When International Norms Don't Become Domestic Practice

In their chapter on "The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practice," Risse and Sikkink discuss the role that transnational advocacy networks play in process of norm diffusion in the international sphere. They point out that such networks are able to create a dual pressure, coming "from above" (moral consciousness raising among other states) and "from below" (the legitimization of the claims of domestic opposition group), to induce states to adopt domestic human rights policies that they might otherwise not. [1]

States react to the pressure to change in different ways. There is a spectrum of conforming behavior, from tactical concessions to actual rule-consistent behavior. But of course, there are also states which remain in the initial response phases described by Risse and Sikkink, "repression of network" and "denial." [2] Of course, every state under pressure has its price, it just depends on whether the international community is ready and willing to pay it.

The strength of the pressure applied to non-conforming states varies with the will of other key state actors. This brings us back to the interests versus ideas dichotomy. How much are states willing to sacrifice their interests in the name of ideas?

As an extreme example, let's briefly examine North Korea in this context. This is a state whose government has been exposed to constant moral "shaming," whose economy is shockingly unproductive compared to its southern neighbor, and whose relations with other countries have been stilted at best for decades. In 2013, North Korea's GNI was only $1,200 per capita, while South Korea's GNI was $26,200 per capita. [3] NK has ratified several key human rights treaties, but according to Human Rights Watch, continues with its policy of "systematic denial of basic freedoms in the country." [4]

Awareness has been raised in the international community, which is the pressure "from above" that Risse and Sikkink speak of. What appears to be missing from this equation is the element of pressure "from below," which would involve domestic opposition groups. The repression of free speech in NK is so extreme that there appear to be few, if any, domestic opposition groups to be legitimated. The pressure "from above" would have to be greatly increased to compensate, but that has yet to happen. My best guess is that for other states, it is more in their interest to condemn from a distance than to take action that might have real consequences.

[1] Risse, Thomas and Kathryn Sikkink. "The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms Into Domestic Practice." The Power of Human Rights. p.5.
[2] Ibid, p.22.
[3] "North Korea's Economy: Spring Release."  The Economist. Published 28 Feb. 2015; accessed 6 April 2015. http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21645252-tantalising-signs-change-are-emerging-whether-they-signal-more-profound-shifts-less
[4] "North Korea." Human Rights Watch, World Report 2014. http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/north-korea

The Strange Bedfellows: Chinese and American Foreign Policy in East Asia

Balance of power politics in East Asia is a topic of special interest within the context of the rise and fall of great powers like the United States and China. Marc Beeson’s article, “Hegemonic transition in East Asia? The Dynamics of Chinese and American Power”, offers an interesting perspective on Chinese foreign policy, stating that “it is clear that China is not yet – and possibly may never be – in a position to replace the US as the dominant power in the region.”[1] Several paragraphs later, Beeson concludes that “despite the apparent durability of American leadership, its relationship with East Asia generally and China in particular, suggest that this dominance is declining and may be less substantial than it appears.”[2]

Traditional power politics would suggest a tug-of-war relationship between the U.S. and China, with each state seeking to exert its influence in mutually strategic zones. A cursory analysis of chest-pounding in the South China Sea seems to reflect this idea. Yan Xuetong, President of the Carnegie Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, argues that “China and the United States are vying with each other not only in Southeast Asia but also in many other parts of the world. The global framework is shifting from being unipolar to being bipolar, not multipolar. That change derives from an objective shift in power.”[3] These power dynamics have led some to refer to the competition between the United States and China as “the cool war.”

This leads us to a more important question, specifically: what theoretical framework should be used to characterize great power relations within the context of international institutions, global governance structures, non-governmental organizations, and the evolving “global public sphere”?

One such framework is offered by international relations scholar Joseph S. Nye Jr., in his article “The Future of American Power.” Nye argues that:

“Power today is distributed in a pattern that resembles a complex three-dimensional chess game. On the top chessboard, military power is largely unipolar, and the United States is likely to retain primacy for quite some time. On the middle chessboard, economic power has been multipolar for more than a decade, with the United States, Europe, Japan, and China as the major players and others gaining in importance. The bottom chessboard is the realm of transnational relations. It includes nonstate actors as diverse as bankers who electronically transfer funds, terrorists who traffic weapons, hackers who threaten cybersecurity, and challenges such as pandemics and climate change. On this bottom board, power is widely diffused, and it makes no sense to speak of unipolarity, multipolarity, or hegemony.”[4]

The implications of this view are significant and far reaching:

The economic and social connections between the U.S. and China on secondary and tertiary “power chessboards” prevent an armed conflict, because both countries recognize it would have drastic and far reaching negative consequences. Yan Xuetong concurs, noting that “recent talk of a “new type of great power relationship” between the United States and China is based on implementing control to avoid military conflict.”[5]

The increasingly global nature of security, economics, and politics also forces the U.S. and China to work together on key issues. Bonnie S. Glaser, Senior Advisor for Asia, Center for Strategic and International Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes that: “The United States has an abiding interest in preserving stability in the U.S.-China relationship so that it can continue to secure Beijing's cooperation on an expanding list of regional and global issues and more tightly integrate China into the prevailing international system.”[6] China holds over one trillion dollars in U.S. debt, and the U.S. is the most significant market for Chinese exports, tying their economic fates in a Gordian knot.[7]

This returns us to the topic of the rise and fall of great powers. Within the context discussed above, one might argue that we have abandoned the model of bipolar relations, and that new power relations with linked interests dominate competition in East Asia.  The “Cool War” describes this paradox between competition and cooperation. Noah Feldman writes in Foreign Policy that “a classic struggle for power between two countries is unfolding at the same time that economic cooperation between them is becoming deeper and more fundamental.”[8] The implications of this relationship are numerous and far reaching, and in many cases, still undefined.

---

[1] Beeson, Mark. "Hegemonic transition in East Asia? The dynamics of Chinese and American power." Review of International Studies 35, no. 01 (2009): 95-112.

[2] Ibid., 112

[3] Yan Xuetong and Koichi Furuya, “Conflict Control” is Key to U.S.-China Relations in a Bipolar World”, The Carnegie Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, 14 May 2014 http://carnegietsinghua.org/publications/?fa=55600

[4] Joseph S. Nye, “The Future of American Power”, Foreign Affairs, December 2010

[5] Yan Xuetong and Koichi Furuya, “Conflict Control” is Key to U.S.-China Relations in a Bipolar World”, The Carnegie Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, 14 May 2014 http://carnegietsinghua.org/publications/?fa=55600

[6] Bonnie S. Glaser, “Armed Clash in the South China Sea: Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 14,” The Council on Foreign Relations, April 2012 http://www.cfr.org/world/armed-clash-south-china-sea/p27883

[7] Eswar Prasad, “The U.S.-China Economic Relationship: Shifts and Twists in the Balance of Power,” The Brookings Institute, February 25, 2010 http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/02/25-us-china-debt-prasad

[8] Noah Feldman, “The Unstoppable Force vs. the Immovable Object,” Foreign Policy, May 16, 2013

Anarachy or Sovereignty?

John Ikenberry makes three main arguments in his essay, “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age.”  The first argument is that imperial temptations can be generated by unipolarity, “ but notions of empire do not adequately capture key features of the political order that have grown up around American power” (Ikenberry, 2004).  The second argument made is that “both liberal and imperial logics are at play in the current American unipolar moment” (Ikenberry, 2004), and it is highlighted that these liberal and imperial logics have been rooted in American diplomacy and political culture.  The third main argument that Ikenberry makes is that “despite Washington's imperial temptation, the US is not doomed to abandon rule-based order” (Ikenberry, 2004).

 

 The section of the article that I found most interesting in relation to this course’s overall theme of sovereignty within the international realm was the section titled Anarchy and Hierarchy.  It is highlighted that “neorealists make the elemental distinction between anarchy and hierarchy. Anarchy is order without central authority” (Ikenberry, 2004).  It is then noted that “In a condition of anarchy, states do not stand in any fixed, formal, or hierarchical relation with one another” (Ikenberry, 2004).  To summarize, there is no hierarchy within anarchy.

The reason that I found this statement so interesting is because within the international realm where each state holds sovereignty, there is still an understood level of hierarchy that the public sees and, for the most part, adheres to.  Even though within anarchy, there is not supposed to be levels of power - it is very easy to have common understandings of what sovereign states are more powerful and hold more weight in the international realm.  I am not saying that everyone sees this ranking the same.   I can imagine that citizens of one country may hold the importance of their country higher than citizens of other countries.  But nonetheless, there are certain norms that imply that some countries or continents are power houses in the international realm.  

Is it possible that this hierarchy of power is an example that each sovereign state may not really be as autonomous and  sovereign as some scholars of the international realm assume?    

 

---

Reference: 

John Ikenberry, “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age,” Review of International Studies 30:4 (2004).

Week 13 Lecture Questions

Professor Jackson ended this week’s lecture with several questions about the notion of a global public sphere.  It is a discussion filled with open-ended possibilities, but I will offer my own opinions on a few of the questions. 

1.  Can there actually be a global public sphere if every state does not have democratic accountability?

           

I believe the answer is yes.  A strong enough public movement in one country that is reinforced by the public in other states can be enough to force the governments of individual states that are not democratic to act.  Take Egypt for example.  A popular overthrow of the government would not truly have been possible without the rising public opinion of the Arab spring or without the support of other publics around the world urging their government to support the people’s bid for a change.  With that said, democratic accountability certainly makes the public sphere exerting its will substantially easier.

2. Does the global public sphere have the ability to declare action?

I also believe the answer to this question is yes.  The ability of the public to declare action internationally is something that we see time and again in the form of popular protests.  Take for example the Occupy movement, which we saw spread throughout the world in 2011.  The global public sphere declared their thoughts and beliefs in unison, demonstrating to the world that they had the ability to do so.  The ability to declare action is a far cry from authorizing that action, though, as we’ll get to in the next question.

3. Does the public have the authority to declare action?

I do not believe the global public sphere has the authority to declare action on the international level.  In the end, the actions of states depend on those powerful few that preside over the governments in charge of them.  They are the ones who authorize international action.  Even in democratically elected governments, where citizens authorize the powerful few to govern, they do not ultimately hold the power to force those in command to make certain decisions.  They have the ability to declare that international action be taken, but they do not have the authority to make it happen.

4.  Is there one global public sphere or can there be smaller, regional concentrations?

I believe the two possible answers to these questions are not mutually exclusive, and each could apply depending on the situation you are applying it to.  If, for example, there is an international issue that has effects on the southeastern countries in Asia, would the public sphere not merely be the public of those countries?  Similarly, if there is an issue like poverty that affects every country in the world, the public sphere would be expanded to the entire globe.  I believe it is the scope of the issue at hand that determines the scope of the public sphere.

The Celebrity of Kony

I ended up with Invisible Children for my group project this week, which presented some challenges, since that NGO is just a team of four people now who are completing the final processes of dissolving the organization.  I didn't have a ton of advice to offer them for any future goals.  But it did get me thinking about our interesting debate in class last week about this idea of celebrity pushing political movements.  

I remember when I first started hearing about this whole Kony 2012 "experience."  I concentrated in African politics for my undergraduate degree and it never occurred to me as I started seeing the hoopla on Facebook that all of these posts from middle-aged white American teenagers could possibly be about the LRA.  I would have never guessed that someone putting together one video made by a Western film crew could ever be seen as a legitimate representation of what is a very complicated situation.  I don't want to mince words here, Joseph Kony is obviously a horrible human being, but since when does a half hour video that your friend "liked" count as a way to educate yourself regarding African conflicts surrounded in centuries of history and context that no foreigner could ever grasp.

I'm gonna confess to something: I have never watched Kony 2012.  I thought about it this past week when I was tasked with discussing Invisible Children.  But I couldn't do it.  The celebrity frenzy of this film was truly disgusting to me.  It was entertainment.  People didn't care about this issue or have any ideas of how it could be addressed, they liked tweeting about it and feeling good about how cultured they were.  It was gross - and I am now not just a little bit happy that Invisible Children is shutting its doors.  These civil disputes within African states are incredibly complex and even the ICC is having a very hard time learning how to properly address them.  But I can put much more faith in a respected international judicial organization that I can in a bunch of upper-middle class kids sleeping in a park (still unclear what that accomplished).  I had the pleasure of meeting Paul Kagame and as a state leader and one who had experienced a long civil war first hand, he was humble enough to admit that he could not always provide a clear solution because of the muddled nature of these disputes.  Yet we watched these filmmakers discuss their expertise and their success without one shred of self-awareness.  So as much as I have seen the professional benefits of the celebrity and social buzz campaigns in their ability to raise awareness, the paparazzi-esque campaign of Kony 2012 was a disgrace.  Hopefully other NGOs have learned a lesson from that.

Virtual Recourse

In Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink’s Activists Beyond Borders they argue that advocacy networks build “new links among actors in civil societies, states, and international organizations,” multiplying “the channels of access to the international system.”

This article provides an interesting set of observations on the transformation of the global system to provide individuals with recourse beyond their sovereign states and direct access to the international community. International advocacy networks do this by framing issues to attract attention and encourage action and promoting norm implementation by pressuring target actors.

The process of an actor within an intransigent state using the international community to put pressure on that state is known as the boomerang model, shown in the diagram below:

One of the biggest transformations of this model has been caused by the internet and globalization.

Virtual Boomerang

The role of overseas NGO’s advocating on behalf of human rights victims around the world is increasingly being supplanted by virtual advocacy. Websites like Twitter, Change.org and Avaaz create a digital community of activists who can pressure states and corporations. [1] Rodriguez-Garavito points out that the weakness of internet-based advocacy “is the obverse of its highly disruptive and oportune power, that is, its inability to sustain collaboration over time and transform disruption into lasting influence.”

The danger with digital advocacy is that it trades the expertise and experience from traditional NGOs for the twitting of a mass of uninformed, transiently passionate westerners. Johanna Herman, Research Fellow at the Center on Human Rights in Conflict, outlines the issues that this creates: “millions of people tweeted their support, but for different reasons. There was no easy solution and no obvious next steps in either case for the international community.”[2] (#BringBackOurGirls, #Kony2012). It’s not surprising that these campaigns have been decried as a superficial extension of white guilt or the sham empathy and groupthink.  

This leads to an important question: does the virtual boomerang detract from the effectiveness of traditional advocacy?

Ultimately, I side with Johanna Herman in concluding that: “we should be optimistic that a new space has been created which provides an opportunity for education and a platform for action. For issues to do with international affairs, international justice and human rights that can seem far away, social networking provides the opportunity to make them feel real and closer to home.”[3]

---

[1] Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, “Multiple boomerangs: new models of global human rights advocac ,” OpenDemocracy, 21 January 2015. (Accessed online 28 March 2015 https://www.opendemocracy.net/author/c%C3%A9sar-rodr%C3%ADguezgaravito)

[2] Johanna Herman, “Hashtags and Human Rights: Activism in the Age of Twitter,” Newsweek, 11 December 2014, (Accessed online 28 March 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/hashtags-and-human-rights-activism-age-twitter-290950)

[3] Ibid. 

Celebrity Advocacy and Change

Celebrity advocacy was a contentious topic during this evenings class, especially within the context of contradicting arguments from Emily and Hannah on the issue. Piqued by the prospects of an emotional showdown between Emily, Heribert Dieter, and Rajiv Kumar, I’ve decided to wade into the discussion. 

Celebrity advocacy in the global public sphere of international relations has both positive and negative results. In advocacy success stories, the celebrity is highly committed to the cause and takes the time to understand the complexity of global issues.

Positive Results

Landmines

Princess Diana is one of the most well-known examples of celebrity advocacy in the global sphere, championing a global moratorium on landmines and treatment for AIDS victims.

While many might assume her predominant role was to raise public awareness on these issues, Dan Brockington argues that “much of the work was done behind the scenes with elites... it was her influence on many diplomats who were doing the actual negotiation that was vital.”[1]^,[2]

Other positive examples:[3]

Darfur

Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg successfully pressured China to use its influence to put a UN peace keeping force in Darfur. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/washington/13diplo.html

Africa and Aids

Bono has been a staunch advocate for improving policies to empower Africa. The policies he has advocated for paid dividends: (According to his TED speaker profile) “eight million people are now on life preserving antiretoviral medications, malarial death rates have been halved in eight target countries, 50 million more children are in school and 5.4 million lives have been saved through vaccines.” https://www.ted.com/speakers/bono

Refugees

Angelina Jolie and refugees. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2927947/Angelina-Jolie-visits-Iraq-highlight-dire-needs-refugees.html

Negative Results

There are also numerous negative examples of how celebrity activism has harmed causes or perpetuated negative situations.

Hanoi Jane

Move star Jane Fonda opposed the Vietnam War, and went as far as visiting Hanoi, Vietnam, accusing the U.S. of humanitarian crimes and posing with Vietnamese forces. She told 60 minutes on March 31, 2005 that “"The image of Jane Fonda, Barbarella, Henry Fonda's daughter ... sitting on an enemy aircraft gun was a betrayal ... the largest lapse of judgment that I can even imagine."[4]

Jenny McCarthy

The former playboy playmate turned TV host came out as a staunch opponent of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and other vaccines after her son contracted autism. Despite overwhelmingly scientific evidence demonstrating that the MMR vaccine did not cause measles, McCarthy told Time Magazine in 2010 that “that’s a lie and we’re sick of it,” along with a lot of other insightful and scientific arguments.[5] Her actions have detrimentally impacted global health by discouraging the incidence of vaccination, especially among the affluent and stupid.

Dennis Rodman and North Korea

No explanation necessary.

And now to appease my sociopathic urge to mock hashtags:

#Kony2012

Kony2012 was an early example of viral social movements, and demonstrated how social movements with unprecedented momentum and public opinion often miss the mark: both in terms of educating the public and translating into meaningful achievements. Dr. Beatrice Mpora, director of community health organization Kairos, which dealt with the aftermath of the conflict in Uganda, lamented that “what that video says is totally wrong, and it can cause us more problems than help us.”[6] All this despite star power from Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Rihanna, Kim Kardashian, and Diddy.

#BringBackOurGirls

Michelle Obama was conscientious enough to champion the cause of 276 Nigerian girls who were kidnapped by Boko Haram from boarding school in April 2014, launching the twitter hashtag pictured above. Al Jazeera noted that despite trending on twitter, “the mass abduction that drew global shock, condemnation, and media attention has since been largely forgotten,” leaving the families feeling abandoned.[7]

Criticisms and Conclusions on Celebrity Advocacy

One of the most common criticisms of celebrity advocacy is that it actually decreases public engagement. Examples of this paradox include Kony2012 and Bring Back Our Girls movements, where numerous people jumped on a viral social cause without bothering to understand the situation. After studying the issue, Brockington explains that:

“Celebrity advocacy, which is now so well organized by NGOs, marks, ironically, a disengagement between the public and politics, and particularly between the public and the civil society organizations that try to represent development and humanitarian needs.”

A second significant criticism is that celebrity criticism is just advocacy by elites, for elites. Dan Brockington argues that “celebrity advocacy works with elites, despite its lack of resonance with much of the public, because elites believe it to.”[8]

The caption for the photo above was “U2 frontman Bono walks with President Bush in March after rallying support for relieving Third World debt.”[9] Bono went on to state that “George kind of knocked it out of the park” with his PEPFAR AIDS initiative and other foreign aid to the struggling continent.[10]

Despite these issues, there is little doubt that many celebrities can use their clout to impact the world for good- especially when they are committed to a cause and take the time to understand the complexity of global issues.

---

[1] Brockington, Dan. Celebrity advocacy and international development. Routledge, 2014., p. 8[2] Ibid., 9

[3] Thrall, A. Trevor, Jaime Lollio-Fakhreddine, Jon Berent, Lana Donnelly, Wes Herrin, Zachary Paquette, Rebecca Wenglinski, and Amy Wyatt. "Star power: Celebrity advocacy and the evolution of the public sphere." The international journal of press/politics 13, no. 4 (2008): 362-385. p. 363

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda#Opposition_to_Vietnam_War

[5] Karl Taro Greenfeld, “The Autism Debate: Who's Afraid of Jenny McCarthy?” Time, 25 February 2010

[6] Mike Pflanz, “Joseph Kony 2012: growing outrage in Uganda over film,” The Telegraph, 08 Mar 2012

[7] Ashionye Ogene, “Abandonment of 'Bring Back Our Girls'” Al Jazeera, 14 October 2014

[8] Brockington, Dan. Celebrity advocacy and international development. Routledge, 2014., 8

[9] http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/12/06/tem_bono06.html

[10] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/george-w-bushs-legacy-on-africa-wins-praise-even-from-foes/