Defying norms: Botswana’s success amid an abundance of diamonds

In the debate over the roles of scarcity and abundance as contributors to political instability and civil strife, two differing narratives emerge involving the views of the Neo-Malthusians and the neoclassical economists. The former, Neo-Malthusians, see the lack of natural resources as the main problem whereas the latter, neoclassical economists, see problems arising from an abundance of resources. The landlocked South African nation of Botswana, with its representative democratic republic, has thus far seemed to buck the trend of having civil strife in the wake of possessing an immense quantity of non-renewable diamonds, and therefore, I believe that this case requires a closer examination into how it achieved its successes. I believe that the success of Botswana in managing, and flourishing from its abundance of diamonds, provides evidence that specific factors, like political institutions, play an equally as important role in determining prospects for conflict.

 In relation to abundances of resources, neoclassical economists tend to further argue that resource abundance tends to lend to the “honeypot” effect where resource abundance causes individual factions within the state to try to seize control of the limited resource, thus causing conflict, but this idea did not hold true in Botswana. In the fifty years since the discovery of diamonds in the region, Botswana was able to take the abundance of this resource and transform it into immense social and capital gains for the state, while still managing to avoid copious amounts of statewide corruption that typically follows with such a rare resource. Specifically, Botswana has been able to rapidly expand its economy by “harnessing around 3 billion a year in diamond sales” to take its place as the world’s top diamond producer (Reuters). To understand the sheer volume of revenue Botswana is capable of producing, it is necessary to understand that in 2013 alone, the nation was estimated to produce over $1.6 billion worth of diamonds (Kitco).

It is worth mentioning that although this production revenue doesn't translate to the exact amount of money the nation receives, it does go to show that this developing nation has proved its capability of managing such a vast, valuable, and rare resource in an organized and beneficial manner, and I believe that this has a lot to do with the stability of the government. Arguably, weaker governments and governments suffering from significant internal corruption would have a harder time than Botswana in sustaining such a valuable resource because they wouldn't have the infrastructure to ensure that the resources are distributed in ways that would promote nationwide economic growth. Further, governmental stability and strength, compared to other African nations with similar natural resources, has allowed the government of Botswana to avoid total exploitation from outside corporations by continuing to maintain around 50% ownership of the diamond mining venture with the infamous DeBeers cartel (NY Times). From the vast amount of revenue, the government has been able to provide significant improvements to its education system and has allowed the nation to maintain a fairly steady stream of revenue and economic growth, while relying primarily on this non-renewable resource (Reuters).

While economic growth or stability is not always guaranteed with the often volatile state of international markets and non-renewable, luxury items like diamonds, it is necessary to further explore how the role of the institutions in Botswana helped facilitate success in the face of this abundance, and bypass immense governmental corruption. According to 2013 projections from Transparency.org, Botswana has continued to hold its place as the “least corrupt” African nation, and I believe that this speaks volumes as to how they've been able to avoid conflict and not succumb to the fates of similar African countries. Within states that partake in the democratic process, transparency becomes increasingly important because political leaders are held personally accountable for their actions, and must justify their actions to their public. Botswana’s government, arguably, avoided immense corruption because of the ability of democratic transparency to act as a deterrent for poor, corrupt behavior. If the government acted in a way that blatantly exploited the resources for individual power and wealth, leaders would have to deal with backlash from the public, particularly during times of election or re-election. Also, the relative stability of its representative democracy, without interruptions to its electoral processes, upheaval from the public, or the influence of corrupt leaders, helped to ensure that Botswana’s government could focus its efforts towards strengthening the nation’s infrastructure and continuing economic growth, rather than dealing with bouts of nationwide unrest or other instances of local instability.

Although there aren't many cases of countries like Botswana that have been able to flourish amid an abundance of a non-renewable, natural resource, it is important to acknowledge the successes of this nation, and the role of political institutions in allowing this nation to avoid the conflict that we typically see with other African nations. The example of Botswana, and the success and stability it has had in the wake of diamond abundance, shows that it is absolutely necessary to devote ample attention to the role of political institutions when analyzing prospects for conflict and instability. 

Sources:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/us-botswana-economy-analysis-idUKKBN0IG1GW20141028

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Zimnisky/2013-08-20-Ranking-Of-The-World-s-Diamond-Mines-By-Estimated-2013-Production.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/business/worldbusiness/09nocera.html?ref=business&_r=0

http://www.transparency.org/country/#BWA

Image:
http://www.newsdzezimbabwe.co.uk/2013/04/botswana-miner-snubs-zimbabwe.html

Institutions and Resources in Conflict

Institutions and Resources in Conflict

            We have discussed a number of theories over the past few weeks that make claims about the relationship between resources and conflict, but few sufficiently account for the role of institutions. The honeypot argument claims that abundance of resources leads to conflict and the scarcity argument asserts that scarcity of resources leads to conflict. Though there is evidence for each of these, domestic factors and the effectiveness of institutions is not controlled for, making the supposed causal relationship questionable (Theisen 814). I side with Theisen on this matter and believe that domestic institutions and the strength of a state are much more relevant predictors of conflict than are the abundance or scarcity of a resource. I noted in discussion on Wednesday that many people found the argument of Theisen the most convincing. However, when backing their opinions, almost everyone specified that strong democratic institutions were the key to effective resource control and avoidance of conflict. This emphasis on democracy from the class struck me as interesting and I found myself recalling information about "benevolent authoritarianism" from a previous course I took, GVPT282: Politics of the Developing World. I agree with Theisen that institutional stability itself is very important in environmental conflict, but I believe that the type of institution, democratic or not, is not of as much importance as my fellow classmates seemed to believe.

            We seem to have been conditioned throughout our political science courses to believe that democratic institutions such as the ones we have in the U.S. are the most effective institutions regardless of the circumstances. However, there are often overlooked benefits of a "benevolent authoritarianism" in which a government is more authoritarian than democratic yet still implements policies that benefit the population. These benefits include the ability to implement big projects and make efficient decisions without opposition (GVPT282 notes). We can use Singapore as a case study to see how effective institutions, though undemocratic, can produce positive effects for society, lessen conflict, and improve the status of the environment. Freedom House classifies Singapore as "partly free" for various reasons. The People’s Action Party (PAP) dominates the political process, the media, and the courts. Domestic media is owned by organizations linked to the government and public assemblies are controlled by the police (Freedom House). Despite these undemocratic practices of Singapore, it is ranked 4 out of 178 on the Environmental Performance Index, which ranks how states perform on high-priority environmental issues (EPI). Singapore is ranked 1st on the index in the categories of health impacts, water and sanitation, water resources, and agriculture. An example of a policy implemented by the Singaporean government is the 20% discount given by the National Park Board for certain wedding venues if couples can prove that they have taken a minimum of 8 environmentally-friendly procedures for their wedding (CNN). The United States is ranked by Freedom House as "free" with the best possible ratings in all three of the categories including freedom rating, civil liberties, and political rights (Freedom House). Though the United States has strong democratic institutions, it is ranked 33 out of 178 on the EPI. The ratings of both the U.S. and Singapore are relatively high, suggesting that the strong institutions in both states contribute to success in the environmental realm. However, the data does seem to suggest that it is the policies and actions of the institutions that matter, not the level of democracy.

            Though the scarcity and honeypot theories are backed by certain cases, the missing link is the role of institutions. Institutions can intervene before conflict due to competition or greed begins in a state. Conflict over resources is not tied solely to the resource, but to other domestic factors such as whether states have the institutions and infrastructure to effectively control and distribute the resource. Further, strong institutions whether democratic, anocratic, or authoritarian, can be effective in regulating resources. Comparing the environmental success in Singapore with that of the United States proves that the type of the regimes and institutions does not have as much weight as the policies themselves in solving environmental issues and preventing conflict.

Sources:

GVPT282 Notes

http://epi.yale.edu/

https://freedomhouse.org/

http://travel.cnn.com/singapore/none/12-reasons-why-singapore-greenest-city-914640

Corporations are the Culprit in Exploiting Honeypots

          An unfortunate consequence of a region possessing an abundance of a natural resource, refered to as a “honeypot,” is militaristic conflict. This conflict results from the opportunity that the honeypot creates for parties to capture its resources. Often, even though honeypots for nonrenewable resources exist in certain areas of the world, the resources are still scarce on a global scale, which makes their demand high for powerful, external parties. Critics of the honeypot theory have largely concentrated on conflict over resources between governments when dismissing the idea that abundance of a resource leads to conflict. They have explained that there has been a long peace globally between nations, and that when nations do go to war it is usually for social reasons, with the securance of natural resources being merely a supporting factor in the decision if it even is one at all. I do not oppose these critics’ stance on government involvement in conflict involving natural resources; however, their overview on the issue of abundance is incomplete. These critics have not addressed the real culprit in proliferating conflicts in regions with honeypots—corporations. Evidence of corporations’ role in heightening local conflict over resources is apparent in Chevron’s, the fourth largest petroleum supplier in the world, exploitation in Burma and Thailand, regions rich in natural gas and petroleum.

            Although I agree with the critics that governments are not the source of conflict over resources, the United States’ attitude towards corporations is problematic and related to the underlying issue of resource conflict. Throughout the past two centuries, the political and corporate realms have become increasingly intertwined. On a national level, corporations have gained prominent political influence through amplified lobbying efforts and campaign spending. According to a report released in 2009 by The True Cost of Chevron Network, Chevron has been among the all time largest corporate contributors to federal elections since 1990. In the recent election, Chevron spent over $3 million endorsing local candidates in Richmond, California, where their refinery exploded in 1999 and again 2012 (Think Progress). This type of campaign support and the overall strong influence of corporations in government have been supported legally. The United States’ doctrine of Corporate Personhood, which establishes that corporations have the same rights as individuals in the eyes of the law, has been upheld by numerous Supreme Court cases. These protections established for corporations by law relate to the disparity in the level of influence governments and corporations have over international resources. Unlike government officials who are elected, bound by their position’s legal restrictions, and responsible for maintaining the nation’s reputation, corporations are held to a low standard internationally. When conducting business internationally, American corporations, like Chevron, are required to only abide by the laws in the nations where they are operating. The issue with this requirement is that the countries where American corporations are extracting resources from are often lawless, with corrupt governments or nonexistent ones, which leaves American corporations without restrictions. Without legal bindings, these corporations are free to harm the environment and exploit local peoples in order to achieve their profit from the region’s honeypot.

Even without the influence of corporations, nations with an abundance of a nonrenewable resource are already in vulnerable situations. Michael Ross (2003) asserts the developing nations that have honeypots suffer from a “resource curse” as their resource abundance inhibits their economic and political development.  In Green Planet Blues (2010), Colin Kahl agrees with Ross as he identifies specific issues that regions that retain honeypots suffer from, all related to political instability. He explains that abundant resources create incentives for rebel groups to capture them, escalate the amount of labor and capital focused on solely the natural resource economic sector, and increase the likelihood of those nations developing corrupt, authoritarian governments.

This resource curse has been illustrated in Burma and Thailand, regions rich in natural gas and oil. Demonstrating the effects of the resource curse, these countries have been vulnerable, developing states throughout the past few decades as their governments have been overturned by military coups, which also control most of the region’s natural resources. A prevailing rebellion in the early 1990s left the Burmese military, which has a violent and dictatorial reputation, in control of Burma, resulting in local conflict. However, the severity of this conflict was greatly exaggerated by the involvement of corporations. According to the True Cost of Chevron Network report, even with the knowledge of the Burmese military’s human rights abuses and dominance in Burma, Chevron signed a contract with them to help them in developing offshore natural gas fields in Thailand. Under the instruction of Chevron, the Burmese military continued to exploit forced laborers, rape women, compulsorily relocate villages, and silence local protesters through murder. Chevron supervised these extreme human rights abuses all in the name of securing profit from natural resources, which greatly exaggerated the preexisting conflict.

Unbeknown from its name, the honeypot isn’t always a gift—it’s a danger. An abundance of natural resources accelerates local conflict and leaves developing nations vulnerable to corporate exploitation. Greedy corporations are the greatest perpetrators in enlarging conflict in developing nations over resources. We need to put an end to the conflict and abuses that stem from the desire to obtain natural resources. To end exploitation by corporations, they must be held accountable for their abuses of power in the same degree that governments hold one another responsible. To end local conflict and secure the safety of the local peoples, honeypots must be regulated, perhaps by an international body. Honeypots should not be a curse, but they are currently the source of conflict. Action is needed to put an end to regional conflict over resources.

Sources:

http://truecostofchevron.com/2009-alternative-annual-report.pdf

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/05/3589294/chevron-lost-richmond-elections/

            

What is Lost in Conservation Efforts?

            From the time westernized children are young, we are indoctrinated to believe in saving the whales, the rhinos, and the rainforests. We are cultivated in a social environment which targets specific niches of environmentalism and latches on, professing the necessity of ecological activism and conservation. And while these convictions which developed states stem from a moral concern for the well-being of the planet earth and its inhabitants, the infiltration of conservationist efforts in developing states often leads to unforeseen repercussions. Loss of political sovereignty, cultural norms, and the possibility of state use of force against citizens are all lurking consequences to the involvement of conservation regimes in developing areas. While in no way do I propose that the exploitation of resources is a viable or sustainable option, it is undeniable that the externalities of conservationist efforts need to be planned and accounted for in order to prevent unnecessary environmental, social, and political harm.

            In her analysis of the repercussions of conservation efforts in the “Third World,” Nancy Lee Peluso introduces the idea that these precautionary measures often lead to, “external intervention in what were previously the sole affairs of the states.” (Peluso 1993). The common response to this insinuation is that developing states lack the knowledge and understanding of how to manage and protect the valuable resources within their boundaries, and that international conservation involvement is the only method through which the resource is safeguarded. Even with this in mind, I think it is worth considering the political implications of this involvement. Rather than leaving the resource management to the native persons of a given state, these international organizations come in with sanctions, laws, and regulatory policies which dictate the actions and use of the resource by the entire state. Such measures assume that the moral and environmental predispositions of the Western order – usually the backing force of these conservation efforts – are “right,” while the environmental tactics of those inhabiting the land are dowdy and ineffective. This loss of sovereignty in the jurisdiction of a state over a resource raises red flags in terms of social customs and governmental action.

            While conservationist coalitions such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), seek to protect the biodiversity of a given region, their actions often have unintended consequences. A pivotal example of this is found in the case study of the Maasai, an indigenous group to Kenya whose primary way of life had previously been to coexist with the wild game of Kenya. Their land access was effectively quartered off by the state government due to pressures from international environmentalist regimes, their lifestyle habits entirely altered, and primary form of economic gain (hunting) thwarted due to protectionist policies implemented by the government. Such instances in which the sociocultural norms of an indigenous group of people to a state are cast aside in an effort to maintain biodiversity have lasting effects; civil unrest in states and a general sense of discontent from the locals could result in conflict between the public and the government. While the importance of the conservation of a given resource for the sake of biodiversity protection certainly has merit, are international groups willing to prioritize this over the social well-being of the citizens of a state?  

            As social scientists and politicians continue to analyze the externalities of conservation policies and regime involvement in resource-dense developing countries of the world, it is becoming clear that this is a question which demands to be answered. As is the case in Kenya, there is a pattern of developing state leaders to use the conservation of resources as justification to use militarized force against civilians. Rangers in these states are legally permitted to kill poachers without any trial, questioning, or formal due process. This blatant violation of human rights in exchange for ecological protection is an issue which needs to be addressed, and which further questions the sanctity of conservation regime involvement in developing states.

            As someone who has been socialized to appreciate the biodiversity around the world, I would argue that preventative measures are necessary in order to ensure the continuance of species for future generations. This being said, the policies created by international conservation regimes must account for the sovereignty of states, the rights of the people who depend on the resource, and the protection of citizens from abuse of power in the name of conservation efforts. Rather than a collective group of individuals from western states constructing policies for these developing states, I would offer that it might be beneficial to involve citizens from communities within the states when drafting policies, to get a realistic understanding of how the regulations will influence the state itself. By accounting for externalities of conservation efforts before they are implemented, the successful protection of pivotal resources can be accomplished without threatening the rights of developing states and the citizens.  

Say Yes to Labeling: Let the Consumers Decide on GMOs

As if we needed another reason to love Chipotle, we just got another! Chipotle Mexican Grill has recently become one of the first major corporations to support Proposition 105 in Colorado. Being voted on in a few weeks, Propositon 105 “would require manufacturers, retailers and suppliers to label raw and packaged foods produced entirely or partially by genetic engineering” (ABC7, 2014). However, Chipotle’s support for this bill comes with no surprise. “With more than 1,700 restaurants worldwide, Chipotle is one of the bigger and more recognized brands to already voluntarily label GMO ingredients in its food” (ABC7, 2014).

            The high level of public support for Proposition 105 and labeling has stemmed from the great controversy raised in some areas regarding genetically modified (GM) food. A recent article published by Livestrong expressed the concerns that the safety of GM foods is uncertain, that chemical contamination is possible, and that environmental ramifications might occur (Kannal, 2014). The article explained that there is “no long-term data on how genetically modified foods affect human health,” that “the [GM] food you eat may contain traces of these toxic chemicals,” and that the spread of GM crops may make it harder to control noxious plants while decreasing biodiversity (Kannal, 2014).

            However, Chipotle’s support for labeling and the resistance against GM foods has not been universally shared. “The United States has invested heavily [into GM crops] to ensure global leadership in integrating biotechnology into agriculture” (Stone, 2010). The United States’ support for GM crops is due to the fact that these crops “bring new mechanisms to prevent seed replanting and for agricultural capital to benefit from public investment—particularly government-supported academic research” (Stone, 2010). In other words, GM crops serve to benefit the self-interest of the United States, so the United States has pledged its support.

            In addition to the praise raised by the government for GM crops, many corporations have also illustrated their support. Corporate support for GM crops has resulted in “industry-favored framings” that “naturaliz[e] GM crops” to make them seem as though they are as part of the long history of plant manipulation (Stone, 2010). This manipulative framing “is standard in histories of biotechnology from corporate media departments, showing a natural progression from grain domestication to genetic modification” (Stone, 2010). Typically, this narrative is also coupled with a “specter of famine,” depicting starving people, that can be resolved with the usage of GM crops (Stone, 2010).

Proponents of GM crops often illustrate the image of the technologies alleviating the hunger of starving people in developing nations; however, this image is misguided. It is true that the limited access to food in developing nations is a major international concern. In Africa, “high rates of population growth and little application of improved production technology during the past three decades have resulted in declining per capita food production, escalating food deficits, deteriorating nutritional levels among the rural poor, and devastating environmental degradation” (Borlaug, 2007). However, nearly the entire world’s “GM acres are planted to crops developed for industrial farming” (Stone, 2010). Even in developing nations GM acres largely consist of “cotton and soy,” and golden rice still has yet to make an appearance (Stone, 2010). Rather than serving its advertised purpose of improving the quantity of food production, GM crops have thus far been utilized primarily to benefit corporate interest.

Even with the knowledge of all the potential consequences of genetic modification, some individuals may still decide to consume GM foods, and that is their decision to make. However, without labeling of GM foods, opponents of genetic modifications cannot make the same decision. GM labeling is about providing consumers with the right to make informed decisions about what they are eating. A label is not a prohibition—it is a warning. Consumers should have the right to know about the truth about the food they are purchasing. Labeling provides consumers with that right, and is the first step towards easing the uncertainty on GMOs.

ABC7. (2014, October 14). Chipotle backs Colorado GMO label proposal; CEO: Prop 105

opponents put profits ahead of consumers.

Borlaug, Norman. 2007. “Feeding a Hungry World,” Science 318: 359.

Kannal, E. (2014, February 4). Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food. Livestrong.

Stone, D. G. (2010). The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops. The Annual Review of

Anthropology, 39, 381-400.

Ignorance as a Hindrance to Environmental Protection

Photo credit: Martin Sensmeier 

Awareness of environmental issues has continued to rise over the past several decades, as well as awareness of the human impact on the current state of the Earth and our environment. Naturally, with this heightened awareness, comes a more vested interest in protecting and conserving resources due to their endangered state, accessibility for future generations, or because of inhumane practices of capturing these resources. Though efforts at conservation and preservation can be rooted in honest intentions, complications arise when there are disconnects between the West and its goals of conservation, and native populations and their cultural practices.

This disconnect is especially evident with the rise of movements and efforts to end the hunting of a specific animal. This post will focus briefly on Western efforts to end Canadian Inuit seal hunting, in order to show that this disconnect, fueled by ignorance and a lack of understanding, must be addressed if conservation and preservation efforts hope to evolve and become less intrusive in the future. In order to help bridge this disconnect between conservationists and indigenous peoples, conservationists must seek to educate themselves about the cultural and lifestyle practices of these populations before seeking to impose bans and restrictions have the potential completely disrupt their way of life.

The above image is from the Instagram site of model, actor, and Native activist Martin Sensmeier in response to anti-seal hunting efforts led by famous talk-show-host Ellen DeGeneres and the Human Society of the United States in the spring of 2014. During this time, DeGeneres vocalized her opinion that “seal hunting is one of the most atrocious and inhumane acts against animals allowed by any government”, immediately outraging members of the Inuit community. This initiated the posting of hundreds of online protest pictures with the hashtag “SEALfie”, like the one pictured above, by Inuit people and supporters expressing their disgust with DeGeneres’ ignorance about seal hunting and a lack of understanding of the importance of seals to their entire way of life. These vivid and passionate postings help to convey the often strong disconnect between individuals in the West and native and indigenous peoples across the globe in regards to cultural practices and conservation efforts.

Though it is not explicitly stated that the attempted banning of seal hunting was intended specifically for preservation or conservation efforts, the intended banning of resource hunting by the West against natives in other countries clearly parallels some of the actions and responses of the Maasai people of Kenya during the onslaught of external pressures from Western conservationist groups and big game hunters during the 1960’s. In “Coercing Conservation”, Nancy Peluso details the clashes between the local resource users, the Maasai, and the government, over the conservation of animals commonly hunted in the area. In this case, the “colonial government” gave into external pressures from big game hunters and Western conservation groups to set aside land specifically for wild game (GPB, p. 329). As Peluso goes onto describe, in doing this, the government also wanted to settle the Maasai people into fixed locations, which effectively would have brought an end to their traditional methods of migratory cattle raising (GPB, p. 329).

The forced conservation efforts upon local environments that Peluso describes occurred around the 1950s, but it is clear that this pattern has continued over fifty years later, as demonstrated by the attempted banning of seal hunting. In both instances, the seemingly beneficial efforts at conserving and limiting the hunting of particular animals would have required the local populations to drastically alter their practices, and ultimately, their way of life. As Martin Sensmeier pointed out in the case of the Inuit people, seal meat has been used for thousands of years and is a traditional staple to the Inuit because of their ability to use it for food, clothing, shelter, and even transportation. When local people feel the pressure of external forces who do not understand, or seek to understand their way of life, they can choose to respond to these pressures in ways that they believe will send a strong message. In the case of the Maasai, they chose to physically lash out at the reserve authorities by killing the rhino’s and elephant’s that the conservationists sought to protect. Conversely, the Inuit people and their supporters chose to take advantage of current technology and the power of the social media to vocalize their grievances and opinions to a worldwide audience.

Arguably, whether there is physical resistance or verbal resistance sparked by social media, individuals want their voices to be heard, and their opinions and livelihoods to be taken into account when the government or outside conservation groups seek to enforce conservation measures on their native land. Because it doesn't appear as though true efforts have been made to understand the cultures and lifestyle practices of native people before seeking to implement conservation action, conservation efforts have taken a slightly negative turn. If conservation efforts hope to improve in the future, those seeking to conserve must actively choose to integrate indigenous and native peoples into the conversation, rather than seeking outright bans on resources critical to their survival.

In order to help remedy this disconnect in culture and lifestyle, I believe that conservation efforts must seek to talk less and listen more. Now, it would seem as though efforts mainly focus on informing indigenous people of the lack of humanity in their practices and the detrimental effects of these actions on the environment. An equal amount of effort must be placed into creating a dialog with populations in or near the areas of conservation, in order to help conservationists better understand the actions and world view of these groups. This can help provide them with a better understanding of why they hunt and act the way that they do, and arguably, this can help them create more appropriate and practical conservation efforts that do not totally infringe upon the ancient cultural practices and survival techniques of these societies.

Sources:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/11/inuit-sealfie-campaign.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03/28/sealfies-ellen-degeneres-seal-hunt_n_5046394.html 

http://www.ellentv.com/2011/04/06/stop-seal-hunting-in-canada-now/

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/mar/28/inuit-seal-sealfies-selfie-degeneres-oscars

Effects of Western Dominance

            Throughout the semester, there has been a recurring theme in the course readings: the way in which Western actions impact and influence issues in the Global South. There have been interesting perspectives involving Western influence on the topics of colonialism, the resource curse, and conservation. The efforts of the U.S. and Western powers that attempt to help states in the Global South with poverty and development issues are widely known. International organizations and non-governmental organizations act to enhance situations in developing states in various ways from giving loans to tangibly providing relief. With this in mind, we often do not stop to think about the ways in which actions of the wealthy Western world dominate the decisions made regarding environmental issues and development outcomes. The way that the international system is structured allows for Western states to control many aspects of states in the Global South.

            The roots of this Western dominance can be traced back to colonialism. Colonies were used for production of raw materials or places for cheap labor and were never given the chance to use the resources in an effective way that would allow them to develop markets that could compete with the markets of powerful Western states. Mitchell's take on the resource curse also emphasizes the exploitative structure that the West has created within the international environmental context. He asserts that without oil and industrialization, Western states would not be where they are today. He places blame for the problems that come with resource wealth not on state governments but on the Western producers and consumers that create the demand for them. He concludes that developing states are simply not given the opportunity to diversify their economies and create new industries because they are heavily dependent on revenue from resources. The reading by Tamara Giles-Vernick about the Mpiemu people of the Sangha River basin of the Central African Republic also brings Western influence on developing states to attention. It talks about the way that the views of the people were influenced by colonizers, missionaries, and others that they came into contact with. The Mpiemu people exploited rubber and game for the economic benefits such as exchange and consumer goods that Western states provided.

            These are only a few examples of situations in which developed Western powers exert influence and control over outcomes of states in the Global South. Formal institutions within the international system also contribute to this unequal structure. For example, the United States is the country that always appoints the president of the World Bank. In addition, vote shares of the World Bank are based on how much money a country contributes. This inevitably leads to policies that favor Western interests because the wealthy countries of the Western world are able to contribute more to the World Bank and therefore have much higher voting power. The organization of the UN Security Council is also structured in a way that favors the West. There are 15 members of the Security Council, all of whom have veto power. Five of the 15 members are permanent members. The permanent members consist of the states with the largest economies, states with nuclear weapons, and the states that won World War II. This gives more decision-making power to the world's wealthiest and most powerful states, which can be problematic considering that member states always have their own domestic political interests as well. The structure of the international system clearly favors Western interests and allows for Western domination of environmental, political, and economic aspects of developing states.

            The course readings thus far have sparked my interest in this issue and I think it is important to keep it in mind when discussing global environmental politics, especially in modern times. It seems unfair to me to expect that developing states adhere to a set of restrictions or requirements in the name of environmental protection or conservation when it is undeniable that the West is highly responsible for the problems to begin with. Additionally, the standards for industries regarding emissions and other environmental problems are much higher now than they were when the United States and other current powers were beginning to industrialize. If industrialization is necessary for the economies of underdeveloped states to grow, it does not seem right for the West to have such a large influence, not only because of colonialism and dependency but also through formal international institutions. These are very controversial issues which must be further discussed in order to come up with an effective solution.

Sources:

Giles-Vernick, Tamara. Cutting the Vines of the Past: Environmental Histories of the Central African Rain Forest. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2003), pp. 160-162.

Mitchell, Timothy. "Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil."Verso, 2011.