Joseph Kony, People Power, and the Inverted Pyramid

Indicted war criminal Joseph Kony is the subject of the viral video "Kony 2012," part of an effort to bring him to justice.

The Kony 2012 video has created enormous buzz on the internet over the past week–first as the video went viral, then as a heated debate ensued about the accuracy, effectiveness, and transparency of the Kony 2012 campaign and its creator, the NGO Invisible Children. Even in Uganda, among the victims of Kony’s LRA, the video has provoked harsh criticism.

Like the Arab Spring (which was driven in part by social media technology like Facebook and Twitter), the Kony 2012 phenomenon relies on this new technology to bypass traditional modes of communication, mobilize large numbers of people, and (the organizers hope) put pressure on very powerful people in top government positions to change their policies.  In fact, the Kony 2012 video claims that in this “new world” of social media and individual empowerment the traditional power pyramid (with a small group of wealthy, powerful elites on top) is becoming inverted.  That is, the masses are finally becoming empowered and claiming their place at the top of the power structure, with the growing ability to bend the elites to their will.  The Kony 2012 creators suggest in the film that these techniques led to President Obama’s decision last October to send 100 U.S. troops to Uganda in pursuit of Kony and his henchmen. 

This empowerment of the individual and the ability to bypass or influence traditional power structures such as state governments, big media outlets, and big corporations is viewed by many political scientists as an important outgrowth of globalization.  But these elite structures are not going quietly, and in places like Syria, Iran, and Egypt, the backlash has been fierce.

What do you think?  Are the creators of the Kony 2012 campaign correct that the power pyramid is becoming inverted, or does a small group of elites really still hold the reins?  If you have watched the Kony 2012 video, do you think the filmmakers’ proposed strategy to capture Kony is going to work, or is it naive?  If the critics are correct that the film stretches the truth and seriously oversimplifies the issues, does this make the effort any less worthwhile?  Is shading the truth justified in the pursuit of a righteous cause?

PIPA, SOPA, and Internet Freedom in a Globalized World

Visitors to Wikipedia on January 18, 2012 found the site temporary blacked out to protest PIPA and SOPA.

If you’ve tried to access Wikipedia today, you’ve noticed the site is blacked out. Visitors are not allowed to access Wikipedia’s vast collection of user-produced encyclopedia entries, but are instead taken to a jarring black screen that says the following:

“Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge. For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia.” There is a link to “learn more” and a prompt to contact your member of Congress about the legislation.  Google, Reddit, Amazon, and other prominent internet-based companies have also blocked certain features on their sites or placed black “censorship banners” over content in order to protest the legislation.

At issue are two bills working their way through the U.S. Congress: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA).  As the names imply, they are primarily designed to stop foreign web sites from illegally distributing copyrighted material, such as movies, TV shows, and songs.  Opponents of these steps (whose arguments are summarized here) contend that the legislation gives the U.S. government sweeping powers to censor the internet using tools heretofore employed only by oppressive autocratic regimes.

This controversy reveals the complex tradeoffs between intellectual property rights, freedom of expression, and government power in today’s increasingly globalized world.  Many political scientists have drawn attention to the growing challenges that states face in controlling transnational flows of ideas, goods, diseases, people, and information in a world characterized by greater interdependence and instantaneous communications.  When websites located overseas–beyond the reach of domestic law enforcement instruments–can threaten Americans’ intellectual property rights and by some estimates cost American workers hundreds of thousands of jobs, the U.S. government finds itself in a relatively weak position and must resort to unprecedented steps such as PIPA and SOPA to reassert some authority over the “Wild West” of the 21st-century internet.

What do you think?  Are PIPA and SOPA reasonable steps to attack piracy, or do they unduly threaten the internet freedom of law abiding citizens?  Is there any way for states in the 21st century to control content on the internet without becoming the “Big Brother” that civil libertarians have longed feared?

Internet Freedom in China: The Perils of “Glasnost”

People using the internet at a coffee shop in Beijing.

An article in yesterday’s New York Times reports that China’s government, after a period of liberalization in popular culture, has decided to clamp down on media and internet freedoms once again, imposing “some of the most restrictive measures in years.”  These new restrictions target 34 major satellite television stations (whose entertainment programming and use of audience voting must be curtailed) and the Twitter-like “microblogs” that have become increasingly popular over the past two years.  Sources inside the private companies that manage the microblogs are quoted as saying that “party officials are pressing for increasingly strict and swift censorship of unapproved opinions.”

These microblogs have emerged as a powerful medium for “whistle-blowing” to keep Communist party bureaucrats honest:  “Microbloggers, some of whom have attracted millions of followers, have been exposing scandals and official malfeasance, including an attempted cover-up of a recent high-speed rail accident, with astonishing speed and popularity.”     Despite the social benefits of such activity, the Communist Party clearly recognizes that giving Chinese citizens the freedom to criticize the government and potentially organize opposition movements could threaten their continued rule.

All of this is highly reminiscent of Mikhail Gorbachev’s flirtation with Glasnost (“openness”) during the 1980s in the former Soviet Union.  Gorbachev never intended to destroy Communism; rather, his goal was to strengthen and reinvigorate what had become a stagnant and corrupt system, holding bureaucrats’ feet to the fire by allowing the public to criticize inefficiencies and malfeasance.  However, once the Soviet people had a taste of (limited) freedom, the floodgates opened and their demands could no longer be denied.

Can China escape the fate of the Soviet Union?  (The USSR collapsed in 1991, not long after Gorbachev sought to open up the Soviet system).  Will China’s booming economy–in stark contrast to the USSR’s economic stagnation–allow its leaders to maintain power and contain unrest?  (China’s GDP growth has slowed somewhat, but it still remains over 9%, a very robust figure).  In other words, can economic rewards compensate for a lack of political freedom, and for how long?  Or in an era of rapid globalization, social networking, and the Arab Spring, is any regime’s efforts at centralized control and censorship of ideas doomed to failure?

A Coming Trade War With China?

The U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would retaliate against China for manipulating its currency to the detriment of U.S. jobs.

The United States runs a $273 billion annual trade deficit with China, meaning it imports much more than it exports to the rising Asian power.  The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently estimated that this U.S.-China trade deficit cost the U.S. 2.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2010, with all 50 U.S. states affected by job losses in the manufacturing and services sectors.  As EPI notes, “increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in the United States, and increases in imports tend to lead to job loss.  Thus, a growing trade deficit signifies growing job loss.”

American leaders have increasingly blamed this trade deficit on China’s unwillingness to “play fair” when it comes to trade by keeping its currency’s value artificially low relative to the dollar.  While a weak currency doesn’t sound like a good thing, it makes a country’s exports cheaper abroad and it makes other countries’ imports more expensive at home.  This means goods and services produced in China are more competitive both in China and abroad, which creates jobs and economic growth in China and harms competing countries’ economic prospects.

In retaliation for China’s currency manipulation, the United States Congress is now considering legislation that would impose tariffs (essentially a tax) on Chinese imports.  China has claimed that such action would violate the rules of the World Trade Organization, which focuses on lowering trade barriers worldwide, but Congressional supporters of the legislation dispute that.  Proponents claim these steps could ultimately create up to 2 million American jobs.  The Senate is in favor of the bill but House leaders have blasted it as “dangerous” and President Obama appears unenthusiastic but noncommittal.  For its part, China has warned that such action could lead to a trade war, which would not be good for America’s economy.  In  New York Times editorial last week noted economist Paul Krugman downplayed the risks of a trade war:

“And the reality of the unemployment disaster is also my answer to those who warn that getting tough with China might unleash a trade war or damage world commercial diplomacy. Those are real risks, although I think they’re exaggerated. But they need to be set against the fact — not the mere possibility — that high unemployment is inflicting tremendous cumulative damage as we speak.”

What do you think?  Should the United States get tough on China for its currency manipulation?  Why is President Obama hesitant to join his fellow Democrats in supporting this legislation?  What will be the economic and political consequences if the U.S. imposes tariffs on Chinese imports?

Targeted Killings and Super-empowered Individuals

Radical cleric and U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki, seen here in a video posted on radical websites, was killed by a U.S. drone strike on Friday.

The killing of U.S. citizen and radical Muslim cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki by a CIA drone strike in Yemen on Friday has rekindled a debate about the legality, morality, and practical wisdom of targeted killings as a method of fighting terrorism.  For an overview of the major arguments on both sides, see this Council on Foreign Relations debate and these pro and con articles from the National Review.  As the National Review debate makes clear, concerns about targeted killings cross the political spectrum.  Although many of the opponents of targeted killings are on the political left, conservative Kevin Williamson takes issue with the policy in his article  “Assassin-in-Chief”:

“It is impossible to imagine that the United States would accept that the King of Sweden or the Grand Duke of Luxembourg has the legitimate right to conduct assassinations in the United States on the theory that we might be harboring enemies who wish them ill; to say the words is to appreciate their inherent preposterousness. But our own president is empowered to target our own citizens, wherever they may be found, without even so much as congressional oversight.”

Beyond these important debates on the legality, ethics, and effectiveness of targeted killings, it is worth noting that the growing attractiveness and prevalence of such tactics in the 21st century may be an indirect consequence of globalization and the rise of what Thomas Friedman has called ”super-empowered individuals.”  Globalization has decentralized power, eroded the authority of states, and empowered non-state actors (including individuals) through the availability of technologies including email, the internet, and even potentially weapons of mass destruction.  In the prologue to his book Longitudes and Attitudes Friedman says:

“Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in the late 1990s. After he organized the bombing of two American embassies in Africa, the U.S. Air Force retaliated with a cruise missile attack on his bases in Afghanistan as though he were another nation-state. Think about that: on one day in 1998, the United States fired 75 cruise missiles at bin Laden. The United States fired 75 cruise missiles, at $1 million apiece, at a person! That was the first battle in history between a superpower and a super-empowered angry man. September 11 was just the second such battle.”

As with bin Laden, Anwar Al-Awlaki exploited modern information technology to communicate with, coordinate, and inspire followers worldwide.  Both of these super-empowered individuals provoked the wrath of a superpower and were recently killed by that state’s military efforts.

Are these recent targeted killings a glimpse of the future of warfare in an age of globalization?  Can they be justified in under international and U.S. law?  What are the broader implications, both positive and negative, of the rise of super-empowered individuals?

Economic Globalization Meets Shaky Economies: Fasten Your Seatbelts

Traders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday, when the Dow plunged more than 500 points.

Dramatic developments over the last few days have once again highlighted the interconnectedness of the world’s economies and the ease with which economic problems in one corner of the globe can quickly spread to others. Globalization refers to the integration of markets, cultures, and information networks and it has accelerated in recent decades with advances in communication technologies and increased global trade.

As reviewed in this timeline from BBC news, the 2007-2008 global financial crisis began with the sub-prime mortgage collapse in the United States, but economic turmoil quickly spread to Europe and beyond as banks that had invested in mortgage-backed securities suffered serious losses.  Similarly, the debt problems of Greece, Ireland, and Portugal since 2009 led to a decline in the value of the euro and have thrown the entire 17-country eurozone into crisis.

On Thursday stocks plunged on Wall Street; the Dow fell over 500 points in the biggest single day loss since 2008. Interestingly, most analysts attributed the selloff not primarily to concerns about the American economy, but to fears about the solvency of Italy and Spain–the third and fourth largest eurozone economies behind Germany and France.  The threat of a “contagion” effect is highlighted in this explainer from CNN:

“…Anxieties over Italy’s economic future have led many to wonder what its default might mean for Europe and beyond, with the dreaded word ‘contagion’ on many lips. [Former IMF executive board member Domenico] Lombardi believes the current situation is serious. ‘If you affect Italy, you can really weaken the euro significantly,’ he says, describing it as the ‘weakest link’ among Europe’s big economies.  Worse, he says, the European Union, the IMF and the European rescue fund do not have enough money to bail it out as they did smaller European economies — sparking a potential domino effect. So far the crisis has been limited to Greece, Ireland and Portugal, he said.  ‘But of course if the crisis was to hit Italy, it would spread also to France, to the rest of the euro area, and of course you would have contagion to the U.S. through the banking system.’ The huge public debt held by the United States also would make it more vulnerable to speculators, he added.”

How Standard and Poor’s decision (announced late Friday) to downgrade the U.S. credit rating will affect the global economy is the subject of great speculation this weekend. Officials from the G-7 and G-20 groups of major economies are holding conference calls this weekend to plan for further turmoil in the financial markets.

Is there anything individual countries can do, in a globalized world, to limit the damage they may suffer from a possible global contagion, or are they and their citizens at the mercy of the world economy?  Could protectionist trade practices and other tools of economic nationalism safeguard the U.S. or would this only make problems worse?

Globalization and the Japanese Crisis

Japanese disaster workers search for survivors.

The devastation wrought on Japan by the recent earthquake and tsunami is now being compounded by the threat of a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear reactors. The humanitarian impact is overwhelming—by some estimates, as many as 10,000 people have likely already perished, and some half a million have been rendered homeless. The Japanese government is struggling to get the situation under control, and international humanitarian assistance is being mobilized in support.

The crisis in Japan also serves to illustrate the extent to which the world is increasingly globalized. According to a post at the Financial Times’ Brussels Blog, the European Union is screening Japanese food imports for radiation. While Japanese food exports to Europe are not particularly large—amounting to an estimated 64.8 million euros in 2010—European regulators assert they are acting out of precaution to prevent food contaminated by radioactivity from entering European markets.

Then there’s this post by Amy Lee at the Huffington Post. According to Lee, we should expect severe disruptions in global supply chains, particularly for consumer electronics, as a result of the Japanese crisis. Lee notes that Japan is responsible for 14 percent of global production in computers and other consumer electronics. Further, Japan is responsible for the production of approximately 60 percent of the silicon wafers used in the production of the semiconductor chips in nearly every electronic device. Widespread damage to production facilities have already forced many leading producers, including Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, and Texas Instruments. Damage to Japanese infrastructure may affect exports even after the plants are brought back online.

The use of global commodity chains, in which complex products like automobiles or computers are assembled from components produced around the world, has created a system of global production that may be more efficient, but is also more susceptible to disruption. Compounding this, Japan’s perfection of the just-in-time manufacturing method, which reduces costs by keeping inventories low, means that there is little slack in the system. According to Lee, the global consumer electronics supply chain has about two week’s worth of excess stock that will offset disruptions caused by the Japanese crisis. After that, it could take six months for the supply chain to reintegrate. Until then, we can expect to see price increases and shortages for many consumer electronics.

Belgium the Most Globalized Country

Despite the linguistic divide that appears to be fracturing the country, Belgium was named the “most globlaized country” in the 2010 KOF Index of Globalization. The annual survey attempts to measure political, economic, and social globalization around the world using a host of sub-indices. Rounding out the top 10 are:

1. Belgium
2. Austia
3. The Neterhlands
4. Switzerland
5. Sweden
6. Denamark
7. Canada
8. Portugal
9. Finalnd
10. Hungary

Overall, 20 of the 25 (and 31 of the 50) most globalized countries are in Europe. (Anyone sensing a pro-Europe bias here?) the United States comes in at 27th; China comes in at 63rd.

Still, the report makes for some interesting discussion points.

McDonalds and De-Globalization

The only three McDonald’s restaurants in Iceland became the latest victims of the global economic crisis. According to an AP report, all three restaurants will close next week due to rising costs. The three franchise operations are required, according to their franchise agreement, to purchase and import all of their supplies from Germany. But the financial meltdown in Iceland—and the dramatic decline in the value of the krona, Iceland’s currency—combined with high tariffs on imports have led to a spike in operating costs for the restaurants. Indeed, according to the restaurants’ managing director, Magnus Odmudsson, operating costs have doubled over the past year, making it impossible for the restaurants to remain competitive.

According to the Big Mac index, Iceland already has the third most expensive Big Mac in the world, retailing for 650 krona ($5.29), falling behind Norway ($5.79) and Switzerland ($5.60). To meet the higher operating costs, Odmudsson said prices would have to increase to 780 krona ($6.36), a level which would make the restaurants uncompetitive.

The decision to close operations in Iceland represents a reversal of McDonald’s trend of increasing international operations. McDonalds currently operates in 119 countries on six continents. But the expansion has been controversial. In France, McDonald’s has been the target of protestors who claim that the chain restaurant undermines French cuisine, while in India, it faced lawsuits for allegedly using beef fat in the production of French fries. And earlier it was forced to trim operations in countries like Bolivia, where operations were not profitable.

The current global downturn presents new challenges for McDonald’s and other multinational corporations. Currency instability, a rise in protectionism, and an increasing preference for locally produced goods. This shift hardly represents a dramatic shift away from the process of globalization that has defined the global political economy since the end of World War II. But it does present, in a clear way, the challenges transnational operations face in an increasingly interconnected global economy.

Stemming the Tide of Globalization

Every now and then, an event comes along which exemplifies perfectly a concept in international politics.  Last week the city of Lucca, Italy, enacted a ban on non-Italian restaurants operating in the city center.  According to a widely circulated report, the new ban was intended to “protect” local specialties from the rising popularity of “different” (read: foreign) cuisines. The measure also bans fast food restaurants and hopes to reduce littering within the city’s ancient walls, a magnet for tourists.  According to city spokesperson Massimo Di Grazia, “By ethnic cuisine we mean a different cuisine…That means no new kebabs, Thai or Lebanese restaurants.”  It certainly means no McDonald’s or Pizza Huts as well.

A chorus of critics immediately raised concerns of “culinary racism.”  And the city did itself no favors when Di Grazia attempted to clarify the ban, stating that while it was unclear how “different” a restaurant would have to be to fall under the terms of the ban, a hypothetical French restaurant would be allowed to open but restaurants using “Middle Eastern ingredients” probably would not.

As a phenomenon, globalization is nothing new.  Marco Polo’s journey to China was but an early step in the process of increasing economic and cultural interconnections between countries and regions.  Ironically, Italian cuisine itself is the product of globalization.  Prior to the Columbian exchange in the early 1500s, there were no tomatoes in Italy.  It may be hard to imagine Italian food without tomato sauce, but prior to the 16th century, tomatoes were not part of the Italian diet.

Nevertheless, the increasing intensity of globalization today often sparks sharp responses.  Recall the purchase of American brewer Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian brewer In-Bev, which led to proposals to boycott Budweiser and “drink American.”  Political scientist Benjamin Barber analyzed the effects of globalization and cultural resistance in his seminal article “Jihad vs. McWorld,” which has increasingly become a must-read article for those interested in the topic.  Barber noted that responses to globalization often involve a strong affirmation of local identity-based politics, sometimes leading to increasing tensions.  In this sense, Lucca’s ban on foreign foods represents just another attempt to stem the tide of globalization.