Dana
Kravitz
Blog
Post #4
Though realists may argue that we
live in a state of anarchy I think the Bretton Woods System article by Benjamin
Cohen and the class lecture prove that it is necessary to have international
organizations and international cooperation in order to have a successful world
market. This can be seen through the use of the UN, the World Bank, and the
WTO.
The United Nations was formed in
1945 in close of World War II in to stop another World War from happening
again. Its goal was to promote peace through mutually assured protection
against an aggressor state. The UN has caused states to consul other nations
before making large state decisions. This can be seen in the recent debate on
what to do in Syria. Though United State would like to intervene in Syria they
do not have the UN’s support because of Russia and Chinas power. This is an
example of how sometimes the idea of anarchy and every state for themselves
does not necessarily stand up because of respect for other states wants and the
need for their support.
The World Bank is a great example
how many countries have a common interest. Their goal is reduce the world’s
poverty, which is something that most states want. The World Bank also
encourages gender equality, climate control, education, protection AIDs, etc.
They approve projects and then supply loans for them. This shows how even
though each state has individual goals; most states want to work towards a
better less impoverished world.
The World Trade Organization makes
rulings as to whether something is fair trade. For example in 2012 the United States tired to reduce youth smoking by banning
the sale of most flavored cigarettes. This ban resulted in Indonesian tobacco
companies that make clove cigarettes bringing a suit to the World Trade
Organization. America lost in the ruling and followed its decisions. Since
there is no real international law technically the US does not have to follow
what is decided, they do because they want other countries to so the same for
them. They must follow what was told them so when they have a problem other
countries do the same. This again shows how mutual dependence on other
countries and international organizations help to prevent conflict and solve
problems.
Though some may argue that these
organizations are unnecessary or they inhibit things from getting done, I
believe that they are all needed in having a smooth running world market. Sometimes realists think the worst about
states but I think these organizations show that sometimes we can hope for the
best.
This is well written and very to the point! My only comment has to deal with the questioning of legitimacy when it comes to these groups. The UN for example is questioned because their 5 person security council is often looked at as self-interested and biased due to their not being equal opportunity for every state to enter. What would you say to this point? Does it matter if these organizations aren't necessarily fulfilling their jobs due to their lack of legitimacy?
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the UN like any large body in government can be biased at times. But, I also think that the UN stops the large countries, that can be self-interested, from making rash decisions. For example, when the US wanted to go to Syria and China and Russia voted against it. Though I definitely agree that these organizations have their flaws and things they need to improve, I also still believe that organizations cause a mutual dependence that keeps the global market flowing more smoothly.
ReplyDeleteI do agree a lot with your post, I think that organizations are very important to not only just the world market but almost every interaction with another state. Though sometimes organizations are seen as ineffective or unproductive I think these organizations make major strides in engaging cooperation and communication between states that they otherwise might not have. I think that it can be said that many organizations are really essential to having states function together. I think your example of the World Market is a great example of organizations that seem to be more successful and effective and maybe other organizations should take note of this.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the organizations you mentioned show that the world is not in a state of anarchy. First of all, the UN does not have that much power in world politics, which proves that states will act how they want even if there is a central organization. Also, you talk about states working together to fix problems such as poverty. This does not really have to do with states being in anarchy since states being in anarchy is more about the unpredictability of other states and more about conflicts between states, which are clearly happening.
ReplyDelete