CCTP 754

One of my favorite classes this semester is CCTP 754, Networks of International Development.  It’s not the only class I have that’s outside the government department (so is my African Development class), but it is the class furthest outside my area of expertise.  All of the other students are Comm, Culture and Tech (CCT) students so most of the time, we don’t even have the same vocabulary or frames of reference.  I think this serves to make the learning much more obvious and immediate (they might know about network theory, but I’ve actually already read two of the books on the syllabus).

The prof requires that we write a weekly blog post on a topic she’s chosen.  These topics are inspired by the reading or class discussion, but I enjoy them because she gives us sufficient freedom to explore subjects outside the class material (and topics I would likely never think to write of here).  Of the 3 posts I’ve written so far, 2 have been on IR topics (East African Custom Market and R2P) but one was about human evolution.

I’m still settling into my new schedule as a student so blogging more than once a week is probably still beyond my abilities at the moment, altho I hope that changes.  In the meantime, the CCTP blog is hidden behind Blackboard, so I promised a few people I would post my entries.  Here is the first one, with the rest to follow.

Our Generation’s Defining Moment

I’m still working on my post about last week’s Next America project, but in the meantime I wanted to mention a noteworthy question from the panel: that of our generation’s defining moment.

For most of the panelists and attendees, it was 9/11, but someone in the audience replied that his was the war in the Balkans. Mine was the genocide in Rwanda. The hypocrisy, the blood lust, the heroism, the frustration, all deeply affected me.  Truth be told, even more so than health care or ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ or the Balkans or even Somalia, I’ve never forgiven the Clinton administration for that.

More important, I think that is when I first recognized the failure of my parents’ generation in the realm of foreign policy; that they were not going to change the world (or no more so than they had done already), leaving us – my generation – to fill the gaps.  

I mention this because a related comment made by Liz Sullivan was that those moments often define our passions, goals, and top concerns. She asked the panelists what their top concerns were (which I didn’t bother to listen to), but I started thinking about mine. Certainly Africa. But not genocide, not R2P, although I have been thinking about it recently, not even the UN.  Instead, the AU and also regional federalism – governance, capacity, diplomacy.

Are these more than indirectly related to Rwanda? I don’t know. Do they have to be? I don’t think so, but it was an interesting thought experiment.

New Federalism Journal

I will be the first to admit I have a reading problem, and even display the evidence openly. But I just can’t help myself.

A friend of mine discovered and recommends Federal Governance, a new(ish) journal on federalism. In particular, he suggests

• America’s Objections to the International Criminal Court, Volume 1
• The Jurisdictional Basis of the International Criminal Court, Volume 1
• The Internationalization of Public Policy and the Prospects for a Theory of Multi-Level Governance, Volume 2
• Rawls and Cosmopolitanism: Peoples, Persons, and Human Rights, Volume 3

I’m also intrigued by

• Ethno-territorial Protest Movements and the Politics of Accommodation in Centralized and Decentralized Political Systems, Volume 2
• Will e-Governance and e-Democracy Lead to e-Empowerment? Gendering the Cyber State, Volume 4

Hopefully I will find some time in the next few weeks to read through these.

The Law of the Sea

Last week I read Tyler Cowen’s post about an article in the Guardian about the Law of the Sea Treaty which detailed the development that Russia, the US, Norway, Denmark and Canada are going to abide by the 1982 treaty and (they claim), manage the Arctic responsibly.  Cowen, with whom I often agree, isn’t a big fan of the Law of the Sea, but Citizens for Global Solutions, with whom I also often agree, is. 

The Law of the Sea treaty is an odd animal.  On the one hand, it’s opposed by those who dislike government involvement, a change in the status-quo, or anything that might help environmental groups.  On the other hand, it’s opposed by environmental groups, who, like the Guardian article explains, thinks that the Law of the Sea treaty would have the effect of ‘privatizing’ the ocean.  Ironically, with the Law of the Sea, the only ‘private’ option is control by individual governments, as opposed to the UN.

My general thoughts are begin with the point that private control does not automatically = bad.  It’s usually a good thing, given the alternative (tragedy of the commons).  And while I’m not a pure market capitalist (more of an occasional Keynesian), I don’t generally see government control as a good thing, ESPECIALLY with regards to environmental issues.  Governments are terrible at managing environments, in part because the desired stasis requires surprising dynamism to maintain (I’d cite a study I used in a research paper for American University, but it’s on my other hard drive.  Maybe someday). 

Admittedly, counter to most private property solutions, the controlling governments have a disincentive to preserve the current environment (also, more here on Aguanomics).  In addition to the mineral resources, creating a Northern Sea Route could potentially save billions of dollars, as distances between the western United States and Europe are trimmed by several thousand miles.

I’m not utilitarian enough to think that saving shipping is necessarily a good trade off for the polar ice caps melting.  And I think polar bears are lovely creatures, although I would definitely never want to meet one.  So while I still agree with CGS’ political reasons for supporting the Law of the Sea (basically the same reason’s Cowen opposes it), I’m now very confused on the environmental aspects of the treaty.  It is at this point that I am very glad I read all of the blogs that I do, because I emailed David Zetland of Aguanomics fame, and over the weekend, he put together an answer for me. 

The best thing I can say about the Treaty is that it awards property rights to countries. From this baseline, they can destroy, exploit or protect according to their national whims, which is better than a free-for-all.

*******

What if this treaty had not been signed? Then we would have something close to the current disaster of the “bluewater” oceans, where fish stocks are over-exploited (and crashing) and pollution is out of control.

In other words, things are still a mess, and the Law of the Sea isn’t perfect, but it is a step towards cleaning it up.  I guess we have to begin some place.

Thanks David!