes in class, as well as our conduct both on and off of campus.”

You can access the full text of the Constitution at our online forum,

http://websterunion.freeforums.org/

and even sign the Constitution to become a voting member of the Union. We are looking forward to expanding our team!

However, if you want to publish on the blog, you do not have to be a member of the Union. To publish anything you can contact me, Svetoslava Todorova, the Secretary of the Union and Moderator of the Blog

by email: stodorova16@webster.edu

or facebook: Svetoslava Todorova.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have!

For any general questions concerning the Union you can email us:

webster.ir.student.union@gmail.com

We are looking forward to hearing from all students interested!