Political Science Final Exam

Our textbook this semester says that globalization is the process of increasing integration of the world in terms of economics, politics, communications, social relations, and culture. It also says that globalization increasingly undermines traditional state sovereignty. This is due to the high demand and production of international goods.

Martin Wolfe suggests that globalization is fragile because the global market economy is dependent upon the support of the states which are inherently territorial. Wolfe also points out that threats to globalization are economic instability and protectionist interests. While it is clear that the fate of the international economy is highly dependent upon globalization, trade with America in particular is essential. For this reason, America has to correct its current projectory or the international economy will crash. Inflation is currently so high that the U.S. dollar is about to become extinct in a matter of years. Since the U.S. dollar is the world’s leading currency exchange that other economies are built upon, the consequences of the U.S. going bankrupt would be catastrophic. Therefore, I firmly believe that American protectionist ideas are our only way of digging ourselves out of debt. Once we have eliminated debt and our economy is thriving, not just surviving, the rest of the world will be able to reap the rewards of a healthy American economy.

The World is Spiky, observed that economic progress actually requires the cities and regions that drive the world economy to grow stronger and taller, which will magnify the large divide between the rich and the poor. This class has taught me that there needs to be an immediate group effort by the world's leading powers to pull Africa out of it's disparity. Otherwise, we risk losing all of our progress towards democratic peace.

Speaking of democratic peace, the article, Justice Lost: The Failure of International Human Rights Law to Matter Where Needed Most was an interesting study on Human Rights. Basically, international laws on human rights have not had any real affect on the countries that need the most help. In general, some rights are more agreed upon than others. For instance, slavery and torture are universally looked down upon but there are human rights outlined by the United Nations that are more relative and subject to each cultures opinions. Paid holidays, marriage, and enjoying the arts are all relative human rights.

Multinational Corporations (MNC's) contribute a lot to global conditions. According to our textbook, 10 percent of MNCs generate 80 percent of all global profits. The Tragedy of the Commons is a scary thing when we take into consideration MNCs.

As explained in the textbook, ethnic conflict has arisen in central and western Africa, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. Basically, war causes people to be displaced and migrate. Rejection of the ethnicity of the migrant can often occur due to the human instinct to group ourselves into an us versus them mentality. Between nationalism and culture shock, ethnic conflict seems inevitable. Nationalism itself is a problem when it leads to persecution and it is hard to avoid an us versus them mentality when you take pride in your nation. Nationalism is naturally competitive. If you do not feel that your nation is better than others then you are more likely to move elsewhere. This just starts the cycle I just explained all over again.

Religion is actually the only solution that I see to international conflict. Religious freedom in particular is the most important solution to all conflict. We know that when Christ comes again, every knee will bow and confess that He is The Savior. However, it does not say that everyone will convert to "Mormonism". Neither did it say that the city that ascended to heaven was full of people that never disagreed with each other. The key concepts of Christianity are forgiveness when mistakes are made and tolerance of differences. A pure democracy has similar goals.

 None of the theories can predict human autonomy as I learned from the Tragedy of the Commons game, and as shown in international relations theorists inability to predict the end of the Cold War. However, in the broad theory of international relations, I find the constructivist perspective to be the most convincing in explaining world events. The constructivist point of view is a good mixture of realism and liberalism. It acknowledges the identities of actors that lead them to seek power and act selfishly like realists believe. But then goes deeper and acknowledges that our identities stem from norms and practices of individuals and groups.

A realist would never be able to explain why the Titanic's lifeboats were mainly filled with physically weaker women and children. Feminists would argue that women were clearly the better choice for the lifeboats because we provide a unique perspective to international relations that has been missing for most of human history. Constructivists, however, argue that divergent thinking among state identities is highly important to international relations.

International relations are currently involved in a trade war that can be explained through constructivist's belief that states have never had exclusive control over territory. This seems to coincide with Martin Wolfe's idea that globalization is fragile because states are territorial. Furthermore, a constructivist believes that labeling and treating Iran as an enemy led it to pursue policies that coincided with that reality.

One of the most important constructivist theories is that power rests in the ability to persuade when deliberating or arguing with others. If this were not true then America would not spend so much money on pro-democracy organizations and Jesus would have fought with a sword instead of his voice. So much is possible when we adhere to constructivism.