Transcript Global Integration II

Global Integration II
May 7, 2013
Quiz
Question 1:
The European community had its origins in the attempt
to coordinate policies with regard to what two items?
Question 2:
The participation of which two countries in the original
European community was most important with regard
to security and peace issue?
Quiz
Question 3:
What are transnational actors?
Question 4:
Identify one counterwave in which integration among
nations has decreased
Treaty of Lisbon (2004)
Provided additional constitutional structure to the EU in the
face of the defeat of a proposed EU constitution by
referenda in France and the Netherlands.
Less expansive than the proposed constitution, but made
important changes:
 Legally binding charger of human rights
 High Commissioner on Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
 Greater powers of member nations to veto new members
 Draft legislation from European Parliament made available
to legislatures in member countries
 Mechanism for petitions from individuals
Structure of the European Union
 Because it was originally a technical organization focused
on economic policy coordination (coal and steel), the EU
has a strong tradition of technocratic dominance
(technocrat = bureaucrat with technical rather than
administrative expertise).
 Thus much of its staff look at problems as technical issues
to be resolved (find the right technical solution) rather
than as a political problem (involving the need to follow
political procedures of gathering opinions, engaging in
compromises, being accountable to ordinary citizens).
 Many ordinary citizens, therefore, find the EU to be too
distant, too dismissive of their concerns, inflexible.
European Commission
EU bureaucrats are organized under the European Commission,
which consists of a single member from each EU nation (27).
Each commissioner is proposed by his/her national government
and serves a four year term. However, commissioners are not to
represent their home government or home nation. Rather, they are
to act in the interest of Europe as a whole.
As such, they form a kind of cabinet government for the EU, with
the president of the commission acting as a kind of prime minister.
As a whole must be approved by European Parliament
Duties of EU Commission
 Act as day to day government of EU, individual members
holding a portfolio of policy responsibilities
 Create agenda for the European Council by identifying
problems and proposing solutions.
 Draft and propose legislation, represent EU in trade
negotiations, draw up reguations
 Reports to and implements the policies of the Council of
the European Union
 Before Treaty of Lisbon, only held these powers by
delegation from the European Council; now do so directly
as the result of EU treaties.
European Council
Collective body of the leaders of the 27 member
countries.
Meet twice a year with president of the European
commission and generally oversee the operation of the
EU.
European Parliament
 750 members directly elected by citizens within
member countries
 Has parties, which cut across national lines
 Watchdog duties regarding Commission
 Approve Commission budget
 Some legislative powers
 Shares power with Council of European Union over
migration, employment, health, consumer protection
European Court of Justice
 27 judges (one from each state) appointed by
member government but pledged to be neutral. Law
experts rather than political figures.
 Has jurisdiction over disputes listed in the Treaty of
Rome
 Can hear cases brought by governments or individuals
 Can overturn national laws by finding them in conflict
with EU law
Council of European Union
Changing body of ministers representing member
governments of the EU who get together to approve
EU policy in their realm of responsibility (energy
ministers for energy policy; education ministers for
education policy, etc.)
Generally acts on the basis of consensus; more formally,
major issues must be approved by 55% of the EU
members representing 65% of EU citizens.
Must have its actions approved by the European Council
Technology and Integration
Modern technology has the capacity to spur
internationalization in ways different than the type of
integration exhibited by such organizations as the EU:
 Integration spurred by individual or small group
action rather than states
 Connect people quickly across national lines
 Bypass or resist states
 Most important are radio, television, phones and the
internet
Radio and Television
 Older technologies that have been forces of integration
and of general political importance for more than 90 years.
First had importance in integrating various parts of larger
countries.
 Reproduce a single source of information in many
locations
 Can reach remote areas and can be understood (if
language is correct) by those with little formal education
 While radios least expensive, television particularly
powerful because of its combination of pictures with
speech.
Radio and Television
 States attempt to regulate these media through:
 Licensing and content control (censorship)
 Regulation and allocation of frequencies
 Also must cooperate internationally in regulation of frequencies
 Satellites can be used to sidestep attempts at state control,
though regulation of use of satellite dishes one way of state
interfering. Al Jazeera an important source of news and
information via satellite.
 Older technologies also in use, in terms of the transportation of
portable recorded messages (earlier, dvds, vcr and other tapes).
Internet
Phones important for:
 Two-way communication
 New abilities to record sound and video
 Help make individuals international actors
 Cheap and widely available– 4 billion cell phone users
in 2009
 Available to poor and those not in power, difficult for
states to regulate
Internet
 Way of distributing information even more widely
than through phones, and often used in conjunction
with phones to:





Broadcast audio and video
Mobilize and organize people
Gather and store information
Quick textual messaging
Relatively private
States and New Technology
 While new technologies tend to break down barriers among
states and to give ordinary citizens important tools, states have
always been quick to use it for their own purposes:
 Gather and store information on citizens and opponents–
dissidents, other countries. First satellites, now internet and
other technologies
 Use of shortwave, internet to broadcast information, news and
public relations materials: Voice of America, BBC, Radio Moscow
 Use state owned radio and television networks to sway popular
opinion and mobilize citizens against opponents or to work on a
state project.
Use Against States
Technology allows ordinary citizens and others (NGOs, activists, liberation
movements, terrorists) to work against states in various ways:
 Broadcast information states do not like (embarrassing to government, state
secrets)– ways of holding government accountable
 Obtain information not available in states
 Broadcast criticisms of policies and officials
 Organize., connect and mobilize critics of states (meetings, demonstrations)
 Broadcast and popularize grievances and demands
 Appeal for help, sympathy, legal and military action across state lines
 Subvert state-supported culture by importing and broadcasting outside cultural
materials (literature, music, movies, television and radio programs)
 Use as weapons– trigger bombs, hack computer systems and web sites
Vietnam War, Iraq War, Philippines, Color Revolutions, Arab Spring, PRC, Occupy
Movement, Al Qaeda
Countermeasures by States
 Channeling and filtering of internet (PRC, Iran)
 Regulation of internet sites (PRC, Iran)
 Monitoring of telephone and internet
communications (most developed countries)
 Few or no internet connections (DPRK)
 Use of hackers and deployment of viruses and worms
(PRC, Israel, Iran, US, GB, Russia)
Effects of technology on States
In general, the argument is that the new technologies generally
work against states when it comes to their attempts to protect
their power and sovereignty.
When states use those technologies, it is generally in reaction to
their prior use by opponents and others doing things they do not
like. States in that sense would be better off without the
technologies, or at least with those technologies not in the hands
of ordinary citizens.
 Better able to control information in general
 Able to control national identity
 Deny opponents use of ways of disseminating views, and
connecting and organizing like-minded people.
Effects of Technology on States
There are, however, larger benefits that states derive from
these forms of technology:
 Increases in economic productivity
 Increased transparency
 Threats more likely to be detected
 Free riders and cheaters on agreements more easily detected.
 Information in general tends to drive down transaction costs
in both the economic and security realms, making
cooperation easier and conflict more easily resolvable and
less likely to end in conflict.
Effects of Technology on People
While the argument is that technology, in promoting
integration, tends to empower ordinary people and put
states at a disadvantage (thus weakening states both
internally and on the world stage), there are problems
with these forms of communicative technology for
ordinary people
Inequality
 While cell phone and internet technology is less
expensive than older technology and getting less
expensive, it still has a cost that is beyond the reach
of many poorer people, in that their access to phones
and the internet is sporadic.
 Technology disadvantages those who have less
formal education or are unable to learn as quickly as
others (such as the elderly)
Inequalities
 Technology gives additional advantages to those with greater
access and more capital.
 The internet and satellite tv has allowed the advantages of the
West in producing and distributing cultural materials to
penetrate more global territory, to do so more thoroughly, and
in doing so drive out and reduce support for indigenous cultural
activities, norms and institutions.
 Loss of indigenous languages to languages of dominant
countries (US, Western Europe, China, Russia)
 Greater risk of interference in internal politics and policymaking
by those outside the country– other side of greater transparency
and ability of citizens to force accountability by appealing to the
outside.