We have known for some time that the process of economic globalization has benefited many in what we now call the emerging countries. Indeed, China’s success in reducing absolute poverty levels is due to the process and is one of the most stunning economic transformations in human history. New studies, however, indicate the globalization, while beneficial to poorer countries, clearly benefit rich countries more. The inequality between rich and poor countries has actually increased dramatically as globalization has taken hold. The disparity may lead many to think about alternatives ways of managing the process of globalization.
Peter Beinart has written a fascinating article for The Atlantic that draws parallels between the foreign policy of Vladimir Putin and American conservatives, usually referred to as neo-conservatives. There is a great deal of power in his analysis, but the underlying theme of the article (not openly stated by Beinart) is that both Putin and the neo-conservatives are classic realists. There is nothing unusual about realists behaving in similar ways–indeed, realism would expect their behaviors to match fairly closely. But, if true, then let’s dispense with all the flowery rhetoric about self-determination (Putin) and international law (Obama and the West): it’s simply old-fashioned great power politics.
We tend to think about border disputes as somewhat episodic–we only care about them when conflict seems likely, and therefore we relegate them to the back-burner. Consequently, we are surprised when the disputes emerge. There are, however, very few states in the system that don’t have border disputes. According to the CIA Factbook, there are only 71 countries that do not have border disputes, and of that number, 49 are island countries. Plenty of potential for conflict–something is always simmering. (I won’t ask any questions on the quiz about the linked information in this specific note).
World Politics News 
Leave a comment