I shouldn't clog your "friends page" but...
My "Relevant Utopia" essay, all 3000+ words of it are here to entertain:
The world in which we live is vastly complex. None of the major theories of world politics: Realism, Liberalism, or Socialism, explains adequately the state of the international system when taken alone, in a vacuum. Each has its strengths and weaknesses in describing and analyzing, and each can be successfully employed in illuminating the “whys” and “hows” of various situations. It is important, however, not to adopt a myopic, one-theory view for the whole world and for all time. In this case, it is a wise and logical choice to embrace pluralism. However, to analyze the world order, one must begin somewhere, making general assumptions and drawing conclusions from empirical evidence wherever possible.
The international system is comprised of states which are made up of individuals. States and the current world order flow from the human mind and would not exist without it; therefore, I believe that any practical analysis should begin with the individual level and build upon it. If individuals are the building blocks of the international system, it is necessary to understand human nature. Human beings are even more complex than the international system that represents but one facet of human interaction. Thus, I find it beneficial to draw from various theorists, rather than just one, to explain the nature of man. Whether or not man is fundamentally bad, as Machiavelli and Hobbes might argue, or whether he is fundamentally good, at least in the state of nature, as Rousseau and Locke might assert, the issue of human nature in regards to the international system is one of perfectibility. A perfect Utopia on earth is not possible without its constituent parts, individuals, being perfectible. Unfortunately, man as he exists here and now on earth is fallible and corruptible. Even if the human mind devises a miraculous and sage system of governing the masses, that system will only be as reliable and efficacious as those in power charged with executing it. Because of this simple fact, that man will, at least some of the time, behave immorally out of desperation, avarice, ignorance, or any other force, no government system can be absolutely perfect and effective in maintaining peace and ensuring equality, social justice, and that its citizens are taken care of materially. However, as Rousseau notes, man “experiences natural compassion for the sufferings of others” (Doyle, 1997: 141). This key, God-given element of humanity should not be underestimated. The great majority of men will act philanthropically when it is to their benefit, but there also exist those who will act selflessly, sacrificing for the good of others. This is something proponents of a bad human nature often gloss over or fail to explain sufficiently. The reason I believe that this is central to human interaction individually, domestically, and internationally is that any well-functioning community, at any level, is the result of compromise and sacrifice. It is only when humans become self-centered and greedy, or, alternatively, when they are dominated by fear of death or loss that interpersonal, interstate, and global conflict arises. It is for these two reasons, egoism and fear, that I would venture to portray man as a fallen, fallible creature, though he still bears massive potential for cooperation and humanitarianism.
Stemming from human interaction and human nature is the so-called “state of war.” While Realist theorists describe a perpetual state of war in which international order cannot be held together by any other means than power and force, I find that my view is more in line with that of Locke. While a state of peace is riddled with inconveniences, and can fail based upon the mistakes or misdeeds of individual citizens, mankind is still able, through dedication to the rule of law, to achieve at least a measure of international cooperation and justice if not a complete subjugation of war as theorists such as Smith, Schumpeter, and Kant hope to achieve through Commercial Pacifism or Liberal Peace (Doyle, 1997: 301). No matter how intertwined the world’s states were to become, the errant nature of the individual would certainly thwart a perfect peace. Any system effective enough to restrain all individuals, and thus all states, from acting belligerently would be a double-edged sword; it would be so restrictive as to cause strife within the system. Individual autonomy is the forerunner of national sovereignty which leads to the dilemma of the effectiveness of such organs of international cooperation as the United Nations and the European Union. While many complain that neither of the aforementioned organizations has enough power to arbitrate international justice, trade, and other matters effectively, increasing the power of those organizations would draw sovereignty ever upward and away from all levels below. Any attempt to centralize or concentrate power might be seen as a breech of national sovereignty or a compromise of individual freedom. Other such dilemmas and hindrances, such as conflicting national interests, prevent cooperation on a global scale.
In some ways, the international system is the same as it has ever been, though in others it is markedly different than at any other time in history. From the perspective of the international system being one in which peace is possible, but problematic, there has been much consistency and continuity over time. I have no doubt that this is a perpetual facet of that system. Over time, however, what has been acceptable interaction among nations, and later, states, has evolved. Initially, when one people saw foreign adversaries as subhuman, there was little compunction about committing acts, such as the murder of civilians, wholesale pillaging and looting, and other excessively destructive deeds. As trade, cultural exchange, and other factors became more significant, the idea of jus in bellum emerged. With the development of an emphasis on individual rights and the success of movements promoting egalitarianism, the acceptability and the circumstances of acting aggressively have been greatly limited. The Declaration of the Rights of Man, the abolition of slavery, the signing of the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other landmarks of progress have been reached, but these did not prevent genocide in Rwanda or the Balkans, nor did they prevent various repressive regimes from starving, abusing, torturing, or murdering their citizens. Unfortunately, no matter how far we go, and no matter how “civilized” we become (if civility is marked by movement towards peaceful coexistence), there is no way to absolutely eliminate war and war crimes altogether. In this sense, the threat of injustice is typical of the international system at all times, though, as humanity progresses, we will ideally be able to mitigate the tragedy.
In my view, a variety of forces drive the international system. In the age of free market capitalism, trade and the production of wealth are all-important. The pursuit of profit has a massive impact on relations among states. The dissemination of ideas, development in the Third World, advances in the field of medicine, and other developments are “positive externalities” of economic growth rather than achievements attained for the sake of improving humanity alone. It seems that everything these days is sponsored and funded by the corporate world and corporate interests. The media in a great many countries, including the United States, self-censor in the interest of not offending advertisers. Governments intervene in foreign countries for financial gain or to secure the interests of companies, such as when Israel, with French and British backing invaded Egypt when Nasser closed the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. The Realist perspective, either because of its actual applicability or because many of its considerations are accepted and followed by those in power in many countries, seems to hold true in that both power (in terms of wealth) and security are overriding values in the system. Security is at the forefront of the concern of common citizens, especially in an age when terrorism is perceived as a greater threat than ever before and in a time when those in power clearly recall the fear of nuclear annihilation of the Cold War. Whether or not security anxieties are played upon or augmented by those in power for their benefit is a topic of debate. Fear allows politicians to consolidate their hold on power with less resistance from the citizenry. A piece of legislation with the scope of the Patriot Act would not have passed without the events of September 11th having transpired. Fear can also compromise the progress spoken of above. While the more developed nations are experiencing periods of affluence and security, they are more likely to be morally, if not actively opposed to genocide and other crimes against humanity. However, when self-preservation comes into play, selfishness takes over and elicits a kind of “every man for himself” reaction. The last and most overlooked value that motivates action in the international system is justice. While it may not be a pre-eminent consideration for governments of states, private citizens, groups such as Amnesty International, Green Peace, and even the United Nations (the organization itself as distinct from its members) work for social and environmental justice. Even though these organizations may not work flawlessly and ensure that justice is always served in the international system, their presence and actions have significant impact enough to demand consideration.
The issue is complicated when one addresses just how to maximize cooperation and minimize fallibility. I vehemently disagree with Machiavelli in his assertion that men “will always do badly by you unless they are forced to be virtuous” (Machiavelli, The Prince 1985: 127). I believe that, while all men are bound to act selfishly at some point in time and all of the time there will be men acting selfishly, humans have an amazing potential and capacity for compassion. Aid groups such as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Médecins sans Frontières, Oxfam, as well as individuals the world over have made sacrifices for the benefit of others without any material gain in return. While governments invest foreign aid in developing nations and their infrastructures, rebuild nations devastated by disasters man-made and natural, and spend other monies to benefit foreign states and, ostensibly their citizens, this is almost always done to ensure profitable markets, security, or other gain. While self-interested philanthropy still yields positive results, it is not enough. Convenience only facilitates aid to the poor part of the time. One part of the problem is that, living under a government accorded so many responsibilities and at several levels, individual citizens feel less of an obligation to help others. For some in the developed world, the idea that their government is furnishing aid sufficient to help those in poverty or lacking access to quality medical care prevents them from giving as much as they might if they were under the impression that they were the sole or primary source of assistance. This is a main contributor to the perpetuation, and perhaps even the growth of, the gap between the rich and poor when coupled with the general apathy in the developed world that comes with being wealthy and preoccupied by material pursuits while being spoon-fed meaninglessness by various media. As George W. Bush himself said (though actions speak louder than words), “‘a determined assault on poverty will require both an active government and active citizens’” (Bush in Huffington). To maximize cooperation and compassion, it is an absolute necessity to motivate the citizens of every country to engage the problems of their world.
A major contributor to apathy is the mindset of comfort and preoccupation with trivial issues that is fostered by corporations and governments who would rather keep their thumbs on consumers and citizens than worry about them realizing that they consume ravenously and in excess or having them “interfere” in government. A major step toward shifting the paradigm of complacency in nations of the developed world would be forming independent commissions to monitor corporate and government interference in media. I believe that this would allow for more authentic and well-rounded reporting that could enlighten views rather than dumb them down or patronize them. Beyond these independent commissions, the UN and other intergovernmental organizations should expand the scope of the view on freedoms of speech and of the media. It is essential to rethink human rights and to expand them to include freedom from a polluted mental environment. It should be considered criminal to manipulate people through advertising and dishonest or incomplete reporting. While this proposal raises a lot of questions about where to draw the line on what is and is not manipulative and what should and should not be included in new reports so as to make them “complete,” it is better to discover the limits by trial and error than to shy away from the principle and remain in the thick haze of a polluted mental environment.
Another major facet of human life and states’ interactions with other states is the dilemma of common goods. Care for the environment should be made a top priority as the upkeep of the health of the planet is inextricably linked with the continued health and prosperity of mankind. Issues such as global warming and air, water, and land pollution are causing more and more friction between governments as scientists and analysts present increasingly alarming conclusions about the impact of the manufacturing sectors of both industrial and industrializing countries on the ecosystem and its inhabitants. Not only does this problem demand a solution to preserve the health and, if it continues unabated, even the existence, of humanity, but also, from a practical point of view, environmental issues have the potential to become a main cause for conflict. As certain states egregiously abuse the global commons while others maintain strict, eco-friendly policies, disputes will escalate quickly and have grave consequences. Environmental security, an emerging field of study, must be embraced quickly and taking seriously along with broader environmental concerns. Addressing the latter does not need to be as problematic as it may seem if enough second-tier economies band together to impose restrictions, tariffs, embargoes and other non-military alternatives on major offenders such as the United States and China. The apprehension to do so stems from the fear of profit loss and a lack of solidarity. In addition to taking these economic steps, the nations of the world would do well to make mandatory the guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol as a preliminary measure to steer the international community toward a convention of more responsible stewardship of natural resources as well as air, water, and soil quality. While it may sound alarmist, it is nonetheless true that, if the degradation of the environment continues steadily onward, then all else will be a moot point because we will have rendered the world uninhabitable.
Without a doubt, free trade has brought with it high standards of living for some as well as a wider variety of products at lower prices, but what it has failed to do is protect nascent industries in developing countries that have no chance of competing against established multi-national corporations. To narrow the gap between rich and poor, we must shift away from relying solely on profit-focused free trade to people-focused fair trade. In many ways free trade has been a boon to humanity, but it is an incomplete method of running world markets. It is a reasonable and profitable solution to continue to strike down trade barriers in rich countries, but the WTO should allow poorer, developing nations to protect some of their vulnerable industries (“The Free Trade Myth,” 2005). Along with fair trade comes an emphasis on worker’s rights, which must be improved no matter the cost; human lives are more important than profit an efficiency hands down. The WTO and other trade organizations must put pressure on industrialized nations, such as the United States and members of the EU to take away corporate subsidies which hurt small-scale farmers, craftsmen, textile-workers, and others in the global South. Since China joined the WTO in 2001, the over-subsidized United States cotton industry began dumping cotton at prices with which rural Chinese farmers could not compete. This prevented development in the impoverished Chinese countryside and cost an estimated 720,000 jobs in China (“Cheap US cotton threatens Chinese farmers,” Dec. 6th, 2005). On the flipside of this, lower standards for worker’s rights in China and many other developing countries allow them to produce goods more cheaply. It should also be the goal of the WTO and individual world governments to ensure that certain standards are met. However, removing subsidies currently in place in wealthy countries would reshape competition; if the Chinese or others are not made to cut corners in wages and working conditions to remain competitive, perhaps these areas will improve. It is imperative to refocus on the wellbeing of the world’s citizens in order to create a global society where people are more equal, even if this means a loss in profit, or even real wealth, on the part of affluent countries so that those currently impoverished are able to raise their standard of living.
In discussing topics such as fair trade, environmental and mental pollution, and justice I have yet to directly address and expound upon mitigating global conflict. That is because addressing each of these issues effectively will remove much of the impetus for conflict. As I stated before, conflict will always burden the international system because imperfect people run imperfect states, but taking these very reasonable and logical steps would certainly help minimize the impact of man’s fallibility and maximize his drive toward compassionate and cooperation. In all of these areas, it is also key to educate the masses. Explaining issues in a tangible, graspable way to common people will empower them to take action. It will be most efficient if done within both the framework of the public education systems of states as well as by transnational organizations. Taming the media and its influence on mankind in order to reduce apathy and increase awareness, ratcheting up environmental standards, and refocusing the global economic paradigm from profit to people are not only necessary steps to improving the world in their own right, but together will drastically undercut reasons for conflict, making the world a more peaceful and prosperous place.
The world in which we live is vastly complex. None of the major theories of world politics: Realism, Liberalism, or Socialism, explains adequately the state of the international system when taken alone, in a vacuum. Each has its strengths and weaknesses in describing and analyzing, and each can be successfully employed in illuminating the “whys” and “hows” of various situations. It is important, however, not to adopt a myopic, one-theory view for the whole world and for all time. In this case, it is a wise and logical choice to embrace pluralism. However, to analyze the world order, one must begin somewhere, making general assumptions and drawing conclusions from empirical evidence wherever possible.
The international system is comprised of states which are made up of individuals. States and the current world order flow from the human mind and would not exist without it; therefore, I believe that any practical analysis should begin with the individual level and build upon it. If individuals are the building blocks of the international system, it is necessary to understand human nature. Human beings are even more complex than the international system that represents but one facet of human interaction. Thus, I find it beneficial to draw from various theorists, rather than just one, to explain the nature of man. Whether or not man is fundamentally bad, as Machiavelli and Hobbes might argue, or whether he is fundamentally good, at least in the state of nature, as Rousseau and Locke might assert, the issue of human nature in regards to the international system is one of perfectibility. A perfect Utopia on earth is not possible without its constituent parts, individuals, being perfectible. Unfortunately, man as he exists here and now on earth is fallible and corruptible. Even if the human mind devises a miraculous and sage system of governing the masses, that system will only be as reliable and efficacious as those in power charged with executing it. Because of this simple fact, that man will, at least some of the time, behave immorally out of desperation, avarice, ignorance, or any other force, no government system can be absolutely perfect and effective in maintaining peace and ensuring equality, social justice, and that its citizens are taken care of materially. However, as Rousseau notes, man “experiences natural compassion for the sufferings of others” (Doyle, 1997: 141). This key, God-given element of humanity should not be underestimated. The great majority of men will act philanthropically when it is to their benefit, but there also exist those who will act selflessly, sacrificing for the good of others. This is something proponents of a bad human nature often gloss over or fail to explain sufficiently. The reason I believe that this is central to human interaction individually, domestically, and internationally is that any well-functioning community, at any level, is the result of compromise and sacrifice. It is only when humans become self-centered and greedy, or, alternatively, when they are dominated by fear of death or loss that interpersonal, interstate, and global conflict arises. It is for these two reasons, egoism and fear, that I would venture to portray man as a fallen, fallible creature, though he still bears massive potential for cooperation and humanitarianism.
Stemming from human interaction and human nature is the so-called “state of war.” While Realist theorists describe a perpetual state of war in which international order cannot be held together by any other means than power and force, I find that my view is more in line with that of Locke. While a state of peace is riddled with inconveniences, and can fail based upon the mistakes or misdeeds of individual citizens, mankind is still able, through dedication to the rule of law, to achieve at least a measure of international cooperation and justice if not a complete subjugation of war as theorists such as Smith, Schumpeter, and Kant hope to achieve through Commercial Pacifism or Liberal Peace (Doyle, 1997: 301). No matter how intertwined the world’s states were to become, the errant nature of the individual would certainly thwart a perfect peace. Any system effective enough to restrain all individuals, and thus all states, from acting belligerently would be a double-edged sword; it would be so restrictive as to cause strife within the system. Individual autonomy is the forerunner of national sovereignty which leads to the dilemma of the effectiveness of such organs of international cooperation as the United Nations and the European Union. While many complain that neither of the aforementioned organizations has enough power to arbitrate international justice, trade, and other matters effectively, increasing the power of those organizations would draw sovereignty ever upward and away from all levels below. Any attempt to centralize or concentrate power might be seen as a breech of national sovereignty or a compromise of individual freedom. Other such dilemmas and hindrances, such as conflicting national interests, prevent cooperation on a global scale.
In some ways, the international system is the same as it has ever been, though in others it is markedly different than at any other time in history. From the perspective of the international system being one in which peace is possible, but problematic, there has been much consistency and continuity over time. I have no doubt that this is a perpetual facet of that system. Over time, however, what has been acceptable interaction among nations, and later, states, has evolved. Initially, when one people saw foreign adversaries as subhuman, there was little compunction about committing acts, such as the murder of civilians, wholesale pillaging and looting, and other excessively destructive deeds. As trade, cultural exchange, and other factors became more significant, the idea of jus in bellum emerged. With the development of an emphasis on individual rights and the success of movements promoting egalitarianism, the acceptability and the circumstances of acting aggressively have been greatly limited. The Declaration of the Rights of Man, the abolition of slavery, the signing of the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other landmarks of progress have been reached, but these did not prevent genocide in Rwanda or the Balkans, nor did they prevent various repressive regimes from starving, abusing, torturing, or murdering their citizens. Unfortunately, no matter how far we go, and no matter how “civilized” we become (if civility is marked by movement towards peaceful coexistence), there is no way to absolutely eliminate war and war crimes altogether. In this sense, the threat of injustice is typical of the international system at all times, though, as humanity progresses, we will ideally be able to mitigate the tragedy.
In my view, a variety of forces drive the international system. In the age of free market capitalism, trade and the production of wealth are all-important. The pursuit of profit has a massive impact on relations among states. The dissemination of ideas, development in the Third World, advances in the field of medicine, and other developments are “positive externalities” of economic growth rather than achievements attained for the sake of improving humanity alone. It seems that everything these days is sponsored and funded by the corporate world and corporate interests. The media in a great many countries, including the United States, self-censor in the interest of not offending advertisers. Governments intervene in foreign countries for financial gain or to secure the interests of companies, such as when Israel, with French and British backing invaded Egypt when Nasser closed the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. The Realist perspective, either because of its actual applicability or because many of its considerations are accepted and followed by those in power in many countries, seems to hold true in that both power (in terms of wealth) and security are overriding values in the system. Security is at the forefront of the concern of common citizens, especially in an age when terrorism is perceived as a greater threat than ever before and in a time when those in power clearly recall the fear of nuclear annihilation of the Cold War. Whether or not security anxieties are played upon or augmented by those in power for their benefit is a topic of debate. Fear allows politicians to consolidate their hold on power with less resistance from the citizenry. A piece of legislation with the scope of the Patriot Act would not have passed without the events of September 11th having transpired. Fear can also compromise the progress spoken of above. While the more developed nations are experiencing periods of affluence and security, they are more likely to be morally, if not actively opposed to genocide and other crimes against humanity. However, when self-preservation comes into play, selfishness takes over and elicits a kind of “every man for himself” reaction. The last and most overlooked value that motivates action in the international system is justice. While it may not be a pre-eminent consideration for governments of states, private citizens, groups such as Amnesty International, Green Peace, and even the United Nations (the organization itself as distinct from its members) work for social and environmental justice. Even though these organizations may not work flawlessly and ensure that justice is always served in the international system, their presence and actions have significant impact enough to demand consideration.
The issue is complicated when one addresses just how to maximize cooperation and minimize fallibility. I vehemently disagree with Machiavelli in his assertion that men “will always do badly by you unless they are forced to be virtuous” (Machiavelli, The Prince 1985: 127). I believe that, while all men are bound to act selfishly at some point in time and all of the time there will be men acting selfishly, humans have an amazing potential and capacity for compassion. Aid groups such as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Médecins sans Frontières, Oxfam, as well as individuals the world over have made sacrifices for the benefit of others without any material gain in return. While governments invest foreign aid in developing nations and their infrastructures, rebuild nations devastated by disasters man-made and natural, and spend other monies to benefit foreign states and, ostensibly their citizens, this is almost always done to ensure profitable markets, security, or other gain. While self-interested philanthropy still yields positive results, it is not enough. Convenience only facilitates aid to the poor part of the time. One part of the problem is that, living under a government accorded so many responsibilities and at several levels, individual citizens feel less of an obligation to help others. For some in the developed world, the idea that their government is furnishing aid sufficient to help those in poverty or lacking access to quality medical care prevents them from giving as much as they might if they were under the impression that they were the sole or primary source of assistance. This is a main contributor to the perpetuation, and perhaps even the growth of, the gap between the rich and poor when coupled with the general apathy in the developed world that comes with being wealthy and preoccupied by material pursuits while being spoon-fed meaninglessness by various media. As George W. Bush himself said (though actions speak louder than words), “‘a determined assault on poverty will require both an active government and active citizens’” (Bush in Huffington). To maximize cooperation and compassion, it is an absolute necessity to motivate the citizens of every country to engage the problems of their world.
A major contributor to apathy is the mindset of comfort and preoccupation with trivial issues that is fostered by corporations and governments who would rather keep their thumbs on consumers and citizens than worry about them realizing that they consume ravenously and in excess or having them “interfere” in government. A major step toward shifting the paradigm of complacency in nations of the developed world would be forming independent commissions to monitor corporate and government interference in media. I believe that this would allow for more authentic and well-rounded reporting that could enlighten views rather than dumb them down or patronize them. Beyond these independent commissions, the UN and other intergovernmental organizations should expand the scope of the view on freedoms of speech and of the media. It is essential to rethink human rights and to expand them to include freedom from a polluted mental environment. It should be considered criminal to manipulate people through advertising and dishonest or incomplete reporting. While this proposal raises a lot of questions about where to draw the line on what is and is not manipulative and what should and should not be included in new reports so as to make them “complete,” it is better to discover the limits by trial and error than to shy away from the principle and remain in the thick haze of a polluted mental environment.
Another major facet of human life and states’ interactions with other states is the dilemma of common goods. Care for the environment should be made a top priority as the upkeep of the health of the planet is inextricably linked with the continued health and prosperity of mankind. Issues such as global warming and air, water, and land pollution are causing more and more friction between governments as scientists and analysts present increasingly alarming conclusions about the impact of the manufacturing sectors of both industrial and industrializing countries on the ecosystem and its inhabitants. Not only does this problem demand a solution to preserve the health and, if it continues unabated, even the existence, of humanity, but also, from a practical point of view, environmental issues have the potential to become a main cause for conflict. As certain states egregiously abuse the global commons while others maintain strict, eco-friendly policies, disputes will escalate quickly and have grave consequences. Environmental security, an emerging field of study, must be embraced quickly and taking seriously along with broader environmental concerns. Addressing the latter does not need to be as problematic as it may seem if enough second-tier economies band together to impose restrictions, tariffs, embargoes and other non-military alternatives on major offenders such as the United States and China. The apprehension to do so stems from the fear of profit loss and a lack of solidarity. In addition to taking these economic steps, the nations of the world would do well to make mandatory the guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol as a preliminary measure to steer the international community toward a convention of more responsible stewardship of natural resources as well as air, water, and soil quality. While it may sound alarmist, it is nonetheless true that, if the degradation of the environment continues steadily onward, then all else will be a moot point because we will have rendered the world uninhabitable.
Without a doubt, free trade has brought with it high standards of living for some as well as a wider variety of products at lower prices, but what it has failed to do is protect nascent industries in developing countries that have no chance of competing against established multi-national corporations. To narrow the gap between rich and poor, we must shift away from relying solely on profit-focused free trade to people-focused fair trade. In many ways free trade has been a boon to humanity, but it is an incomplete method of running world markets. It is a reasonable and profitable solution to continue to strike down trade barriers in rich countries, but the WTO should allow poorer, developing nations to protect some of their vulnerable industries (“The Free Trade Myth,” 2005). Along with fair trade comes an emphasis on worker’s rights, which must be improved no matter the cost; human lives are more important than profit an efficiency hands down. The WTO and other trade organizations must put pressure on industrialized nations, such as the United States and members of the EU to take away corporate subsidies which hurt small-scale farmers, craftsmen, textile-workers, and others in the global South. Since China joined the WTO in 2001, the over-subsidized United States cotton industry began dumping cotton at prices with which rural Chinese farmers could not compete. This prevented development in the impoverished Chinese countryside and cost an estimated 720,000 jobs in China (“Cheap US cotton threatens Chinese farmers,” Dec. 6th, 2005). On the flipside of this, lower standards for worker’s rights in China and many other developing countries allow them to produce goods more cheaply. It should also be the goal of the WTO and individual world governments to ensure that certain standards are met. However, removing subsidies currently in place in wealthy countries would reshape competition; if the Chinese or others are not made to cut corners in wages and working conditions to remain competitive, perhaps these areas will improve. It is imperative to refocus on the wellbeing of the world’s citizens in order to create a global society where people are more equal, even if this means a loss in profit, or even real wealth, on the part of affluent countries so that those currently impoverished are able to raise their standard of living.
In discussing topics such as fair trade, environmental and mental pollution, and justice I have yet to directly address and expound upon mitigating global conflict. That is because addressing each of these issues effectively will remove much of the impetus for conflict. As I stated before, conflict will always burden the international system because imperfect people run imperfect states, but taking these very reasonable and logical steps would certainly help minimize the impact of man’s fallibility and maximize his drive toward compassionate and cooperation. In all of these areas, it is also key to educate the masses. Explaining issues in a tangible, graspable way to common people will empower them to take action. It will be most efficient if done within both the framework of the public education systems of states as well as by transnational organizations. Taming the media and its influence on mankind in order to reduce apathy and increase awareness, ratcheting up environmental standards, and refocusing the global economic paradigm from profit to people are not only necessary steps to improving the world in their own right, but together will drastically undercut reasons for conflict, making the world a more peaceful and prosperous place.