http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/double-deficit-development-democracy-enabler-violent-extremism/440808-3426258-12fqf4b/
In this article, an international conference in Turkey was held to inform youth on how they can prevent and counter violent extremism. This can include issues such as terrorism. The conference leaders stated the generalized wisdom that the absence of a democracy and development results in violent extremism within a country. In order for development to occur, peace needs to be established beforehand. For instance. in Africa the number of youth is rising because individuals now have access to life-saving medicine and services. Moreover, Africa is also experiencing a number of threats due to people's radical ideologies and beliefs. They are in dangers. Overall, in 2000 the number of deaths resulting from terrorism between Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria was 3,329. In 2014, that number rose to 32, 685. These violent actions have a huge impact on global peace and has made individuals rethink their solutions to curbing this type of extremism. Previously, it was said that democracies do not fight each other; it was believed that from a democracy comes peace. This article contends that this is a false concept. On the other hand, democracy cannot occur without peace. Therefore, democracies are not countering violent extremism. The act is actually resulting from losers in the elite class taking up arms because they did not get the results they had hoped for. This jeopardizes democracy, peace, and development. Recently, radical groups such as ISIS have surfaced to create as much chaos and violence as possible to get their message across. They are fueled by the technological impacts of globalization, such as being able to spread their ideologies rapidly through the internet. They have a negative impact on individuals; mostly the youth suffer. In order to stop this, democracy is not going to be the solution. Instead one must attempt to understand violent extremism and strategies from this tactic should be implemented.
In class, we discussed the democratic peace theory. In summary, it states that two democracies do not fight each other. For starters, they have similar ideologies and thus have less to disagree on. Moreover, individual leaders rather than a group of radical individuals decide what wars democracies enter based on its probability of winning; there is much thought before diving into violence. Any democracy is considered relatively strong. Although they can enter wars, democracies tend to solve issues in other ways. War is considered a last resort. Conflict settlement is usually attempted beforehand. The article believes that the democratic peace theory is inaccurate in the sense that this type of government can actually create the peace. Conversely, democracies come from this armistice. Thus a somewhat spurious relationship is present. Usually with democracies come peace. However, there is a third variable. This is knowledge on violent extremism and strategies to counter it. When a country is efficiently developed and strong, they will be able to produce such counteractive measures.
What do you guys think about the correlation between peace and democracy?
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Armed Nonstate Actors in a Globalized World
Link: http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2014/06/isis-and-global-rise-non-state-actors
In addition to this link, I am going to be combining ideas from Friedman's "The World is Flat" and ideas regarding how globalization reduces war.
Stéphane Paquin writes that "in today's world, there are states that have no real power and non-state actors that, depending on the issues, wield considerable power" (Paquin 81). In today's world, it is becoming increasingly easy for nonstate actors to gain influence. The link above brings light to the global rise of armed nonstate actors and terrorist groups, in particular, the rise of ISIS. It states, "In geopolitical terms, Isis's challenge to traditional state authority and national divisions is also emblematic of the explosion of terror-driven non-state actors around the globe." The number of armed nonstate actor groups that are operating throughout the world has been on the rise. They do not operate in the way traditional armies operate. This has led to these groups being incredibly harmful and exceptionally dangerous. Armed non-state actors have changed the way we see and combat violence. They are "unbound by the constraints of law and, in many cases, quick to extreme violence to bolster their influence and aims, non-state actors are a growing threat and one of which we should be wary."
Some argue that globalization has been beneficial because it has brought the world closer, more connected, and, in the words of Thomas Friedman, globalization has flattened the world. With this, "what the flattening of the world means is that we are now connecting all the knowledge centers on the planet together into a single globalized network" (Friedman 8). Although Friedman argues that globalization has been a relatively good thing, he is also filled with dread because of the "obvious fact that it's not only the software writers and computer geeks who get empowered to collaborate and work in a flat world. It's also al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks" (Friedman 8). In looking at the link posted above, you can see that this is happening. Many scholars have stated that the growth in technology has had benefits for economic markets; however, the growth of technology has also helped armed nonstate actors gain influence. Terrorist networks utilize the Internet to recruit and spread their message. So, although technology has grown economies, technology has also grown a new form of conflict.
It has also been argued that globalization has reduced the likelihood of states going to war. This has been because of the dependency of states on other states for trade. Trade has helped the world become one place. Countries are less likely to go to war due to the economic implications of it. It is too risky. Particularly for democracies fighting democracies; therefore, war has been less common. Though this may be true, modern conflict has not been defined as war; rather, it is defined more in terms of conflict between states and armed nonstate actors. Due to this, it cannot be argued that globalization has led to peace. Nations have become more peaceful to each other, but this cannot be said for states and armed nonstate actors. Globalization and the spread of technology has increased nonstate actor influence. Looking at this, it can be argued that globalization has not decreased violence and fostered peace. This is one way that globalization has had a negative impact. The playing field created by a flattened world has been "leveled in a way that draws in and superempowers a whole new group of angry, frustrated, and humiliated men and women" (Friedman 8).
In addition to this link, I am going to be combining ideas from Friedman's "The World is Flat" and ideas regarding how globalization reduces war.
Stéphane Paquin writes that "in today's world, there are states that have no real power and non-state actors that, depending on the issues, wield considerable power" (Paquin 81). In today's world, it is becoming increasingly easy for nonstate actors to gain influence. The link above brings light to the global rise of armed nonstate actors and terrorist groups, in particular, the rise of ISIS. It states, "In geopolitical terms, Isis's challenge to traditional state authority and national divisions is also emblematic of the explosion of terror-driven non-state actors around the globe." The number of armed nonstate actor groups that are operating throughout the world has been on the rise. They do not operate in the way traditional armies operate. This has led to these groups being incredibly harmful and exceptionally dangerous. Armed non-state actors have changed the way we see and combat violence. They are "unbound by the constraints of law and, in many cases, quick to extreme violence to bolster their influence and aims, non-state actors are a growing threat and one of which we should be wary."
Some argue that globalization has been beneficial because it has brought the world closer, more connected, and, in the words of Thomas Friedman, globalization has flattened the world. With this, "what the flattening of the world means is that we are now connecting all the knowledge centers on the planet together into a single globalized network" (Friedman 8). Although Friedman argues that globalization has been a relatively good thing, he is also filled with dread because of the "obvious fact that it's not only the software writers and computer geeks who get empowered to collaborate and work in a flat world. It's also al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks" (Friedman 8). In looking at the link posted above, you can see that this is happening. Many scholars have stated that the growth in technology has had benefits for economic markets; however, the growth of technology has also helped armed nonstate actors gain influence. Terrorist networks utilize the Internet to recruit and spread their message. So, although technology has grown economies, technology has also grown a new form of conflict.
It has also been argued that globalization has reduced the likelihood of states going to war. This has been because of the dependency of states on other states for trade. Trade has helped the world become one place. Countries are less likely to go to war due to the economic implications of it. It is too risky. Particularly for democracies fighting democracies; therefore, war has been less common. Though this may be true, modern conflict has not been defined as war; rather, it is defined more in terms of conflict between states and armed nonstate actors. Due to this, it cannot be argued that globalization has led to peace. Nations have become more peaceful to each other, but this cannot be said for states and armed nonstate actors. Globalization and the spread of technology has increased nonstate actor influence. Looking at this, it can be argued that globalization has not decreased violence and fostered peace. This is one way that globalization has had a negative impact. The playing field created by a flattened world has been "leveled in a way that draws in and superempowers a whole new group of angry, frustrated, and humiliated men and women" (Friedman 8).
Monday, October 3, 2016
Too Risk Averse?
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/dodd-frank-at-4-more-regulation-more-regulators-and-a-sluggish-housing-mark/
The 2008 global financial crisis was
fueled by a combination of ignorance and greed. On one side, many citizens
hoped to fulfill the American dream that we all strive to have. That very dream became a reality for thousands
of Americans looking to acquire their first homes. Due to a lack of knowledge of
mortgages and adjustable rates many dreams were snatched away when the rates
hiked to costs that not even the wealthiest Americans could afford. Once derivatives and credit default swaps
made their way into the housing market, massive amounts of bad credit were being
passed around like a hot potato. With no able to pay their own mortgages, many
third parties who were betting on the so called safest securities were left
with large debts they could not afford. Since the collapse of the housing market
and stock market, hundreds of regulations have been passed to assure that
greedy financial predators cannot take advantage of Americans. In fact, the
Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 was enacted to regulate the buildup of risky loan
agreements while creating more transparency within financial institutions. Two years ago several analysts at the American
Action Forum compiled research to see if the policy had been effective thus far.
Overall, there are 398 implementations
incorporated in the Dodd-Frank Act. Right off the bat, the total costs of lending
have skyrocketed by billions of dollars since it was passed. In order to
provide the necessary transparency needed to keep financial institution in
check the Dodd-Frank Act has required banks and creditors to report financial
statements more frequently and more accurately. These regulations have
increased the costs of lending by $6.5 billion in 2014. With the prices of
loans going up many smaller banks have had to eliminate certain consumer incentives
that help them compete with the larger creditors. The number of jobs in the
financial sector have also increased due to these regulations. Firms with more
than 1000 employees have increased by nearly 10.5% since 2010. While the act
may not have been specifically passed to increase the labor force this indirect
effect has been a positive on the economy. Furthermore, the Dodd-Frank Act has
made it tougher for all people to get credit. The strict regulations have
forced lenders to be extremely conservative since the crisis. Since the
implementations, low-income borrowers, young adults, and minorities have all seen
financial products and credit disappear. This makes sense because it was
lending large amounts of money to low-income people and young people with no
ability to repay their debts that put the economy in a tough spot years ago.
However, are the regulations too tight? Firms need to borrow capital to expand or
to stay afloat at during certain times. With creditors scared to take risks,
the Dodd-Frank Act seems to mitigating economic growth. Figure 2 in the article
shows the average recovery times (in months) of types of loans as a percentage
of Gross Domestic Product. All loans are clearly under the forecasted
percentage values and have no indication of fully recovering. Is there a
perfect medium or will the regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act always be too
strict?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)