Globalization in Light of Developing Nations

There is a common belief among some diverse communities that God created earth in seven days. On the other hand, there is one uniform belief among scientists that earth was created by big-bang theory. The primary intention of the theory is to deny the very existence of God as a creator. Consequently, the very simplest form of existence of humanity on planet earth has created two distinct schools of thoughts. There are those who have blind faith in God and follow their scriptures wholeheartedly while there are others who have their own way of understanding about creation of earth, and use science to justify their rationality against faithful. The above conflicting of ideas can be incorporated at any given moment of human history or unfolding current events. Today's current event is about force of globalization which has its root in humankind history. It goes back to seventeenth century, when European nations initiated Peace of Westphalia and developed system of international relations among themselves, and establishing secular states. Religion no longer was a key ingredient in decision-making process of a state. The religious establishments transformed their identities as political rulers to a social gathering; such as, Sunday worship, wedding or funeral matters. Religion was no longer an instrumental element to shape politics. This window of opportunity opened a new prospective for Hugo Grotius to think about international relations among European nations, and became optimistic about future of humanity. He believed in good nature of humanity minus evil characteristic of humanity. He assumed human were forming key components of states. Thereby, it would be conclusive that nature of states would be good and wanted to build a mutual relationship with other nations for their own self-interest. It appeared that Dark Age of Europe was coming to a final end. Hugo Grotius did not share same value as political philosopher Thomas Hobbs, who deemed nature of a state to be corrupt and barbaric, and human life to be short lived due to violence, and was entangled in spider web of ongoing brute force of aggressor. Indeed, today's world is divided between Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbs vision of humanity, and nature of a state. Today, there are scholars who are cherishing Hugo Grotius optimistic view of building consensual international relations among nations, and avoiding war which can be reinforced by wide spread of Multinational Corporations around the world, as well as, sub-regional entities like European Nations would be prime example how Europe nations were leading the world and rest of the world were lagging behind Europe. However, there was another dark side in today's humanity and failure of proper international relations among Africa nations, as well as, Middle Eastern nations. They were lamenting Thomas Hobbs vision of harsh reality of humanity. These precious lives are short lived by a sudden and unexpected violence at hands of their rulers who are puppets of the West. Once, the Western nations relinquished their support for these tyrant rulers. These victims do not accept their current living conditions and are forming their own militia groups to save their lives from daily degradation of their rulers. Once, these Iron Fist tyrants are removed as head of states, it creates a power vacuum. Now, it is blessing moment for corrupt men to fill the vacuum, and exploit every moment for their own advantage and place others in disadvantage position. Once again, a nation paid high price for democratization of its political apparatus; it failed to become a democratic nation, and falls into category of oligarchy state. The aim of this paper is to examining international relation theories and key players of global governance have deep impact in this global village, exploring the US foreign policy of 'Regime Change' in Iran back in 1979 unleashed rein of terror to rest of the world, and discussing how formation of 'Transnational Civil-Society' having impact on the theocratic regime in Iran.

This portion of the paper is examining international relation theories and key players of global governance have deep impact in this global village. The world that is populated today is not same as the one economist John Hobson experienced in 1902. Hobson asserted how European nations exploited weaker nations due to economic reason as business leaders had surplus, and it was not generating profit. These business leaders in field of finance, investors, shippers, and exporters persuaded political leaders to expand geographically to exploit labors, as well as, raw materials. In this moment, European nations began to expand themselves on map. Even, Belgium took part in exploiting African nations, and acquired Congo. The United States used corporate to exploit unskilled workers in developing nations, and exploiting raw materials in developing nations like in South America. Eventually, the Western nations decided to divide lands arbitrary, which is the reason to see straight line on map. As a result, tribes that had nothing in common with other tribes and may had long history of conflict with each other. Now they were forced to live in one nation. It would be impossible to create a stable central state. It caused a nation always remain at state of conflict and never see a light of peace. In addition, Immanuel Wallerstein (1974-1979) claimed since sixteenth century a 'World System' has been developing and interwoven nations to each other on premise of economic and political ties. Wallerstein divided nations in four groups. Group one were 'Core Nations' that they were first capitalist like Britain, France, Holland and Germany. Group two were 'Semi-Periphery' nations around the Mediterranean, and their economies would depend cumbersome to trade with core nations. Group three were 'Periphery Nations', these were eastern European nations that they were selling cash crops to core nations. Last group was 'External Area' nations that they were left out of capitalist economic system in Africa and Asia. According to Wallerstein capitalist economy system was on pursue of expansion and resulted in capitalist world economy. The 'Dependency Theory' would support Wallerstein claim that developing nations were not able to become developed nations due to lack of industrialization and constantly being subject to exploitation by core nations. John Kenneth Galbraith (1979) a social economist would argue developing nations were en-routed to 'Culture of Poverty' since there was little room for risk, and remained in notion of tried-and-true. If there was an error, it would lead to their demise. Plus, religion reinforced concept of fatalism. The combination of above circumstances made the developing nations remain as developing nations. On other side of the spectrum, there was Japan which had fatalism and after World War Two, Japan lost its colonies. However, today Japan is a success story which beat all the odds. Thus, dependency theory cannot be deeming as a final light to illuminate darkness of the developing nations. It would provide partial explanation for misfortune of developing nations.

Looking at a glass half full from window of Hugo Grotius that states were rational and law-abiding. Grotius could see light at end of the tunnel that Europe would live in peace and harmony. In addition, Immanuel Kant asserted democracy and peace were essential ingredients for European nations to co-exist with another and not to pose themselves to danger of war. In early twentieth century, Woodrow Wilson stamped hallmark of idealism that human nature was good, and social progress was possible. Moreover, Wilson was pioneer of 'League of Nations' to lead the world in peace. Ironically, World War Two, Holocaust, and the Cold War occurred and defeat purpose of League of Nations. The concept of idealism transformed in liberalism which is focused on spread of universal value; such as, peace, welfare and justice which can be done by allowing formation of 'Global Governance' to flourish itself. The Global Governance is composed of individuals and institutions to interact with one another to manage their common affairs. There are key player in the Global Governance system; such as, States, Intergovernmental Organization (IGO), Nongovernmental Organization (NGO), Experts, Multinational Corporations (MNC) which are governed by international laws and rules. The IGO, NGO, and MNC would undermine sovereignty of a nation by making decision for a nation base on legitimacy issue. The above entities were not elected by people and did not have consent of people to act on their behalf. The above entities would provide expertise and knowledge in a certain areas. In most cases, it can be claimed that those areas of expertise would benefit them and may not be beneficial for others. In case of Multinational Corporations that they set-up plants in developing nations, and exploited workers in developing nations. The MNC would avoid labor laws, and would pay extremely low wages to workers and would sell their products at high price in the West. The MNC would not require following any kind of rules, as long as, it would satisfy the host country that it was creating job and reducing unemployment rate in that country. The host country would protect the MNC. One more time, the West is able to hold on developing nations and not allowing them to make progress.

There was theory of functionalism which would be similar to liberalism. Functionalism explains that governance would be natural to emerge since there was basic element of needs between state and people. Jean Monnet “father of Europe” believed nationalism would become less relevant in Europe and making war against one another would become unthinkable. The above thought would explain why the European Union exists. This theory had many fallacies in area of economic and national security. Still, nations are interested on their own economic well being. In area of national security, nations would not share information with one another. It is true that there is Interpol which is acting as a global police. Still, Interpol requires information from local law enforcers to act on behalf of that local authority.

This portion of the paper is exploring the US foreign policy of regime change in Iran back in 1979 unleashed rein of terror to rest of the world. The US may claim that it would like to export its democratic values to other nations. It was 1978 when former democrat US president Jimmy Carter besmirched King of Kings Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for violation of Human Rights. The King in his book “Answer to History” stated that He allowed International Red Cross to come to Iran to investigate Human Rights violation. The International Red Cross came to Iran and investigated plight of political prisoners in Iran, and made some recommendations with regard to conditions of prisoners. His Majesty followed those recommendations to improve quality of prisoners. However, Carter was not satisfy with the outcome, and pressed hard on Human Rights issue. In addition, these political prisoners were terrorists that they engaged in bank robberies, assassination of foreign dignitaries. They were by no means peaceful. In Guadeloupe summit, France, Britain, and the US came to a mutual agreement to topple the King/Shah, and replace Him with Khomeini. The BBC provided platform for Khomeini to foment a revolution in Iran, and the US Medias bashed the King at every opportune moment for false charges which did not have merit. In January 1979 the King decided to live Iran to stop the bloodshed. As His Majesty was living Iran, He said Iran will become a cemetery. In February of 1979 Khomeini returned to Iran after 15 years of living in exile, and when a reported asked him in plane how do you feel coming back to Iran after 15 years? Khomeini said nothing. He had no feeling for coming back to Iran after 15 years of exile. He was puppet of the US. According to author Mike Evans “Jimmy Carter the Liberal Left and World Chaos” Carter spent $150 million for Khomeini in order to topple the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran. From the time, the King left Iran, Russia invaded Afghanistan, and continuous unrest in the Middle East. The Western nations are living in fear of terrorism. Perhaps, the US is so keen about Human Rights and democracy as Benjamin R. Barber stated in “Jihad vs McWorld” the US should “Fed Ex the Bill of Rights to Sir Lanka”. Why should the US stop at Sir Lanka, the US should make an immediate demand from certain nations to implement this Bill of Rights in their constitutions and if they fail to do so, there would be a serious consequences by night fall as NATO airforce and infantry would delivery them the Bill of Rights and would hand over their countries to fanatic Muslims which happened in Libya and Egypt.

This portion of the paper is discussing how formation of 'Transnational Civil-Society' having impact on the theocratic regime in Ian's domestic affair. The Transnational Civil-Society means that all organization and associations exist outside of the state and market. The regime in Iran is not immune from outside force. As a matter of fact, it has been proven several times, Iranian diaspora to interfere with Iran's domestic affairs and prevented death sentence. There were cases of Nazanin Afshin-Jam and Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo. In 2005, Ms. Afshin-Jam became aware of a girl who was living in Iran and was subject to death sentence by stoning. Ms. Afshin-Jam is an affluent person, she won Ms. Canada title, and was well known person in media. She was able to get attention of public, and drafted an online petition and asked public to sign it. In addition, there were politicians from Liberal Party, as well as, Conservative Party decided to support her cause. Eventually, the regime in Iran commuted the death sentence to no punishment whatsoever. In the final case, it was Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo who was writing about civil-disobedience to topple tyrannical regimes. When he was in Iran, the authority apprehended him under criminal charge of sedition. In this moment, one petition appeared online, and people some the petition and asked for release of Dr. Jahanbegloo from prison. The regime in Iran was facing pressure from outside world to release Jahanbegloo. Subsequently, the regime cracked under outside forced and released him. Currently, he is at the York University and is teaching political science.

Ending this paper by summarizing three main body of this essay on area of international relation theories and key players of global governance have deep impact in this global village, exploring the US foreign policy of 'Regime Change' in Iran back in 1979 unleashed rein of terror to rest of the world, and discussing how formation of 'Transnational Civil-Society' having impact on the theocratic regime in Iran. There is no one theory which can explain current affairs of international relations. However, there is one thing certain that the Western nations apply Liberalism or Functionalism principles, when time comes to engage with core nations. When core nations engage with periphery, semi-periphery and external-area nations. The dynamic of relationship becomes dependency theory. Keeping the above groups in disadvantage point, and having hegemonic stability on those three groups. In 1979, the US foreign policy of regime change in Iran brought rein of terror to the world because it is one way to keep Middle East weak. This planet is becoming a global village due advancement of communication. Thus, it is no longer a civil-society, but transnational civil-society.

Regionalism as a Driving Force in World Politics

Regionalism as a driving force in world politics would go back to dawn of history. There were ambitious men who were feudal lord for a small land, and expand their land to a point that sun never sat. These ambitious men looked at the world from their own window like Napoleon, who would be a good candidate to exploring the idea of regionalism in Europe briefly. Napoleon rose to power, when France was going through French Revolution, and he was just an artillery officer. He made high reputation during war, and fortune lady (Machiavelli's concept) was on his side as he ascended to the throne of emperor of France. He too wanted to united Europe. However, the balance of power in Europe was not divided among other nations like England. Automatically, there were resistance forces against vision of Napoleon and ultimately fortune lady walked away from Napoleon as he descended from the throne of France. Napoleon was not sole dreamer of unity of Europe, World War I and World War II were visions of having one Europe. The above wars were rejected by European nations because there was no balance of power among heterogeneous European nations.

To amalgamate all European nations in one Europe was a good idea to avoid war with one another in order to have vibrant economy which was beneficial for all European nations. There was no more causality of human life and destruction of properties which were having detrimental impact on economy. There emerged idea of League of Nations to unify Europe. However, the League of Nations failed to fulfill the idealistic of peace for Europe. In 1945, the League of Nations vaporized from scene of politics as United Nations building erected in New York. It was a lofty idea to bring all different races, and languages in one place and asking them to collaborate with one another over issues which may have been 'fault line' as Samuel Huntington discussed in his book “The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order”. The United Nations Chapter 8 provided a window of opportunity for nations to form security alliances with one another. The United Nations did not provide a ground for nations to form economic or social alliances. It also did not prevent nations from forming economic or social alliances with one another. The primary objective of regional organizations are to promote peace security, and economic prosperity. The European Union, African Union, NAFTA, and ASEAN entities would be prime example how they promote economic growth at the same time it is an excellent source of reducing equation of war among nations. The economic growth can happen, when there is political stability among nations.

The European Union is an ideal model for other union like African Union and ASEAN to follow. However, there was a key issue of sharing power between states and the African Union ingredients and ASEAN key role players. The European Union is an independent body which is self-governing itself and does not rely on states. It has own legal, social, and economic jurisdictions. Thereby, the sovereignty of European nations diminished by the European Union. The African states would not share their political powers with NGOs or private sectors. There is partially culture tone into it. African nations have traditional views about concept of 'private property' which is different than European way of understanding private property. Moreover, there is a long tradition of political hierarchy within each state in Africa which can be understood by African nations. The Asian countries too have complex political hierarchy, and cannot follow European Union model. In Asia, there is a long tradition of following leaders, and there is less chance of becoming a leader. Thus, there would not be a window of opportunity to have judicial, social, economic jurisdiction for ASEAN key players which would undermine sovereignty of Asian nations. The aim of this paper is define the concept of regionalism and some key challenges that Turkey face to join European Union, examining key factors for the European Union as an ideal model for rest of the world, and discussing NATO and Shanghai Cooperation Organization as emerging source of conflict between East and West which is weakening the role of the United Nations on world politics.

This portion of the paper is defining the concept of regionalism and some key challenges that Turkey face to join European Union. The concept of regionalism may appear that when several nations are located side by side, they share certain common elements which would unified them; such as, political culture that they may have in common. Turkey has been trying to join European Union since 1959. The European Nations declined Turkey's application due to fault line. In 1915, Turkey massacred Armenians which has become a bad blood between Christian Europe and Turkey. Even, Attaturk (Atta father, Turk, Turk, Father of Turk) changed Arabic alphabet to English alphabet, as well as, established a secular state, and confronted Islamic religious clerics face to face so Turkey would be transformed from ruined of Ottoman empire in a new nation-state which deemed everyone as Turk, and everyone must forget their ethnic background. Plus, small territorial part of Turkey is in Europe. Still, Turkey cannot be part of European Union. The European nations are pointing their fingers at human rights violation of minority groups in Turkey. The chances for Turkey to join the European Union is slipping away as Turkey is walking away from secularism to an Islamic theology state. The European Union would not tolerate a religious state to participate in its union. Particularly, a Muslim state to be part of the union.

In 1955, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and England signed Baghdad Pact to prevent communism to spread in their nations. The US was behind the formation of the Baghdad Pact, but due to technical reason could not join the pact. In 1958, Abdul Karim staged a coup in Iraq, and became head of state of Iraq, and aligned Iraq's foreign policy with former Soviet Union. Subsequently, the members altered the name from Baghdad Pact to the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). In 1965, there was a war between Pakistan and India. Pakistan requested for assistance from the CENTO members to confront Indian military force. However, the CENTO members did not provide assistance to Pakistan to confront Indian force. As a result, the dynamic of relationship between members became weaker. In 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus which claimed to be part of Turkey and not Greece. Iran provided military equipments to Turkey. However, England withdraw its support to the CENTO. In 1979, revolution took place and His Majesty, King of Kings Mohammad Reza Pahlavi I left Iran, which caused the CENTO Pact to dissolve. It provided a window of opportunity for Russia to invade Afghanistan with vision of fulfilling Peter the Great's vision of capturing Persian Gulf, as well as, spreading communism to rest of the world. The CENTO pact illustrated how England did not share geographical location in the Middle East, and was able to join the pact due to their common ideology. It should not be forgotten that alliance among nations may carry an expiry date which is unspoken at the time of inauguration.

In 1967, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Philippine formed the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to developed strong economic ties by promoting regional security. This idea of mini-dragon nations to join to one another to determine their own destiny was important for the region. At the time, there was the US and China proxy war in Vietnam which was causing the region to be unrest, and it was causing potential investors to be reluctant to invest in mini-dragon nations. In 1975, the Vietnam war came to an end, and the US withdraw from Vietnam. In 1976, these mini-dragon nations began to see economic growth in the region until 1997-1998 economic melt down of the mini-dragon nations. The ASEAN like any other organization recognized its weakness, and regained its confidence among other developed nations. As of 2005, the ASEAN approved membership for Australia, and New Zealand (unlike Turkey that never will have a chance to join the EU). The ASEAN is able to maneuver itself through different venues and participate in global economy and it is moving out of regional organization to a global system.

This portion of the examining key factors for the European Union as an ideal model for rest of the world. The political culture of Europe is different than rest of the world. The layers of history in Europe would unit them as they experience Enlightenment movement, and two bloodiest wars that they shared with each other. In 1957, Treaty of Rome was creating European Community with a good intention of bringing European nations closer than ever. Eventually, it became European Union (EU). It had agendas on premise of Common Foreign and Security Policy, as well as, Justice and Home Affairs. The ideas are always flexible and do not remain as is. As time passes by and current and past events would shape the EU. It is like a tree which has a body with many different branches as each branch would serve a purpose for overall well being of the tree. In 1974, the EU formed the European Council which was providing opportunities for head of states, as well as, governments to meet regularly to discuss the issues that matter for them to resolve their differences. Currently, the European Council may alter its electoral and jurisdiction format once the Lisbon Treaty is approved. There is European Commission which plays larger role than European Council. The European Commission plays role of law enforcer. There are times, when a state may fail to follow rules, the European Commission would issue warning to that state. The European Commission may take legal measure to take legal action against a state and resolving that dispute in the European Court of Justice. There is also need for a parliament as a body to govern Europe. There is the European Parliament which is base on electoral process and it has 785 members (MEPs), each member can remain in her/his office for duration of five years with an opportunity to renew her/his office term. The members of the parliament do not represent their own country but a political faction. Thus, this parliament is divided between socialist, Christian Democrat and extreme right factions. The European Court of Justice is the judicial, as well as, executive bodies of the Europe which has a responsibilities to interpret the law and execute the law in Europe. The EU is about economic growth, and it would essential to create a system which is reducing trade barres, and it is encouraging economic growth. The European Court of Justice would be able to legislate laws which is for common good. The European Nations take great pride in their social policy, and would take measure to reduce economic inequalities among European nations. It is clear for an outsider that European nations are sharing one common currency which is united different nations in Europe in one country.

As a result, the Europe Union was able to reduce political friction among European nations and economic growth was able to pull together these nations, and create one Europe.

This portion of the paper is discussing NATO and Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an emerging source of conflict between East and West which is weakening the role of the United Nations on world politics. It was after World War II, when the US and former Soviet Union formed balance of power on global scale. The US wanted to promote capitalist economic system around the world. The former Soviet Union also wanted to promote communist economic system around the world. There is only one world to rule by one ruler. The world was not enough for two opposing economic views. The US was providing assistance to European nations under Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) to promote the capitalist economic system as an ideal system for a nation. In 1949, the European nations decided to form a military alliance with one another with help of the US under treaty of NATO. The former Soviet Union too formed its military alliance under treaty of Warsaw Pact. In 1991, the communist economic system failed in Russia, and Russia disintegrated as a country, and Eastern European nations no longer followed Russia. Ultimately, the Warsaw Pact dissolved. The main objective of the NATO was to defend Western nations against aggression of former Soviet Union. Today, the NATO's role has become a global constable to promote peace, security, democracy, and liberties around the world. There are times that it appears it is assisting the United Nations article 51 to act in good faith to emancipate people from hands of destruction and tyrants. The NATO has Article 5 which is authorizing to use of force against aggressors. However, the NATO have indicated to be a useful military instrument for the US to confront states that the US seems undesirable. In 2003, the US made one unilateral decision in Iraq that Iraq had weapon of mass destruction and was supporting terrorism. Despite the fact that the Security Council rejected the US to use physical force against Iraq. The US ignored the Security Council's recommendation and confronted Iraq.

In 1994, The NATO formed Partnership for Peace (PFP) with twenty five countries in Central Europe and Central Asia, and in 1997, the NATO approved application for Poland and Czech Republic and Hungry. In 2004, the NATO admitted Croatia and Albania. However, Russia is not interested to join NATO.

In 1991, the former Soviet Union collapsed and there was a vacuum for three evil elements of eastern nations to become active, one terrorist, two extremist and last separatist. Naturally, Russia, China and other Central Asian countries formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This organization was able to promote peace, security, and economic development among eastern nations. However, the Western nations do not share same sentiment as their counter part and have accused the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as another form of Warsaw Pact. Since Russia, China and other members are not liberal, and there was on-going human rights violation in their countries. The West also can speak loudly, when Chinese government began to engage in Cyber-war with Canada. Therefore, the United Nations which is a body of universal value to resolve differences among nations. Regionalism is giving permission for nations to come together, and continue to have conflict with one another.

All in all, this paper had three main bodies, one it tried to define the concept of regionalism examining key factors for the European Union as an ideal model, and discussing NATO and Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a source of conflict between East and West which is weakening the UN role on world politics. Today, there are no prince or princess in kingdoms as their union would bring peace among nations. Now, it is regional union which is bring peace in the region. There is peace because of economic growth. China and Japan may not like each other issue of Island, but they need to work with other for sake of money. The West and East still have many issues to resolve.