Archive for the ‘Topics’ Category

11
Dec
YouTube Preview Image

Waya Quiviger, Executive Director of the Master in International Relations, interviews Josep Borrell, former President of the European Parliament, on the role of the European Parliament throughout the crisis, the agenda of the new European Commission, and Europe’s energy challenges. 

10
Dec

On December 4th, the IE School of International Relations welcomed Marcos Troyjo, co-founder and co-director of BRICLab at Columbia University, who discussed with MIR students the coming of Reglobalization and its impact on reemerging markets.

According to Mr. Troyjo, if we were sent 25 years back in time and had to identify four main trends that defined International Relations, he would highlight the following:

Marcos Troyjo 2

  1. The idea that a combination of free markets and representative democracy represents a superior model in History, a sort of natural law to bring about prosperity.
  2. The dramatic shift of the world economic center from the West to the East illustrated by the influential role of Japan and the rise of the so-called Asian Tigers.
  3. The notion that innovation is about the capacity of big corporations to reinvent themselves.
  4. A deep conviction that political, economic and legal integration is the way forward for regional integration and ultimately for establishing a global government.

Read more…

2
Dec

Josep Borrell_26122014 (2)On November 26th, the IE School of International Relations welcomed Josep Borrell, former President of the European Parliament, for an enlightening lecture on the euro crisis and the future of the EU. Mr. Borrell began his talk by recalling the evolution of the European Union:  from its origins to the current crisis it faces, the worst one since its inception.

Historically, there have been four main forces that have driven the European integration process: the “never again” commitment based on the  scarring memory of war; the Soviet threat; the need for German rehabilitation, and the Fall of the Berlin Wall. Today there is only one  seemingly clear-cut driver for European integration, and this is embracing globalization. In the 21st Century, size will matter because Europe’s  economy will no longer be the world’s largest economy and because today Europeans are twice as old as their neighbours. Only by acting  united, Europe will be able to compete in a world of great powers.

 

Read more…

28
Nov

Is the state making a comeback? It can certainly look like it. Old-fashioned interstate conflicts are roiling the China Sea and Russia’s western borders. Inter-governmental meetings such as the last Apec conference and the Group of 20 leading economies in Sydney took on an unwonted urgency. More positively, it is old-fashioned diplomacy that is making the running on issues from Iran’s nuclear programme to global warming.

Yet the dominant view since the early 1990s has been that globalisation meant the transformation of the world through non-state actors. The end of the cold war ushered in an almost Marxist expectation that the state would wither away – overshadowed by free flows of money and goods, undermined by non-state actors of which terrorist groups were only the most obvious. It was an expectation shared right across the political spectrum.

On the left, critics of market globalisation anticipated the rise of people power. Non-governmental organisations would supersede the supposedly worn out institutions of the nation state and create new, more vibrant forms of political activity. Technology would bring better solutions to old problems, bypassing stagnant state institutions.

The neoliberal right hailed the rise of global finance, the dismantling of capital controls and the deregulation of banking, not least because all of these weakened national governments’ capacity to control markets. In manufacturing and services, enormous new powers accrued to corporations able to take advantage of differing tax regimes and wage levels across the world.

Yet these hopes underestimated the sheer staying power – indeed the legitimacy – of the state and its institutions, and the extreme difficulty of creating new ones from scratch. NGOs remain on the sidelines: international organisations are vehicles for clusters and coalitions of national states to act in concert where they can. To that extent they are essentially derivative, reflecting the wishes of their most powerful members. The idea that they could be freed from the clutches of national governments was a pipe dream. Read more…

 

Published in the Financial Times on 26 November by Mark Mazower.

The writer is professor of history at Columbia and author of ‘Governing the World: The History of an Idea’

24
Nov

There’s No Clear Solution in Iran

Written on November 24, 2014 by Waya Quiviger in Energy & Environment, Middle East, Security

<p>Will we get more than a handshake between John Kerry and <span>Mohammad </span>Javad Zarif?</p><br />
 Photographer: Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images

In the anticipatory tumult leading up to Monday’s putative climax of the Iran nuclear talks, it’s become easy to forget that there is no truly satisfactory solution to the problem posed by the Tehran regime’s deep desire to reach the nuclear threshold. (The most likely outcome of the talks, I’m hearing this week, is that there will be an agreement to continue talking.)

There are two main camps in the West focused on the negotiations. The first includes the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, much of the U.S. foreign-policy elite and most European governments. This group believes that a negotiated settlement with Iran will more or less guarantee that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and the ayatollahs who will succeed him (Khamenei is not a young man) will never find themselves within easy reach of the bomb. This pro-negotiation camp believes that a treaty could perpetually keep Iran a year away from going nuclear. The more Utopian of these advocates for a negotiated solution think that a nuclear treaty will also spark a process of liberalization inside Iran. The capitalists among them believe — with greater proof than the Utopians — that a treaty will open a large market that sanctions has put off-limits.

The other, opposing, camp, in essence believes that no deal the Iranians would ever accede to would be good enough. This group includes the Israeli government, most Arab governments (the Arabs, not the Jews, are the traditional rivals of Persian Iran), Iranian dissidents (who loathe the cruel and authoritarian Iranian regime) and much of the U.S. Congress. This camp believes that a deal, should it be reached, will enshrine Iran’s right to a nuclear program in international law — an idea it finds an anathema. It thinks that Iran, once sanctions are lifted, will rebuild its economy and then ignore its nuclear obligations. It believes that the Iranian government is probably already cheating and obfuscating in its effort to go nuclear, and will redouble these efforts once a deal is signed. This group thinks that sanctions, combined with the credible threat of force, are the only means to keep Iran from going nuclear.

Both camps make strong arguments. But evidence suggests that each is wrong to think it possesses the foolproof solution to a nuclear challenge. Read more…

Published by Jeffrey Goldberg on Nov. 21 in http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-21/theres-no-solution-in-iran

We use both our own and third-party cookies to enhance our services and to offer you the content that most suits your preferences by analysing your browsing habits. Your continued use of the site means that you accept these cookies. You may change your settings and obtain more information here. Accept