The Understanding Globalization LLC Blog

Time to repeal DADT

2009-10-22T15:25:00.000-07:00

These countries allow homosexuals to serve in the military: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

In a time when the U.S. needs as many military personnel and specialists as possible, why don't we join the list by repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

Generation Green

2009-09-18T20:33:00.000-07:00

I was sitting in a square in downtown Amman, Jordan one evening this summer, observing as people went about their business. All of a sudden, a window opened on the third story of a building across the street. A woman peeked out her head, then took out a full trash bin and proceeded to dump it onto the side of the street below, where a pile had already formed from other residents doing the same thing.

Now, some older students may remember a time when Thurston residents would similarly throw various artifacts out of their own windows (though I wasn’t around back then). But more recently, GW’s environmental consciousness profile has changed. And it’s not just an institutional shift, as some recent articles in The Hatchet have reported about – it’s our generation.

As many a commentator has pointed out, ours is the Green Generation. With awareness about global warming, pollution and waste rising through outlets such as the media and education, young people are growing up with an increased concern for the environment and preserving our world.

This semester, I see green everywhere on campus. The new South Hall is environmentally friendly. The Freshman Reading Program this year asked students to read Thomas Friedman’s Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution – and How it Can Renew America. Revolution Green is the largest Living-Learning Cohort on campus, and last year made their residence hall, Building JJ, the greenest on campus. In Eckles Library on the Vern, you can get 25 cent coffee if you bring your own mug, which discourages wasteful paper and foam cups. As green has become trendy, the list of environmentally-friendly aspects to the University has increased.

My summer experience in Jordan taught me to value the evolving American attitudes on waste management, pollution and environmental preservation. Our parents and grandparents did not grow up in a society stressing lower carbon emissions and recycling. Being raised to value these initiatives as ways to help our planet, we have the ability to reach out to older generations, as well as set a positive example for developing countries and societies that may not place as much emphasis on saving the environment.

Sure, GW’s administration, its students and the US as a whole could show much more seriousness on this subject. Although GW did rise in the Sierra Club green rankings this year (to 81^st out of 135), that still puts us in the list’s bottom 50 percent. New York University, an urban school like GW, beat us by 41 places.

But we can only get better from here. Our green generation is increasing in size, and as it grows it will help sharpen the sense of shared public space and concern for our natural surroundings among Americans, and hopefully also among our friends around the world.

Not a Global Green

2009-07-31T07:02:00.000-07:00

Black clouds of pollution in China, overfishing off Japan, forest destruction in Brazil, poaching in Ethiopia. Worldwide, there is no doubt that there is substantial destruction occurring to the environment. This does not even factor in the impact of third world nations on global carbon emissions. We have to ask ourselves – what do we want to save? It is not possible to save everything; from an economic standpoint we are faced with a scarcity problem. With only a limited amount of resources and an unlimited demand something is doomed to be lost. The real question is what we want to save the most.

Unfortunately, this question is not being asked in the halls of the US congress, the UN, AU, or really any other governing body. Instead issue usually gets diverted to bickering about responsibility, blame, funding, etc. What really needs to be decided is not who caused the problems up until this point but rather which problems we want to solve in the future. Germany recently decided to phase out the use of nuclear power plants and there is fear this could set off another wave of anti-nuclear backlash across the globe. Yet there is an interest group that has a problem with everything. Coal and other fossil fuels have their obvious critics. But some dislike wind because is kills a few birds and solar because it is hard to dispose of the panels.

As can be seen, the lack of consensus is doing more harm to the environmental movement than good. The rise of globalization has only encouraged this problem with people being less able to focus on local problems which are actually solvable. Unless consensus grows in terms of which issues are most important to be solved the international community risks not solving anything - which could ultimately endanger us all.

A New Direction For Africa

2009-07-13T06:47:00.000-07:00

Africa has been known as a continent in peril since the independence of the first African nations fifty years ago. The following is a short list of the ideal goals each African nation should follow in order to achieve development, growth, and stability.

1. Stop supporting paramililitary actors in other countries.
African governments have a history of supporting guerrilla movements, financially and militarily, in neighboring countries for the purpose of destabilizing other African governments. Often, though, this support only causes more bloodshed, a degradation of nascent developmental projects, international criticism, and sometimes backlash.

2. Improve electoral practices.
Africa is known for having poor election history, with only four heads of government transferring powers peacefully over a 40 year period. An active government is known to bring stability, a sense of nationhood, and peace to countries, as long as elections are done in a fair and free manor.

3. Integrate with the global world and economy.
Over the last 50 years, Africa has been prone to resist integration with the world economy, not only because of corrupt leaders' tirades against Western "neocolonialism," but also because of the unwillingness of international corporations to invest heavily in the unstable countries of Africa. African leaders should make a commitment to liberalize trading policies and become open to imports from other nations. They should attempt to develop two or three "niche" market in which they have a competitive advantage. Also, as is already occurring, African leaders should continue the practice of bypassing old forms of technology for newer versions, to reduce expenses. For example, using cellphones as a means of telephone communications and building communication towers rather than laying phone lines.

4. Support and promote healthy practices.
African governments have been reluctant to promote health practice that are considered normal health procedures in the Western world. Especially with AIDS, African nations sometimes condemn the use of proven safety measures, such as wearing condemns. On other issues, some children are never taught of the importance of washing hands or following basic hygienic practices. African leaders need to promote these practices.

5. Focus funds and resources on developing rural areas.
Africa has a tradition of funneling money and attention to city centers, rather than rural areas. They do this because they know urban support is more valuable than rural support, and that an angry city populace has the potential to overturn a government. African governments should begin to focus on developing the agricultural sector so they not only can generate more food sources for the nation, but also to decrease the chance of violence from disenchanted farmers who join militias.

A Meeting With Professor Henry Nau on Poverty

2009-04-08T20:41:00.000-07:00

On April 7th, four members of the Understanding Globalization LLC meet with Professor Henry Nau to discuss the problems and challenges that poverty presents in a globalized world. Previously, the LLC had watched and discussed Zana Briski's "Born into Brothels: Calcutta's Red Light Kids" as an examination of just how pervasively poverty can be interwoven into society.

Most astounding to the LLC was the poor technological resources that social workers in India used to keep tabs on these children. The systems were neither digitalized nor organized; the result was a wall of rotting papers and an overworked office.

When we approached Professor Nau with our opinions, he pushed us to the next level: was the real problem a lack of resources, or was it corruption in the bureaucracy supervising such offices? Furthermore, would more technological resources truly aide the societal ills that allowed the red light district in Calcutta to flourish? The human trafficking in the region along with widespread poverty were identified as two such factors. The professor pointed out that, in order to most effectively address the problem, there would be a need to examine all these variables and choose the best solution.

Professor Nau also emphasized a need in development to reconcile the macro with the micro, politically, socially and economically. Poverty and development, argued the professor, could not be addressed without making sure that the situation on the ground and governmental or inter-governmental agreements were synchronous. He used the Clinton Accords in the Palestinian conflict to illustrate this: although all major players have diplomatically accepted a fair two-state solution, the situation on the ground did not allow for a sustainable peace, allowing for Israel's enemies, such as Hamas, to gain strength. Until these two systems were reconciled, the professor contended, the problems would persist.

The discussion then changed to incorporate the ongoing global fiscal and economic crisis, particularly how they would affect development. The Professor was quick to defend the Washington Consensus (recently declared "dead" by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown), which he attributed to pulling millions of Indians and Chinese out of absolute abject poverty. The economic crises have largely been used as an excuse for government intervention in domestic economies along with consistent pushes for stricter regulation of finance at the global level. The Professor noted that such regulation was necessary, as risk taking had increased far too high during the lead up to the crisis. At the same time, he invoked the economic axiom that higher risk means higher rewards -- and that those rewards were what had done such wonders for the developing world. The professor remained optimistic that the spirit of the Washington Consensus would be preserved, and that the crisis would be an opportunity for improvement of international financial and economic institutions as opposed to a change of course that President Obama has called for.

The Understanding Globalization LLC would like to thank Professor Henry Nau for taking time out of his busy schedule to meet with our members: this discussion has given us a great deal to think about concerning the many aspects of poverty, which without a doubt will give us grounds for future discourses.

If there were a God...

2009-04-06T12:52:00.000-07:00

...then surely he would hate Fred Phelps.

Beware of Mexican Drug Wars...

2009-03-12T22:51:00.000-07:00

Have a fun and safe spring break!

http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2009/03/12/Opinions/Tom-Braslavsky.Spring.Break.Safety-3670053.shtml

Sharecropping, Capital and Globalization

2009-02-08T09:40:00.000-08:00

Globalization has done many wonderful things for the world. It has increased the wealth for multinational corporations and helped raise over 300 million Chinese out of poverty. At the same time it is also imperative to look at the other side of the issue: mainly, those not helped by globalization. One of those problems is an increase in Sharecropping around the world. Currently one of the largest places with sharecropping is Madagascar. In Madagascar sharecropping accounts for approximately one third of land use. But what is sharecropping exactly? Sharecropping is defined as “a land-rental contract matching a rich landlord and a poor tenant in which the landlord leases out her plot to the tenant in exchange for a share of the crop” (Bellemare).

Currently only 10% of landowners in Madagascar are women. In a society that has still been slow to increase the opportunities, women still do not have an equal economic chance. This is not to say, however, that sharecroppers are wealthy. In a study done by Bellemare the average landowner estimated that his time was worth $0.15 hourly, or about $1.20 per day. Obviously, the tenants who lease the land make far less than the owner. Most are illiterate and have not other job skills or opportunities.

But what does this have to do with globalization? Globalization is in a large part an economic occurrence. The growth of China, and almost all nations that have benefited from globalization, starts with capital. Only 40% of land owners stated that they had invested in infrastructure development. Assuming that deprecation occurs until the only remaining value is the fixed value we can assume that without any change in the system 60% of all owners will, in the long run, have property that is worth less than the original investment. According to the efficient market hypothesis property would not be sold for less than the fixed value, indicating that property purchased is either at or above the fixed value. Therefore, the best owners can hope for is that their original investment was at fixed value. Otherwise, they will be losing property value in the long run. A lack of infrastructure investment also proves that sharecropping is not profitable enough for owners. If it were then they would be reinvesting. Without an infusion of capital to provide for infrastructure development owners will continue with their current, unprofitable path because of a lack of other alternatives.

On the other side, however, there are the sharecroppers. These individuals are in an even worse position than the owners because they usually only have a small number of insignificant assets. Compare this to the owners who at least have the fixed value of the property. Sharecroppers are making less than $.15 an hour and have to deal with seasonal variations. Some academics state that land rights are necessary for the sharecroppers to rise out of poverty; but because the current owners of the lands are also unable to find a more profitable venue this suggest that land ownership is not the problem. It is the lack of capital for those who own the land. Without increased investment, only possible with capital, nothing will change and globalization will continue to pass by those in Madagascar.

Sharecropping also occurs commonly in Bangladesh, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Lesotho, Malaysia, the Philippines, and South Africa.

A Night with Muhammad Yunus

2009-02-03T10:00:00.000-08:00

http://blogs.gwhatchet.com/theforum/2009/02/03/learn-a-lessson-from-muhammad-yunus/?hp

Seven Positives of Globalization

2009-01-25T10:44:00.001-08:00

Globalization increases resource availability.
Globalization leads to improved efficiency, increasing the ability for people to acquire more goods. The founding principle of economics is that collaboration and specializations increases the amount of goods and services produced. Therefore, individuals form societies and specialize within those societies. This significantly increases the production possibility curve. In the same way, globalization allows countries or societies to specialize, increasing the production possibility curve. This provides two important opportunities for consumers. First, specialization increases the quality of goods and services produced, which allows consumers to make the best possible choice. Second, the increased market competition and innovative activities reduces prices for consumers. The breaking down of trade barriers can increase the amount of specialization, which increases the production possibility curve.

Globalization reduces poverty.
In many developing nations there is a lack of infrastructure, education, human capital and the ability to take the steps necessary to secure the aforementioned necessities. When multinational firms provided citizens of developing nations with jobs they are providing a stepping block for the impoverished masses. There is a reason that these individuals take low paying jobs: because all other opportunities offer much less in terms of total benefits. In every case a low paying job is better than joblessness and starvation. In addition to providing a means of subsistence these jobs can create a ladder of opportunity for the individuals who may be able to save some of their income in order to get an education or allow their children to go to school and become educated. In every country where multinational corporations have provided jobs the average income level has gone significantly up and many of the poor eventually rise out of poverty.

Globalization helps the environment.
Developing economies are significantly less efficient, at producing goods and services, than developed economies. This means that developing economies waste a significant amount of resources and damage the environment to a greater extent than if they were developed counties. Additionally, as members of the society become more affluent they are able to focus more of their time and resources on social causes, such as protecting the environment. As already stated globalization reduces poverty, from which it can be concluded that members of the society are in a better position to focus on the protection of the environment.

Globalization reduces ethnic tensions
Inherently with globalization ethnic groups that once may have never interacted are forced to conduct business and trade together. This can lead to a reduction in ethnic tensions as groups who once saw each other as competitors see the ’others’ as a valuable trading partners. Understanding that other nations are friends and not enemies can bring about increased communication with, and acceptance of, other cultures. This can directly reduce tensions and increase multiculturalism.

Globalization reduces the change of war.
Similar to the way globalization reduces ethnic tensions, globalization reduces the change of war. In a case of international differences the interdependence of nations reduces the change of war because going to war with one nation could be an act of economic suicide. Case to point, despite any tensions China and the United States might have with each other each nation has a direct economic dependence on the other and so could not risk destroying its relation through direct or indirect conflict. In this way Globalization reduces the chance of war and saves lives.

Globalization leads to freedom of speech and the protection of human rights.
As nations become more economically developed international scrutiny of their governments’ actions increases and it becomes increasingly hard to violate human rights. Also, as individuals increase their income and education they begin to demand increasing freedom of speech and individual privacy rights. These demands, combined with the increasing international security, leads to pressure on the regime to change their policies to grant more rights and freedoms.

Globalization increases knowledge.
It is known facts that as nations become more developed the number of educated individuals in the nation increases. Because it has already be shown how globalization allows for specializations, which increases the level of income of the nation, it can be assumed that globalization increase the number of educated individuals. These individuals can increase the amount of research and development, the level of entrepreneurship and the quality of the social capital. Overall, it can be seen that because globalization increases the level of national income it also increase the amount of knowledge.

Self-Defense

2009-01-16T20:19:00.000-08:00

This column was originally written for the Hatchet, but they decided not to print it because they do not want to publish opinions dealing with national/international events.

Fifteen seconds. That’s how long the residents of Sderot, Israel, have to find shelter between the time when a siren announces, “Code Red” and the time a rocket – or a rocket barrage – hits their city. For years, this has been happening daily in Sderot and other communities in Israel’s southern region, with only a few short lulls in between. Some days, the siren would sound only a couple times; others, eight to ten.

Imagine living like that for many years – in a democratic country. Imagine your country’s sovereignty and your security being regularly violated by terrorists. Imagine the effect on your physical, material and mental wellbeing if your city was constantly attacked with rocket barrages that were meant to terrorize, destroy and kill. What would you expect of your democratically-elected government?

No sane person enjoys war. During this latest conflict, I tried to keep in touch with my anxious family and friends in Israel. My cousins, who live in the coastal city of Ashdod, were directly affected by Hamas’ longer-range rockets. Ironically, the Palestinian terrorist group had stockpiled these rockets during the six-month ceasefire that had existed between it and Israel, a ceasefire which nevertheless saw occasional rocket salvos by Hamas and its allies.

Over the past couple weeks, my cousins in Ashdod experienced a taste of what Sderot residents had been going through for years. About two times every day, residents of the city would hear sirens and would have to run for shelter. Since Ashdod is farther than Sderot from the border with Gaza, residents had more time to hide before the rockets hit: 45 seconds. The tension was high, and the streets were almost completely empty of pedestrians. My relatives told me the story of one woman who, unable to find a bomb shelter in time, hid at a bus stop. Seconds later, a missile slammed into the platform, killing her.

I also spoke with my other cousins who live outside of Tel Aviv, the largest metropolitan area in Israel, which is 20 miles north of Ashdod and out of range of the Hamas rocket danger zone. At the time of writing, the danger zone posed a threat to around 1 million Israelis. These cousins, like many Israelis, were constantly glued to the news. Life can be tense when you live in a country that experiences war all too often.

These people – my relatives and other ordinary Israelis – did not enjoy war. They sat and watched worriedly for developments, or ran into bomb shelters after hearing a siren. But one thing could confidently be said: most of them supported their government’s decision to try to put an end to the terror which Israel’s southern residents had been forced to live with for years.

Citizens of any democratic country could not be expected to quietly continue living under the conditions that Israel’s southern communities had experienced for so long. Yet the UN was silent on Israeli suffering and diplomacy with Hamas was impossible. Something had to be done. And Hamas, after ending the ceasefire, provoked Israel’s government to act responsibly and accountably towards its citizens, and do what any other democratic country in a similar situation would do: defend itself.

Disproportionate?

2009-01-16T19:35:00.000-08:00

A lot of media attention the past few weeks has been focused on the conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. I wrote the following article in my high school newspaper in March 2008, after Israel conducted a short operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. I think the arguments hold true in todays conflict as well:

Headline: Disproportionate?

Sub-head: The world condemns Israel for acting against terror that no other country would tolerate

Imagine what our government would do if terrorists took over part of Mexico and started firing rockets into our sovereign borders – rockets that were aimed at our civilians, wreaked havoc upon our border towns and were gradually increasing in range. Obviously, America would rise up to defend itself against this terrorism – quite forcefully – and there would be no problem with this. No one in the in the world could expect us to tolerate such flagrant violations of our national sovereignty and security.

This situation has been happening in Israel. Over the past seven years, Hamas terrorists from the Gaza Strip have launched about 8,000 rockets into Israel's borders, killing, injuring and destroying. But there's one difference between the international community's treatment of Israel and its treatment of other countries: whenever Israel tries to defend its citizens from brutal terror, the world doesn't accept its actions, but in fact labels them as "disproportionate" responses.

Search "disproportionate force" on Google, and the vast majority of results that come up deal with the defensive, counterterrorist actions of this country about the size of New Jersey, nestled on the western edge of the Middle East. You'll find journalists, along with ostensibly credible sources like the United Nations or European Union, lamenting Israel's efforts to defend itself and blaming it for inadvertently killing civilians, even when those deaths are the direct result of terrorists' tactics. Governments that would do the utmost to protect their citizens if they were in a similar situation condemn Israel for exercising its moral responsibility to keep its people safe.

Let’s take what has happened this year. For years, Israel has been patient, sustaining daily rocket attacks aimed at civilian areas. Residents of communities bordering Gaza have lived in constant fear: according to a recent study by the Israel Center for Victims of Terror and War, up to 94 percent of children in Sderot, the border town that has borne the brunt of the attacks, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder after experiences with rocket assaults. Israel has tolerated what no other democratic, sovereign nation would tolerate.

But after increasingly destructive rocket barrages in the beginning of 2008, after protests by citizens who felt as if their government had abandoned them, and after examining and attempting different options, in early March Israel decided to act against this incessant violation of its sovereignty and prevent future attacks. It launched a five-day operation to do what any responsible government would do: go after the terrorists.

Predictably, international condemnations ensued. Not significant condemnations of terrorism being inflicted upon Israeli civilians (after all, that had been happening for years and no one had spoken out), but condemnations of the “disproportionate force” that Israel was using in its fight against Hamas combatants. The Israeli Defense Forces had destroyed rocket storage sites and other terrorist infrastructure. Unfortunately, Hamas militants had used human shields during the fighting; therefore, there were also a number of Palestinian civilian casualties. And so the world, neglecting to dig beyond the surface of civilian deaths, defaulted to blaming Israel. "Disproportionate force" was in the news once again.

It seems not to matter that while Hamas terrorists aim to kill civilians, the Israeli military strategizes on how to cause the least civilian suffering while simultaneously hitting terrorist targets. This can be hard, seeing as Hamas and its allies use their own civilians as human shields. They fire rockets from civilian areas, such as residential buildings and even playgrounds, and they position themselves in civilian enclaves while in combat. But Israel’s critics seem to ignore these facts.

It seems not to matter to the international community that Israel is acting in self-defense, against military targets, while the thousands of rockets landing within its territory have been unprovoked attacks on civilians. Israel voluntarily gave up its occupation of the Gaza Strip over two years ago, so Hamas cannot claim "resistance" as a motive. Its terrorist actions are clear violations of international law. Or is international law only applicable to one side of the conflict?

One side bears responsibility for the most recent flare-up in this decades-long conflict: Hamas. It bears moral responsibility for recent Palestinian deaths and suffering in Gaza, as well as the death and suffering of Israelis. Hamas is not just some rogue splinter group – it is the official representative and governing body of the Palestinians in Gaza. It won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, and just last summer violently seized complete power in Gaza from the more moderate and secular Fatah party. Gaining political power didn't do much to quell Hamas's militant ideology. It opposes the peace process, or even any recognition of Israel. It deliberately targets Israeli civilians just because they are Israeli. If Hamas stops firing rockets, the bloodshed ceases; if Israel does not defend itself, rockets keep falling onto its territory.

Meanwhile, Israel is blamed for unintentional civilian deaths, deaths that it mourns, but that are the result of actions taken in defense of its populace. And when there are intentional civilian deaths – then Israel's justice system prosecutes the perpetrators, quite the opposite of the terrorists it fights, who rejoice upon hearing of a child gunned down, or a home blown up.

Let’s get one thing straight: there is no “proportionate” response to terrorism. In fact, such a response would be completely immoral. Example: terrorists send a rocket over the border, striking an Israeli nursery school and killing a teacher and a two year-old girl (as happened on June 28, 2004). Does this mean that Israel must send a similar rocket targeting a Palestinian nursery school, trying to kill exactly the same number of innocent civilians and terrorize the neighborhood? This scenario is preposterous. Should Israel try such a “proportionate” response, I will be among the first to condemn it. Now, a “disproportionate” response – targeting more civilians – would understandably be even more terrible.

But targeting the terrorists who are responsible for making your children live in fear – that’s moral. That’s called self-defense, dignity and accountability.

Nigeria's Foreign Policy

2008-12-11T14:52:00.000-08:00

The foreign policy agenda of Nigeria consists of four basic principles: non-alignment, equality among all states, non-interference in domestic affairs, and commitment to multi-lateral diplomacy . These principles guide the recommendations for the G-20 summit in regards to the global financial crisis. Nigeria calls on the world to implement a global bailout package, create a regulation agency, revitalize the Doha Round, and revalue the Chinese Yuan. Finally, the global community should recognize our anti-corruption improvements and continue to provide foreign aid, even if these policies deteriorate in the future, to ensure regional stability.

Nigeria has strong ties with the United States and the United Kingdom, but these countries should not take our friendship for granted under our non-alignment principle. Nigeria recognizes the colonial importance the British played in our past, but because of the West’s unwillingness to support our government during the 1967-1970 Biafra Civil War, Nigeria has since followed a strict policy of non-alignment . Despite historical ties with the West, Nigeria will not give preferential treatment unless it is in the interests of the Nigerian people. The Nigerian people’s interests will come first in all its foreign policy decisions . Trade relations are growing strong between Nigeria and China, India, and other Asian markets , and these states could be strong trading partners and a reliable oil market in the future.

Nigeria seeks to establish equality in the international community. We attempt to ally the fears of small African states of being sidelined in the global community and encourage greater cooperation at the regional and sub-regional levels in Africa . Nigeria pursues this goal through the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). ECOWAS is a regional group consisting of fifteen West African countries that works to integrate markets and promote regional security. Nigeria’s strong commitment to ECOWAS allows smaller West African countries to operate on a more equal level with developed countries by providing them the ability to act collectively rather than separately. Nigeria also strives to promote the unity of African state and the total political, economic, and social liberation of Africa . With the help of the African Union (AU), Nigeria pursues this goal by strongly supporting democracy in Africa . Nigeria recognizes that democracy promotes a broad spectrum of equalities, and therefore enthusiastically supports all democratic efforts on the continent. For example, Nigeria’s President Umaru Yar’Adua repeatedly criticizes the dictatorial rule of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe . Nigeria commits to follow and advocate similar policies to ensure equality in the international community.

Nigeria is a strong believer in the preservation of national sovereignty, and condemns heavy intervention in one’s domestic affairs. We maintain that human rights and related issues are internal affairs and outside actors have no right to interfere. However, the Nigerian government considers limited external pressures to promote democracy as acceptable . Additionally, Nigeria opposes military interventions in domestic disputes. Nigeria ensured that ECOWAS’s Community Armed Forces, which is the military arm of ECOWAS and is mainly staffed by Nigeria troops and officers, is not allowed to intervene in purely internal conflicts . Nigeria urges all nations to respect national sovereignty – both politically and militarily.
Nigeria exemplifies its commitment to multi-lateral diplomacy through its active role in international organizations. Nigeria played a major role in the founding of ECOWAS and continues to lead by working to develop a single regional currency and achieve a full customs union . Nigeria has borne the brunt of the ECOWAS peacekeeping missions, deploying peacekeeping troops to resolve civil conflicts in West Africa. . In addition, Nigeria generously supports other peacekeeping missions. It is leading the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), which plans to provide stability to the Darfur region, and anticipates spearheading a peacekeeping mission in Somalia. It also provided the bulk of the troops for the United Nations’ peacekeeping missions in Sierra Leone and Liberia . Furthermore, Nigeria provides UN peacekeepers for missions outside of Africa, such as in Lebanon and along the India-Pakistani border . We realize our growing importance and increased involvement in the United Nations and other multi-lateral organizations, and we seek representation as a permanent member on the UN Security Council, which has no permanent African members . Nigeria should be a member of this council to sponsor the common interests of the African states.

Nigeria’s economy has slumped because of the global financial crisis, and it calls on the developed countries to quickly adopt measures to rectify the damages they have caused. Nigeria is suffering from a crisis that it did not create, and feels it is the responsibility of the developed countries to sponsor a global bailout package to pay for the problems they spawned. The repercussions on the Nigerian economy are severe. Depressed oil demand in the developed countries has pushed prices down, causing a strain on the Nigerian budget . Because of the slump in income, the Nigerian assembly had to delay its presentation of the 2009 budget to the National Assembly . To prevent a similar crisis in the future, we support a global regulator that will monitor the international financial industry and ensure global economic stability. However, we do not support over-regulation that could hamper economic growth . Nigeria also urges the world to not forget about the Doha Rounds, which have recently stalled. The successful conclusion of these talks will provide developing and developed countries beneficial trade opportunities in the agricultural and service sector, improving trade equality among nation, and will help alleviate the troubles of the current financial crisis .

Nigeria has concerns about the undervalued Chinese Yuan and its negative effects on the Nigerian economy. The undervalued Yuan allows China to gain an unfair advantage in the international market. China produces goods cheaper because it can manipulate its currency. This causes harmful effects on Nigeria, whose once competitive computer industry is now almost nonexistence, and cheap Chinese textiles are depressing workers’ wages and threatening to destroy the entire textile sector . Also, an undervalued Yuan puts downwards pressures on the US dollar. Since the Nigerian Naira is pegged to the US dollar, a depreciated dollar hurts Nigeria’s export sector directly and has long-term consequences for Nigerian purchasing power. Nigeria anticipates working closely with the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa to confront the maleficent currency practices of the Chinese government.

Though Nigeria exhibits a noticeable reduction in corruption levels, it is working closely with the G-8 to implement a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy, and opposes aid suspension, regardless of circumstance. Transparency International’s 2008 Corruption Perception Index (CPI) gives Nigeria a score of 2.2, with 10 being least corrupt and 1 being most corrupt . However, this shows a gradual improvement from its previous 2003 CPI score of 1.4 . The Nigerian government is fighting corruption with the help of the G-8 Countries through a national anti-corruption strategy that seeks to increase transparency, implement public sector reforms, and accelerate privatization . Nigeria urges the world to examine Nigeria’s anti-corruption efforts and continue providing the technical expertise to fight corruption. Nigeria currently meets all World Bank and International Monetary Fund developmental aid requirements and is pursuing the suggestions of Transparency International , however, it should not lose aid if the country fails to meet these conditions. A reduction of aid could jeopardize Nigeria’s political stability and economic growth. Therefore, it is the obligation of the developed world to support Nigeria on its political and economical developments in order to preserve regional stability and sustainable growth.

Ethiopian Development

2008-12-11T14:46:00.000-08:00

Though the US is currently occupied with rebuilding Iraq, countering Iran's influence, and securing Afghanistan, the American Foreign Service will be challenged in the 21st century by an emerging regional power in Eastern Africa: Ethiopia. Ethiopia has become a regional military might, an ally in the War on Terror, a human-rights violator, and is ruled by an indifferent government. The situation will test the US Foreign Service's hopes to utilize Ethiopia as an ally, not an enemy. It will challenge the Foreign Service to ensure Ethiopian support for combating Islamic terrorism and regional stability, while simultaneously denouncing human-rights violation and emphasizing policy reforms.

Ethiopia has proven that it is a valuable ally in the War on Terror by assisting the US in Somalia. The failed Somali state became an incubator for Al Qaeda, threatening to destabilize the Horn of Africa. With the approval of the US, Ethiopia intervened militarily in Somalia, sending forces to stabilize the country and act as peacekeepers ("Ethiopia Action"). The US worked closely with the deployment and conducted air raids that were based on Ethiopian intelligence ("Loveless Liaison"). The intervention in Somalia illustrates the growing Ethiopian ability to multilaterally cooperate with the US to alleviate trouble spots in Africa. An Ethiopian force could possibly have the capability of assisting operations in Zimbabwe, Darfur, and conceivably even Iraq.

However, before Ethiopia's military potential can be achieved, the Foreign Service will first have to work diligently to resolve the Ethiopian-Eritrean border conflict. Due to a border disagreement, in 1998 trench warfare erupted between Ethiopia and Eritrea over an inconsequential plot of land, killing tens of thousands, and prompting UN intervention ("Ethiopia / Eritrea War"). The UN force and tensions still remain, and; the possibility of a renewed war "is very real" (McCrummen). In order to end hostilities, the Foreign Service will have to use a combination of peaceful demarcations negotiations, threats of USAID reduction, military hardware stipulations, and, if necessary, economic sanctions. Currently, USAID provides US$118 million to Ethiopia, mainly to overcome the threat of recurring food insecurities ("USAID's Strategy"). Also, the US provides the Ethiopian army with arms and technical service. These provisions are crucial to Ethiopia's development, and the mere threat of cutbacks should prompt negotiations. However, in the highly probable event that a border war erupts, economic sanctions will have to be imposed, causing severe damage to Ethiopia's coffee industry, the heart of the economy. If these or similar steps are not taken, the alternative could be a war resulting in the deaths of thousands due to national pride. Only after this border conflict is peacefully resolved can Ethiopia start focusing its resources towards other initiatives that are in both the US's and Ethiopia's common interests.

As with all human-rights infractions, the Foreign Service will have the difficult task of reducing the frequency of unwarranted atrocities committed on Ethiopian farmers by the government. More than 80% of Ethiopia's labor force is involved in agriculture (Wright), creating a disparity between farmers and the ruling city-class that is reluctant to transfer political autonomy to the rural areas. There have been widespread reports of arbitrary detentions, torture, disappearances, and excessive force used by police and soldiers against anyone they suspect of supporting or connected to sometimes nonexistent paramilitary forces ("Ethiopia, Human Rights"). As recently as February 2008, reports detailed abuses committed against the Gewada ethnic tribe by the government, resulting in the death of over 30 people and severely injuring close to 50 ("Demands for Self-Administration"). With the Foreign Service's commitment to protecting human-rights, an ultimatum will have to be reached with the government to ensure that these violations will not continue. The US does not support countries that actively engage in crimes against humanity, and therefore cannot overlook these issues while concurrently providing alimentations. It will be the responsibility of the Foreign Service to persuade the government to halt its discrimination against the agrarian society without alienating the Ethiopian government over its human-rights record. Negotiations could potentially be precarious, with a strong probability of the Ethiopian government refusing to acknowledge their transgressions. However, in addition to world wide media attention, diligent consultations by the US State Department should effectively resolve the current humanitarian crises and prevent future ruptures.

In order to most efficaciously resolve the border conflict and prevent human-rights abuse, the Foreign Service has to first strengthen the Ethiopian economy and infrastructure by better management and allocation of US supplies. Even though agriculture is the staple of the national economy, it is severely underdeveloped despite fertile land, a diverse climate, and a large labor pool ("Ethiopia-Agriculture"). The agriculture sector has preformed badly because of a weak infrastructure and the use of low-level technology, making it susceptible to drought. The US donated US$500 million dollars in food aid in 2006, most of which went towards feeding impoverished peasants (Fick); however, little was allocated towards ending their hunger. The US Foreign Service should invest in irrigation networks and transportation systems to increase farming output, rather than continuing to send temporary food sustenance. This will make Ethiopia more self-sufficient and better able to cope with future droughts ("Joint Statement"). Additionally, the Foreign Service will have to pressure the government into implementing policy reforms that emphasize free trade. Due to government restrictions that favor American coffee corporations, Ethiopian farmers make US$0.10 per kg of coffee, which will sell in Western countries for US$26 ("Starbucks Agrees"). Cajoling the government to remove taxes and quota barriers will allow farmers to generate more money, strengthening the economy. A sustainable economic development that ensures adequate food supplies and free trade will provide the foundation for Ethiopian society to flourish.

American foreign policy will be challenged in the 21st century by Ethiopia. To utilize Ethiopia as a valuable ally, the Foreign Service must resolve border disputes with Eritrea, reduce human-rights violations, and strengthen the country's infrastructure and economy. Though these efforts will be laborious, the end result will be a free and stable Ethiopia, uplifting all regional countries, and providing a model for African prosperity.