Chinese Pirates!

Not really in the literal sense, but a relevant article to our current readings regarding intelectual property and piracy. For those of you that have tried to access T.V. shows on the internet for free, you'll be upset that there is a current lawsuit filled by the China Internet Video Anti-Piracy Alliance, a group including the American Motion Picture Association, to domestic Chinese companies such as Youku, which provide streaming videos, many of which are U.S. T.V. shows and movies.

The hope for Western firms is increased protection for copyrighted material. However, Youku is less worried about the piracy aspect, and is more worried about the loss of traffic and advertising revenue from global internet users.

IMF Increased Powers

WSJ has an article up about potential increases in the IMF's power. The underlying message is that the IMF is seeking to regain the trust of developing nations, as previous IMF policies have forced nations to cut tariffs and completely open their borders to qualify for loans.

Globalization and Climate Change- Developing Economies

Both Singer and Stiglitz deal heavily with both the practical and the ethical side of climate change both in the developed and the developing world (side note: where did these terms, developed and developing, originate? I think the world could do with better names). The crux of the problem is determining who is responsible past pollutions and who is responsible for ensuring climate change does not destroy the world.

The developed nations- the U.S., Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc.- hold much of the burden for past pollution, as the Industrial Revolution was fueled by a perceived limitless supply of coal and petroleum used for the creation of infrastructure, technological innovation, and armament, which certainly are responsible for their "developed" status.

A much more difficult problem is current pollution, its potential damages to the climate, and the successive problems associated with climate change. Assigning blame and responsibility for current pollution is chiefly hard because there is so much of it and its scope is so broad. We can no longer dictate responsibility to a few nations, since a lot of nations are industrializing and energy usage is generally becoming more widespread.

The Economist has an article that has a general overview of the climate change problems associated with developing nations. Paramount is climate changes affect on the main industry of the developing world: agriculture. As the world's climate changes, rain patterns become more unpredictable, and floods and droughts are a more common occurrence. These changes lead to less fertile land and a lower crop yield. This negatively affects the developing world greater- at least in the immediate sense- because they do not have other industries in which they excel or the governmental infrastructure to provide overarching welfare. In other words, developing nations do not have the capacity to deal with economic change the way that developed nations do.

The other side of this proverbial coin is that, in terms of total carbon emissions, the developing world contributes half. As these nation try to rapidly industrialize, they, somewhat ironically, are using similar industrialization tactics the developing nations employed in the 19th century. This is now an equity and fairness problem, because the developed nations argue that everyone should now, since the discovery of the detriment of carbon emissions to the climate, play by the same emissions rules, yet developing nations argue the unfairness of allowing one group, the developed nations, to have industrialized through poor energy practices, while they are unable to industrialize in the same fashion.

Singer and The Economist article argue for a per-capita based regulation for climate control. Doing so acknowledges the historical pollution of the developed nations and aims to control future pollution by both developed and developing nations. Regardless, both the developed and developing nations are trapped in the mindset of assessing the costs of changing the way they use fuels, rather than understanding the underlying needs for overhauling the global energy system.

Missile Defense

Making headlines today is the collapse of a deal between the US, Poland, and the Czech Republic over a European-based US missile defense system. The proposed deal arose over concerns about Iran's improved nuclear weapons and ICBM program.

The main conflict at stake is between Washington and Moscow, who, when the plan was first proposed during President Bush's administration, expressed considerable outrage. In January 2009, Moscow dropped a similar missile defense shield plan in Kaliningrad, a military outpost in Central Europe. This action was meant to signify to the new Obama administration that Russia sought warmer relations with the US and its new president.

The public reasons given for the US's abandonment of this project are a misjudged estimate of Iran's nuclear capability, yet this decision typifies current US-Russia relations. Probability has it that Tehran, or a similar Middle East nation, will develop a nuclear program capable of attacking Western Europe and the Americas, thus a preemptive missile shield seems a relatively good idea. The article argues that the US hopes to put pressure on Russia to deal more harshly with Iran, as Russia has blocked economic sanctions against Iran on the UN Security Council.

The above, however, is a short-term concern, but Western and Central Europe have greater long-term concerns about the base and their relationships with Russia. Poland and the Czech Republic hope to have the base on their territory not because of Middle Eastern concerns, but to ensure a defense against Russia. Thus, Western and Central Europe look upon the US decision with disdain, as it potentially shows a lack of commitment to European security.

These tensions between Moscow and Washington illuminate their respective importance in the geopolitical environment. The most directly affected nations are Iran, Poland, and the Czech Republic, yet the commentary focuses on the US-Russia relationship because of the potential for disaster between the two nations. As the Russian government trends towards increased totalitarianism, look for similar issues to constantly arise in US-Russia relations.

Energy Politics

What is the greatest challenge facing the leading actors in the international political economy in the 21st Century?

The operational definition of economics provided by most textbooks describes the field as “the allocation of scarce resources.” Thus, the competition for, and the distribution of, these resources is a constant challenge for the actors in the current international political economy.

Rising global economic integration requires, among other things, a specific type of resource: natural resources. In the next century, the competition for scarce natural resources, such as water, oil, food, uranium, and others will be the marquee geopolitical challenge.

Obtaining natural resources that allow a nation to function, such as water, food, and oil, requires a necessarily political government strategy. Decisions such as who to pump oil from, where to import food from, and how to maintain a large enough supply of drinkable water require strategies that affect both national security and energy security. For instance, a country in need of oil may have to offer the government of an unfriendly nation monetary compensation for drilling on their soil. Doing so may enable the foreign government to fund weapons R&D and other military expenses, endangering both regional and international security as well as the security of supply. Nations rich in resources have the potential to make demands of other nations, especially when demand is unnaturally high. The worst-case scenario is a nation exchanging nuclear weapons, or an equivalent, for food, water, or oil, and becoming too powerful, leading to all sorts of bad things nobody wants to happen. All of these decisions and strategies are obviously international, political, and economic.

The growing alternative energy market offers similar challenges in the world of energy security and geopolitics. Viable alternative energies are attractive because they eliminate the need for a second party or nation to supply the raw materials. Wind and solar power are globally accessible, meaning that no nation has a monopoly on the resource (this is, of course, not completely true, as some areas are windier or have stronger sun, but in practice the theory holds). The main challenge is incorporating fuels that are more sustainable while not diminishing output capacity. Creating domestic sustainable fuels creates domestic jobs and international demand for the fuel or product, which will increase the security of elected officials.

However, not conforming to energy guidelines set by TGOs makes a country susceptible to economic exile through trade barriers, embargos, and tariffs, resulting in cascading economic and political effects. Similarly, developing nations such as China and India are heavily reliant on coal to fuel their economic industrialization, putting other nations in the uncomfortable position of trying to reduce China and India’s coal usage.

The above examples are only a small sample of the intricacies of the geopolitical energy situation. To sum up, the challenges associated with energy will be the most important in the next century largely because energy fuels modern society, making the nations that allocate and distribute energy immensely powerful.