Question/Answer

POL 100 GEOPOLITICAL AFFAIRS

Introduction

WHAT IS MEANT BY GEOPOLITICAL AFFAIRS?

The term” Geopolitics” was coined at the beginning of the 20th century by a Swedish political scientist, Rudolf Kjellen, who was inspired by the German geographer Friedrich Ratzel.

Geopolitics is the study of the effects of geography, both human and physical, on international politics and international relations. Geopolitics is a method of foreign policy analysis which seeks to understand, explain, and predict international political behavior primarily in terms of geographical variables. These include the following:

1) Physical location; 2) Size; 3) Climate; 4) Topography; 5) Demography; 6) Natural resources; 7) Technological advances.

Traditionally, the term has applied primarily to the impact of geography on politics, but its usage has evolved over the past century to encompass wider connotations.

Geography is sometimes described as the most interdisciplinary of disciplines. According to the geographer H. J. de Blij this is a testament to geography’s historic linkage to many other fields, “ranging from geology to economics and from sociology to political science.”

In this course, POL 100, we will study the relationship between geography and the other social sciences. We will study and discuss topics such as geology and natural hazards, climate and global climate change, population and population clusters, culture and cultural landscape, and the geography of language and religions. We will look at a world of states, geopolitics and the state, political geography and the geography of development. These studies will be done in a regional context, separating the world into twelve geographic

realms, beginning with the Americas, Europe and Russia, North Africa and SW Asia, South Asia, East Asia, SE Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and concluding with the Austral and Pacific realm.

Chapter 1

International Organizations

Study of international organizations today usually begins with the best known international organization in the world today—the United Nations.

The UN was established on October 24, 1945 to promote international cooperation. A replacement for the League of Nations, created in the aftermath of World War I in 1919, the organization was created after the Second World War to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; there are now 193. The UN headquarters is situated in Manhattan, New York City and enjoys extraterritoriality. Extraterritoriality is the state of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations. It can also be applied to physical places, such as foreign embassies, military bases of foreign countries, or offices of the United Nations. Further main offices are situated in Geneva, Nairobi, and Vienna.

The organization is financed by assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict.

The UN has six principal organs. They are:

1) The General Assembly—the main deliberative assembly; 2) The Security Council—for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security; 3) The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)—for promoting international economic

and social co-operation and development; 4) The Secretariat—for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN; 5) The International Court of Justice—the primary judicial organ; 6) The United Nations Trusteeship Council (inactive since 1994).

UN System agencies include the World Bank Group, the World Health Organization, the World Food Program, UNESCO, and UNICEF.

General Assembly

The General Assembly is the main deliberative assembly of the United Nations. Composed of all UN member states, the assembly meets in regular yearly sessions, but emergency sessions can also be called. The assembly is led by a president, elected among the member states on a rotating regional basis, and 21 vice-presidents.

Security Council

The Security Council is charged with maintaining peace and security among countries. While other organs of the United Nations can only make “recommendations” to member states, the Security Council has the power to make binding decisions that member states have agreed to carry out, under the terms of Charter Article 25. The decisions of the Council are known as United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The Security Council is made up of 15 member states, consisting of 5 permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and 10 non- permanent members. Currently these are the 10 nations in the SC with the year of their service expiration. They are Argentina (2014), Australia (2014), Chad (2015), Chile (2015), Jordan (2015), Lithuania (2015), Luxembourg (2014), Nigeria (2015), Republic of Korea (2014), and Rwanda (2014). The five permanent members have veto power over UN resolutions, allowing a permanent member to block adoption of a resolution, though not debate. The ten temporary seats are held for two-year terms, with members voted in by the General Assembly on a regional basis.

Secretariat

The UN Secretariat is headed by the Secretary- General, assisted by a staff of international civil servants worldwide. It provides studies, information, and facilities needed by the United Nations bodies for their meetings. The Secretary- General acts as the de facto spokesperson and leader of the UN. The office has evolved into a dual role of an administrator of the UN organization and a diplomat and mediator addressing disputes between member states and finding consensus to global issues.

The Secretary- General is appointed by the General assembly, after being recommended by the Security Council, where the permanent members have veto power. There are no specific criteria for the post, but over the years it has become accepted that the post shall be appointed on the basis of geographical rotation, and the Secretary- General shall not originate from one of the five permanent Security Council member states. The current Secretary- General is Antonio Guterres, who

replaced Ban Ki-moom in 2016 when he was elected for his first term to conclude at the end of 2021.

International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice, located in The Hague, in the Netherlands, is the primary judicial organ of the UN. Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, the Court began work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The ICJ is composed of 15 judges who serve 9 year terms and are appointed by the General Assembly. The ICJ is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague. The ICJ’s primary purpose is to adjudicate disputes among states. The court has heard cases related to war crimes, illegal state interference, ethnic cleansing, and other issues.

Economic and Social Council

The ECOSOC assists the General Assembly in promoting international and social co-operation and development. It has 54 members, which are elected by the General Assembly for a three year term. The council has one annual meeting in July, held either in New York or Vienna. ECOSOC’s functions include informational gathering, advising member nations, and making recommendations.

Specialized Agencies

The UN charter stipulates that each primary organ of the UN can establish various agencies to fulfill its duties. Some of the best- known agencies are the International Atomic Energy Agency, The Food and Agriculture Organization, UNESCO, the World Bank, and the World health Organization. The UN performs most of its humanitarian work through these agencies. Examples include mass vaccination programmes, the avoidance of famine and malnutrition, and the protection of vulnerable and displaced people.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

• Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

• (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

• (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

• (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

• (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nation

Article 15.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

• (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

• (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

• Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

• (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

• (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

• (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

• (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

• Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well- being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment,

sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

• (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

• (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

• (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

• (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

• (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

• Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

• (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just

requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Time Magazine’s

Top Ten Moments in United Nations History

According to Time Magazine, the top ten moments in the General Assembly are the following:

1) A Mandate for Israel Two years after the ratification of the U.N. Charter in 1945, the General Assembly and Secretary-General Trygve Lie created a special committee of 11 ambassadors to decide the future of Palestine. The committee recommended that after a transition period of two years, Palestine would be “constituted into an independent Arab state, an independent Jewish state and the (International) City of Jerusalem” remaining “within an economic union.” In 1948 the Jewish state was crested after much opposition in the Arab states .

2) Confronting the Aggressors

At the brink of the Cold War, Soviet delegate Andrei Vyshinsky addressed the General Assembly meeting in Paris. Speaking directly to U. S. delegates Eleanor Roosevelt, John Foster Dulles, Warren Austin, and George Marshall, he accused the U.S. of preparing for an atomic war against the Soviet Union because it had previously refused to adhere to a timeline of stopping plants’ production of atomic material.

3) Khruschev Loses His Cool

On his last full day in New York City for the 1960 Assembly meeting, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev took offense to the words of a delegate from the Philippines who claimed that Eastern Europe had been “deprived of political and civil rights” and had effectively been “swallowed up by the Soviet Union.” According to William Taubman, author of Khrushchev: The Man and His Era writes that after banging a table with both his fists, the Soviet leader took off his right shoe, waved it and then “banged it on the table, louder and louder, until everyone in the hall was watching and buzzing.”

4) Idi Amin’s Idols

Ugandan President Idi Amin Dada, then the chairman of the Organization of African Unity, gave a spirited performance. The leader, reviled for his imprisonment of his enemies, praised British Prime Minister Edward Heath by comparing him to Adolf Hitler. Amin, who once sent a letter praising Hitler’s extermination of the Jews, retracted the statement, saying, “Not Hitler—I mean Winston Churchill. Mr. Heath is like Winston Churchill.”

5) Disinviting Waldheim

During that year’s Assembly meeting, Secretary General Boutros Boutros- Ghali refused to send an invitation for the UN’s 50th anniversary to former Secretary- General Kurt Waldheim, who had been charged for murder by the War Crimes Commission for his role as an intelligence officer for the Nazis during World War II. To save face, he also disinvited Javier Perez de Cuellar, the only other former Secretary- General still alive. Perez de Cuellar graciously did not attend and said he understood.

6) Making the Case for WMD

Making his case for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, United states Secretary of state Colin Powell presented Washington’s evidence to the U.N. Security Council, including a vial of anthrax and photographs of purported WMD in the country.

7) Cuba Takes Offense

U. S. President George W. Bush’s address to the General Assembly in 2006 brought Cuba’s diplomatic delegation to their feet just before they walked out. Bush proclaimed that “in Cuba the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end,” prompting a Cuban delegate to throw down his translator’s earpiece and walk off. “The Cuban people are ready for their freedom, “ Bush continued, as the rest of the Cuba’s diplomats departed.

8) Devil’s Advocate

Hugo Chavez, addressing the assembly in 2006, called President George W. Bush, who had spoken the previous day, “the devil” and complained of a lingering stench of sulfur in the assembly hall.

9) Ahmadinejab Sounds Off

In 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the podium to declare the political issue of Iranian nuclear proliferation closed to further discussion. He called out widespread violation of human rights, terrorism and occupation as some of the major problems facing the international world, railing against “those who pretend to be victims exclusive advocates” as the worst offenders. These unmanned nations were guilty of “setting up secret prisons, abducting persons and conducting trials and secret punishments without any regard to due process.”

10) Ahmadinejad the Long-Winded.

In his 2008 speech, Ahmadinejad’s eight- page address noted that Americans and Europeans were “being played with a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists.” He also claimed that “the American empire” was on the brink of collapse because of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan to win “votes in elections.”

Chapter 2

Economic Geography by Anna L. Krift

When considering our world and the effects of globalization and our economy, you have probably questioned the existence of extreme wealth and extreme poverty and wondered how the two could exist in modern society. You are not alone as many of the world’s leading scholars, think tanks, international organizations and banks, as well as government leaders have all done so. For many individuals, this disparity of condition remains a mystery. However, by considering key historical eras and some of the theories that have sought answers to the same questions we begin to understand why there is such a difference. Still, today, many international organizations like the United Nations Development Programme are trying to unravel this highly intertwined and interdependent inequality in today’s global society.

Societies shifted from an agrarian-based way of life toward industrialization in the late 1700s. Many of the ideas that led to the industrialization process were conceptualized by individuals like Galileo, referred to as the father of modern physics, yet they took time to develop the necessary mechanical advancements to create (Montagna par. 1). During the age of Enlightenment and the closely linked Scientific Revolution, the ideas and discoveries of previous visionaries, like Galileo, came closer to fruition as they moved toward mechanization. The process of industrialization originated in Great Britain during the second half of the 1700’s and, with it, changes developed in how individuals and their societies interacted on an economic basis. The inertia of industrialization created the Industrial Revolution (http://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/videos#the-industrial-revolition) which was in full effect during the 1700s to 1800s. Prior to the shift, societies around the globe were agrarian and rural.

When Europe ventured into industrialization the rest of the world quickly followed and this resulted in significant change for societies as there were several key shifts due to this production. These shifts included a movement of individuals from rural and agrarian ways of life to urban and increasingly industrialized urban areas. As well, items that were once crafted by hand, often at home, were produced in rapid succession by machines in factories. Machinery could complete tasks that were once done completely by hand. This era introduced the use of powered machinery, much of which was operated by coal and steam, as well as the concept of mass production. Due to mechanization, output increased significantly. These were monumental changes and they significantly impacted societies and the individuals residing in these societies. The mechanization of agricultural production increased overall output and increased the supply of food to feed societies and also raw materials to create textiles and increase the overall production of textile mills (Montagna par. 2). This, ultimately, led to

increased trade and profitability. By considering how advances in agricultural production are so intertwined with food distribution, increased production and profitability, one can quickly see how they are interdependent. These developments ultimately improved transportation and trade as well as communication. However, it is important to note that not everyone reaped the rewards of this process. For many living in the urban centers and working in these industrial plants, hours were long, working conditions were often unsafe, and the overall quality of life was poor.

Karl Marx was born in 1818 and he lived during this industrialization process which is recognized as having taken place from the mid-1700’s to the mid-1800’s. He witnessed the ill effects of industrialization on the masses, the workers that were needed to work in the mills and factories, and the overall quality of life in the core, urban areas which included poor housing and air quality, limited access to health care and children working in factories. He also saw the ongoing aftereffects of the industrial spillage as quality of life for these industrial workers remained unconsidered by those that had the power to effect change during the industrial revolution. For Marx, and his colleague Frederick Engels, the group of working class individuals who provided or sold their labor to survive as well as produce the goods and services were referred to as the proletariat and the individuals that made money from their investments, rather than from their labor, whom had the preponderance of power to control production and make decisions that affected the proletariat were known as the bourgeoisie. Marx’s consideration of their needs and his ideas connected to the industrialization of society bolstered conflict theory as he focused on the two different social groups which represented conflicting interests, the bourgeoisie (dominant) and proletariat (subordinate), that are in competition over resources. This thinking also led to the creation of socialism. This ideology developed out of the observation of the disparity and resulting conflicts arising from the capitalist system. There was a significant difference in the livelihoods and living conditions of the different social strata of society during this time and Marx and Engels felt this was a direct outcome of capitalism. His writing was deemed radical by several countries, including his native Germany, which expelled him. For Marx, he continued to dedicate his time to his research and writing about the effects of capitalism and the value and exploitation of labor. In Capital, Marx begins by stating, “The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an ‘immense collection of commodities’; the individual commodity appears as its elementary form. Our investigation therefore begins with the analysis of the commodity” (Marx 125). He then continues to explain that,

“The commodity is, first of all, an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind. The nature of these needs, whether they arise, for example, from the stomach, or the imagination, makes no difference. Nor does it matter here how the thing satisfies man’s need, whether directly as a means of subsistence, i.e. an object of consumption, or indirectly as a means of production” (Marx 125).

In Capital, Marx details how the value of labor has been determined by a social process. He claims, “The various proportions in which different kinds of labour are reduced to simple labour as their unit of measurement are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers; these proportions therefore appear to the producers to have been handed down by tradition” (Marx 135). His depiction of the value of commodities ultimately leads to his depiction that labor has been undervalued and that the laborers were not included in the decision-making process. As well, he details that this lack of inclusion has gone on for some time and did not arise in the advent of industrial mechanization. Ultimately, Marx feels that this will lead to the breakdown of capitalism. The Progressive Movement of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was spurred, in some ways, by the thinking and ideals of Marx and Engels as well as the need to overcome the scourge of the industrialization and the financial crisis of 1893 which further smacked society (embed this link, http://florencekelley.northwestern.edu/historical/panic/). This movement sought inclusion of all social classes in political decision-making and to involve the government in overcoming the problems of society. Marx and Engels’ ideology led to the influx of numerous communist and socialist-based societies during the twentieth century which started to dot the global landscape (embed this link, http://www.history.com/topics/karl-marx/photos#cold-war-communist-leaders); some of which are still fully operational although they have modified their economic and political systems to remain in power. Cuba and Vietnam are just two examples of ideological stalwarts.

There are many economic paths that countries have taken, from capitalism to communism to socialism, as well as modified variations of all of these economic ideologies. Understanding which ideological principles reap the most beneficial results for all participants in today’s global society is daunting and challenging. From conflict theory, other theories developed in the late twentieth century that sought to provide answers to capitalism, global development and rising inequalities. Dependency theorists, like Fernando Henrique Cardoso, called on the tenets of conflict theory to explain the lack of capital accumulation of developing or lesser developed countries as a direct result of the domestic relationship of the classes and external forces of capital. For dependency theorists, there was a direct connection to the developed, core countries and their ever persistent attempt to exploit the developing, periphery countries. The world-systems approach, shares some of the same ideas of core and periphery, and sought to look at the world system as opposed to individual countries however, differs from dependency theory as they believe core countries exploit workers in all areas of the capitalist, global economy and not just in the periphery. Despite theoretical perspective, poverty persists.

As poverty remains pervasive in today’s global society, it may simply be that there is not a perfect economic elixir to soothe the ills of the ongoing, global development and progress sought by society. Such a prescription may not exist as it is widely known and often quoted that over a billion global citizens live on less than $1.25 a day and over two billion global citizens live on less than $2.00 today. How do we move forward when such a significant portion of the

global population struggles to get by each day? And, it is not just individuals from far distant, rural villages that we may not be able to pinpoint on a map. There are examples here in South Florida and global cities as well, like Britain’s Jack Monroe, (embed this link, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/world/europe/jack-monroe-has-become-britains-austerity- celebrity.html). This is a global challenge and countries, international organizations and lending institutions are all working toward solutions. Some examples during the late twentieth century have included import substitution industrialization programs to the neoliberal reform policies of the Washington Consensus (embed this link, http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story094/en/) which resulted in controversy. As these reforms led to mixed results and, often, growing poverty levels and a gap between rich and poor and mixed access to services such as health and education, other institutions, like the United Nations (embed this link, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/), pushed for a global agenda to reduce poverty and ameliorate the overall quality of life and human development of all citizens. The eight goals range from eradicating extreme poverty and hunger to achieving universal primary education and ensuring environmental sustainability and all member states pledged to meet these goals by 2015. For some, achieving these goals was rather instantaneous and countries, like Norway, sought to help other U.N. member states with bilateral and multilateral assistance and support. For other countries, meeting all of the goals by 2015 will not be feasible and, therefore, member states have already begun to conceptualize what a post-2015 agenda would entail (embed this link, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/beyond2015.shtml) that would connect to the outcome of Rio+20, the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (embed this link, http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1549).

Major global lending institutions, like the World Bank and IMF, have begun to recognize the need for inclusion in development projects and plans and are more selective in determining the projects they fund. They have also taken into account and were influenced by the overwhelming response and success of the Grameen Bank, also known as the Bank for the Poor, and its microcredit lending strategy (embed this link, http://www.grameen- info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=177). Nobel laureate and professor of Economics, Muhammad Yunus (embed this video, http://www.viddler.com/v/80077c47) developed microcredit in 1976 from a humble project that challenged conventional lending practices and sought to provide banking services to the rural poor in Bangladesh.

Regardless of the methods of overcoming the ever present poverty and economic inequality in today’s global society, many countries and citizens continue to be vexed by an inability to rise above. Some of this has been an ongoing outcome of the 2008 financial crisis. Regardless of global realm, from North America to Europe to East Asia and Africa, economies were impacted. From this ongoing inequality and economic conflict, citizens have begun to voice their concern and protest as many seek answers to understand how there has been a rise in the wealth for the wealthy and over 90% saw declines during the years immediately following

the 2008 crisis (embed link to Pew Case Study, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a- rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/) as well as http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-worlds-85-richest-people-are-as- wealthy-as-the-poorest-3-billion/283206/). How does one amass and justify being one of the group of 85 individuals that is as wealthy as the poorest three billion? Poverty rates have indeed been decreasing over the past several decades but it is ever present and yet some individuals have met this recession with tremendous economic success. Occupy Wall Street challenged the income inequality and accumulation of wealth by the few with its “We are the 99%” slogan (embed this link, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/who-are-the-99- percent/2011/08/25/gIQAt87jKL_blog.html). As well, citizens faced with high rates of unemployment in Greece, Italy, and Spain, have voiced similar concerns.

Regardless of political leaning, the concept of the development trap exists. For British economist, Paul Collier, he believes that poverty cannot be eradicated until countries within the bottom billion grow (Collier 12). (Embed this TED video, http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_collier_shares_4_ways_to_help_the_bottom_billion.html). Collier also denotes that within the bottom billion of the “Africa+” countries including Laos, Cambodia, Haiti and North Korea they face an average life expectancy of fifty years. He shares that these countries can be plagued by traps of conflict, natural resources, landlocked with bad neighbors and bad governance. Jeffrey Sachs (embed this link, http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/1770) brought attention to the development trap by advocating that countries, primarily in Africa, invest in health and has focused research on malaria and other communicable diseases. He also provides his take on a new progressive era in the following, (embed this link, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/the-new- progressive-movement.html?_r=0).

An understanding of existent inequality is important given the challenges of our globalized economy. As well, an understanding of how economic boon and crisis affects citizens is also important in today’s society. How do you now feel regarding economic disparity? What are your thoughts on Muhammad Yunus? Can individuals, like Muhammad Yunus or Jeffrey Sachs, make a real change for individuals facing this economic adversity in rural and urban settings? Have you faced economic adversity in your life, if you are unsure then consider the Washington Post article which includes blog posts to the “We are the 99%”, do you currently face any of these challenges)? What are the millennium development goals and what do they seek to achieve by 2015 and beyond?

Works Cited

Collier, Paul. The Bottom Billion Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be

Done About It. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.

Marx, Karl. Capital. London: Penguin Books, 1990. Print.

Montagna, Joseph A. The Industrial Revolution. Yale-New Haven Teacher’s Institute.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/2/81.02.06.x.html#b

THE GROUP OF EIGHT

The Group of Eight (G8) was the name of a forum for the governments of a group of eight leading industrialized countries that was originally formed by six leading industrialized countries and subsequently extended with two additional members.[1] Russia, which was invited to join as the last member, was excluded from the forum by the other members on March 24, 2014, as a result of its involvement in the 2014 Crimea crisis in Ukraine.[2] Thus the group now comprises seven nations and will continue to meet as the G7 group of nations.

The forum originated with a 1975 summit hosted by France that brought together representatives of six governments: France, West Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, thus leading to the name Group of Six or G6. The summit became known as the Group of Seven or G7 the following year with the addition of Canada. The G7 is composed of the seven wealthiest developed countries on Earth (by national net wealth or by GDP[3]), and it remained active even during the period of the G8. Russia was added to the group from 1998 to 2014, which then became known as the G8. The European Union was represented within the G8 but could not host or chair summits.[4] The 40th summit was the first time the European Union was able to host and chair a summit.

"G8" can refer to the member states in aggregate or to the annual summit meeting of the G8 heads of government. The former term, G6, is now frequently applied to the six most populous countries within the European Union. G8 ministers also meet throughout the year, such as the G7/8 finance ministers (who meet four times a year), G8 foreign ministers, or G8 environment ministers.

Collectively, in 2012 the G8 nations comprised 50.1% of 2012 global nominal GDP and 40.9% of global GDP (PPP). Each calendar year the responsibility of hosting the G8 is rotated through the member states in the following order: France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada. The holder of the presidency sets the agenda, hosts the summit for that year, and determines which ministerial meetings will take place. Both France and the United Kingdom have expressed a desire to expand the group to include five developing countries, referred to as the Outreach Five (O5) or the Plus Five: Brazil (7th country in the world by nominal GDP [3]), People's Republic of China (2nd country in the world by GDP [3]), India (10th country in the world by GDP [5]), Mexico, and South Africa. These countries have participated as guests in meetings which are sometimes called G8+5.

With the G-20 major economies growing in stature since the 2008 Washington summit, world leaders from the group announced at their Pittsburgh summit on September 25, 2009, that the group would replace the G8 as the main economic council of wealthy nations.[6][7]

On March 24, 2014, the original G7 nations voted to effectively suspend Russia from the organization in response to the country's annexation of Crimea;[8][9][10] however, it was made clear that the suspension was temporary.[11]

History of the G8

At the 34th G8 Summit at Toyako, Hokkaido, formal photo during Tanabata matsuri event for world leaders – Silvio Berlusconi (Italy), Dmitry Medvedev (Russia), Angela Merkel (Germany), Gordon Brown (UK), Yasuo Fukuda (Japan), George W. Bush (US), Stephen Harper (Canada), Nicolas Sarkozy (France), José Manuel Barroso (EU) – July 7, 2008.

The concept of a forum for the world's major industrialized countries emerged prior the 1973 oil crisis. On Sunday, March 25, 1973, Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz convened an informal gathering of finance ministers from West Germany (Helmut Schmidt), France (Valéry Giscard d'Estaing), and Britain (Anthony Barber) before an upcoming meeting in Washington, D.C. When running the idea past President Nixon, he noted that he would be out of town, and offered use of the White House; the meeting was subsequently held in the library on the ground floor.[12] Taking their name from the setting, this original group of four became known as the "Library Group".[13] In mid-1973, at the World Bank-IMF meetings, Shultz proposed the addition of Japan to the original four nations, who agreed. The informal gathering of senior financial officials from the United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany, Japan, and France became known as the "Group of Five.”

The year that followed was one of the most turbulent of the post-World War II era, the heads of state or government of the top ten industrial nations fell due to illness or scandal. There were two elections in the UK, three Chancellors of West Germany, three presidents of France, three Prime Ministers of Japan and Italy, two US Presidents and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada was forced into an early election. Of the members of the "Group of Five", all were new to the job with the exception of Prime Minister Trudeau.

As 1975 dawned, Schmidt and Giscard were now heads of government in their respective countries, and since they both spoke fluent English, it occurred to them that they, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson and US President Gerald Ford could get together in an informal retreat and discuss election results and the issues of the day. So, in the late spring, President Giscard invited the heads of government from West Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States to a summit in Château de Rambouillet; the annual meeting of the six leaders was

organized under a rotating presidency, forming the Group of Six (G6). The following year, with Wilson out as Prime Minister of Britain, Schmidt and Ford felt an English speaker with more experience was needed, so Canada's Pierre Trudeau was invited to join the group [16] and the group became the Group of Seven (G7). The European Union is represented by the President of the European Commission and the leader of the country that holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The President of the European Commission has attended all meetings since first invited by the United Kingdom in 1977[17] and the Council President now also regularly attends.

Following 1994's G7 summit in Naples, Russian officials held separate meetings with leaders of the G7 after the group's summits. This informal arrangement was dubbed the Political 8 (P8) – or, colloquially, the G7+1. At the invitation of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair and President of the United States Bill Clinton,[18] President Boris Yeltsin was invited first as a guest observer, later as a full participant. It was seen as a way to encourage Yeltsin with his capitalist reforms. Russia formally joined the group in 1998, resulting in the Group of Eight, or G8.

Food

A major focus of the G8 since 2009 has been the global supply of food.[19] At the 2009 L'Aquila summit, the G8's members promised to contribute $20 billion to the issue over three years.[20] Since then, only 22% of the promised funds have been delivered.[21]

At the 2012 summit, President Barack Obama plans to ask G8 leaders to adopt a policy that would privatize global food investment.

Crimean crisis and Russian suspension

On March 2, 2014, the remaining non-Russian G8 members, the European Union, and the European Commission suspended the planned G8 summit in the Russian city of Sochi and would instead meet as the G7 in Brussels,[24] blaming Russia's role in the Crimean crisis.[25] Following the suspension of the summit, on March 18 the French Minister of Foreign Affairs Laurent Fabius claimed that Russia was suspended from the G8; however, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal[26] clarified that Russia would remain a G8 member, and only the meeting would be suspended.

While visiting Kiev, Ukraine on March 22, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that he supports expelling Russia from the G8 and expects to discuss the potential expulsion with other G7 leaders at an upcoming meeting in The Hague.[27] On March 24, G7 leaders met formally in The Hague, without Russia being present, and voted to officially suspend Russia's membership in the G8. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated earlier that day that the G8 was an informal organization and membership was optional for Russia.[8]

Structure and activities

Leaders of the G8 on 18 June 2013, in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

By design, the G8 deliberately lacks an administrative structure like those for international organizations, such as the United Nations or the World Bank. The group does not have a permanent secretariat, or offices for its members.

The presidency of the group rotates annually among member countries, with each new term beginning on 1 January of the year. The rotation order is: France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada.[28] The country holding the presidency is responsible for planning and hosting a series of ministerial-level meetings, leading up to a mid- year summit attended by the heads of government. The president of the European Commission participates as an equal in all summit events.[29]

The ministerial meetings bring together ministers responsible for various portfolios to discuss issues of mutual or global concern. The range of topics includes health, law enforcement, labor, economic and social development, energy, environment, foreign affairs, justice and interior, terrorism, and trade. There are also a separate set of meetings known as the G8+5, created during the 2005 Gleneagles, Scotland summit, that is attended by finance and energy ministers from all eight member countries in addition to the five "outreach countries" which are also known as the Group of Five — Brazil, People's Republic of China, India, Mexico, and South Africa.[30]

In June 2005, justice ministers and interior ministers from the G8 countries agreed to launch an international database on pedophiles.[31] The G8 officials also agreed to pool data on terrorism, subject to restrictions by privacy and security laws in individual countries.[32]

Global Energy

G8 leaders confer during the 2009 summit in L'Aquila (Abruzzo, Italy).

At the Heiligendamm Summit in 2007, the G8 acknowledged a proposal from the EU for a worldwide initiative on efficient energy use. They agreed to explore, along with the International Energy Agency, the most effective means to promote energy efficiency internationally. A year later, on 8 June 2008, the G8 along with China, India, South Korea and the European Community established the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation, at the Energy Ministerial meeting hosted by Japan holding 2008 G8 Presidency, in Aomori.[33]

G8 Finance Ministers, whilst in preparation for the 34th Summit of the G8 Heads of State and Government in Toyako, Hokkaido, met on the 13 and 14 June 2008, in Osaka, Japan. They agreed to the “G8 Action Plan for Climate Change to Enhance the Engagement of Private and Public Financial Institutions.” In closing, Ministers supported the launch of new Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) by the World Bank, which will help existing efforts until a new framework under the UNFCCC is implemented after 2012. The UNFCCC is not on track to meeting any of its stated goals.

Annual summit

The annual G8 leaders summit is attended by the heads of government. The member country holding the G8 presidency is responsible for organizing and hosting the year's summit.

Member Facts These G8 countries represent:

• 7 of the 7 top-ranked advanced economies with the largest GDP and with the highest national wealth (United States, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Canada) last century also known as G7 [67]

• 7 of the 15 top-ranked countries with the highest net wealth per capita (United States, France, Japan, UK, Italy, Canada, Germany)

• 8 of 12 top-ranked leading export countries.[68] • 6 of 10 top-ranked countries with the largest gold reserves (United States, Germany,

Italy, France, Russia, Japan). • 8 of 11 top-ranked economies (by nominal GDP), according to latest (2012 data)

International Monetary Fund's statistics. • 4 countries with a nominal GDP per capita above US$40,000 (United States, Canada,

Germany, France). • 5 countries with a sovereign wealth fund, administered by either a national or a

state/provincial government (Russia, United States, France, Canada, Italy).[69] • 8 of 30 top-ranked nations with large amounts of foreign-exchange reserves in their

central banks. • 4 out of 9 countries having nuclear weapons (France, Russia, UK, United States).[70][71] • 2 countries that have nuclear weapon sharing programs (Germany, Italy).[72][73] • 7 of the 9 largest nuclear energy producers (United States, France, Japan, Russia,

Germany, Canada, UK), although Germany announced in 2011 that it will close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022.[74] Following the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, Japan shut down all of its nuclear reactors.[75] However, in July 2012, Japan restarted two nuclear reactors at the Ōi Nuclear Power Plant. These reactors are the only ones currently in operation at this time.

• 8 of the 15 top donors to the UN budget for the 2013 annual fiscal year. • 4 countries with a HDI index for 2013 of 0.9 and higher (United States, Germany, Japan,

Canada). • 2 countries with the highest credit rating from Standard & Poor's, Fitch, and Moody's at

the same time (Canada and Germany).[76]

With G8+5 and the G20

• all G8 countries became members of the unofficial trillion dollar club (countries with a nominal GDP in excess of US$1 trillion) by 2005. Today, 14 (out of the total of 15 so far) countries in the world are members of both the unofficial club and the G-20 major economies group.

• all of the G8, 15 (out of 19) of the G-20, and 12 (out of 13) G8+5-countries (minus South Africa) are among the 20 top-ranked nations by the amount of voting power and special drawing rights (SDRs) in the International Monetary Fund.

• All members of the G8, excluding Russia, and three G-20 nations not members of the G8, Australia, South Korea, and Argentina, have a HDI index of 0.8 or higher for 2013.

Cumulative influence of member nations Together the eight countries making up the G8 represent about 14% of the world population, but they represent about 60% of the World wealth and 60% of the gross world product[77] as measured by gross domestic product, all eight nations being within the top 12 countries according to the CIA World Factbook. (see the CIA World Factbook column in List of countries by GDP (nominal)), the majority of global military power (seven are in the top 8 nations for military expenditure[78]), and almost all of the world's active nuclear weapons.[79] In 2007, the combined G8 military spending was US$850 billion. This is 72% of the world's total military expenditures. (see List of countries and federations by military expenditures) Four of the G8 members, the United Kingdom, United States, France and Russia, together account for 96–99% of the world's nuclear weapons.[80] (see List of states with nuclear weapons)

Criticism

20 July 2001, 27th G8 summit in Genoa, Italy: Protesters burn a police vehicle which was abandoned by police during a clash with protesters.

Some criticism centres on the assertion that members of G8 do not do enough to help global problems such as Third World Debt, global warming and the AIDS epidemic—due to strict medicine patent policy and other issues related to globalization. In Unravelling Global Apartheid, the political analyst Titus Alexander described the G7, as it then was, as the 'cabinet' of global minority rule, with a coordinating role in world affairs.[81]

The conservative Heritage Foundation has criticized the G8 for advocating food security without making room for economic freedom.[82]

Relevance

The G8's relevance is unclear.[83]It still represents the major industrialized countries but critics argue that the G8 has now become unrepresentative of the world's most powerful economies. In particular, China has surpassed every economy but the United States,[84] while Brazil has surpassed Canada and Italy (according to the IMF). Also according to the International Monetary Fund and the CIA World Factbook, India has already surpassed Canada, Italy, Germany, France, and Japan in terms of purchasing power parity, although remaining on the 10th position when it comes to nominal GDP. This has given rise to the idea of enlarging G8 to the G8+5, which includes these other economically powerful nations. Other critics assert, however, that the concept of a country's net wealth is different from the nation's GDP.

With Vladimir Putin not attending the 2012 G8 summit at Camp David, there is an argument[by whom?] that the summit has generally outlived its usefulness as a viable international gathering of foreign leaders.[85] As a result of that decision, contributors of Foreign Policy magazine stated that Russia should be deleted from the G8 altogether.[86][87] However, another FP contributor commented that the G8 is still relevant, despite the increasing international power and prestige of the G-20 major economies leaders' summit.[88]

British Prime Minister David Cameron said of the G8:[89]

Some people ask, does the G8 still matter, when we have a Group of 20? My answer is, yes. The G8 is a group of like-minded countries that share a belief in free enterprise as the best route to growth. As eight countries making up about half the world’s gross domestic product, the standards we set, the commitments we make, and the steps we take can help solve vital global issues, fire up economies and drive prosperity all over the world.

World’s Largest Economies

The largest economies in the world as of January 2017 are the following:

1) Unites States 2) China 3) Japan 4) Germany 5) India 6) United Kingdom 7) France 8) Brazil 9) Italy 10) Canada

Current leaders of the G8 countries:

•

Canada

Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister

•

France François Hollande, President

•

Germany Angela Merkel, Chancellor

•

Italy

Paolo Gentiloni Prime Minister

•

Japan Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister

•

United Kingdom Teresa May

, Prime Minister

•

United States

Donald J. Trump, President

•

European Union Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council

•

Suspended[edit]

•

Russia Vladimir Putin, President

Youth 8 Summit The Y8 Summit or simply Y8 (formerly known as the G8 Youth Summit[90]) is the youth counterpart to the G8 summit.[91] The first summit to use the name Y8 took place in May 2012 in Puebla, Mexico, alongside the Youth G8 that took place in Washington, D.C. the same year.

The Y8 Summit brings together young leaders from G8 nations and the European Union to facilitate discussions of international affairs, promote cross-cultural understanding, and build global friendships. The conference closely follows the formal negotiation procedures of the G8 Summit.[92] The Y8 Summit represents the innovative voice of young adults between the age of 18 and 35. The delegates jointly come up with a consensus-based[93] written statement in the end, the Final Communiqué.[94] This document is subsequently presented to G8 leaders in order to inspire positive change.[95] The Y8 Summit is organised annually by a global network of youth- led organisations called The IDEA (The International Diplomatic Engagement Association).[96] The organisations undertake the selection processes for their respective national delegations, while the hosting country is responsible for organising the summit. Now, several youth associations are supporting and getting involved in the project. For instance, every year, the Young European Leadership association is recruiting and sending EU Delegates.

The goal of the Y8 Summit is to bring together young people from around the world to allow the voices and opinions of young generations to be heard and to encourage them to take part in global decision-making.

CHAPTER 3

OVERVIEW OF THE WORLD’S RELIGIONS

Major religious groups From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Size of major religious groups, 2012 Religion Percent

Christianity   31.5% Islam   23.2% Unaffiliated   16.3% Hinduism   15.0% Buddhism   7.1% Folk religions   5.9% Other   0.8%

The world's principal religions and spiritual traditions may be classified into a small number of major groups, although this is by no means a uniform practice. This theory began in the 18th century with the goal of recognizing the relative levels of civility in society.

History of religious categories

An 1821 map of the world, where "Christians, Mahometans, and Pagans" correspond to levels of civilization (The map makes no distinction between Buddhism and Hinduism).

An 1883 map of the world divided into colors representing "Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Mohammedans and Pagans".

In world cultures, there have traditionally been many different groupings of religious belief. In Indian culture, different religious philosophies were traditionally respected as academic differences in pursuit of the same truth. In Islam, the Quran mentions three different categories: Muslims, the People of the Book, and idol worshipers. Initially, Christians had a simple dichotomy of world beliefs: Christian civility versus foreign heresy or barbarity. In the 18th century, "heresy" was clarified to mean Judaism and Islam;[citation needed] along with paganism, this created a fourfold classification which spawned such works as John Toland's Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile, and Mahometan Christianity, which represented the three Abrahamic religions as different "nations" or sects within religion itself, the "true monotheism."

Daniel Defoe described the original definition as follows: "Religion is properly the Worship given to God, but 'tis also applied to the Worship of Idols and false Deities." At the turn of the 19th century, in between 1780 and 1810, the language dramatically changed: instead of "religion" being synonymous with spirituality, authors began using the plural, "religions", to refer to both Christianity and other forms of worship. Therefore, Hannah Adams's early encyclopedia, for example, had its name changed from An Alphabetical Compendium of the Various Sects... to A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations.[3]

In 1838, the four-way division of Christianity, Judaism, Mahommedanism (archaic terminology for Islam) and Paganism was multiplied considerably by Josiah Conder's Analytical and Comparative View of All Religions Now Extant among Mankind. Conder's work still adhered to the four-way classification, but in his eye for detail he puts together much historical work to create something resembling our modern Western image: he includes Druze, Yezidis, Mandeans, and Elamites[clarification needed] under a list of possibly monotheistic groups, and under the final category, of "polytheism and pantheism", he listed Zoroastrianism, "Vedas, Puranas, Tantras, Reformed sects" of India as well as "Brahminical idolatry", Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Lamaism, "religion of China and Japan", and "illiterate superstitions".[4]

The modern meaning of the phrase "world religion", putting non-Christians at the same level as Christians, began with the 1893 Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago. The Parliament spurred the creation of a dozen privately funded lectures with the intent of informing people of the diversity of religious experience: these lectures funded researchers such as William James, D. T. Suzuki, and Alan Watts, who greatly influenced the public conception of world religions.[5]

In the latter half of the 20th century, the category of "world religion" fell into serious question, especially for drawing parallels between vastly different cultures, and thereby creating an arbitrary separation between the religious and the secular.[6] Even history professors have now taken note of these complications and advise against teaching "world religions" in schools.[7] Others see the shaping of religions in the context of the nation-state as the "invention of traditions".

CHAPTER 4

SUPRANATIONALISM

A supranational union is a type of multi-national organization where negotiated power is delegated to an authority by governments of member states. The concept of supranational union is sometimes used to describe the European Union (EU), as a new type of political entity. The EU is the only entity which provides for international popular elections, going beyond the level of political integration normally afforded by international treaty. The term "supranational" is sometimes used in a loose, undefined sense in other contexts, sometimes as a substitute for international.

A supranational union, because it is an agreement between sovereign states, is based on international treaties. The European treaties in general are different from classical treaties as they are constitutionalizing treaties, that is, they provide the basis for a European level of democracy and European rule of law. They have something in the nature of a constitution and like the British constitution, not necessarily a single document. They are based on treaties between its member governments but have normally to undergo a closer

democratic scrutiny than other treaties because they are more far-ranging, affecting many areas of citizens' lives and livelihoods. This is why citizens often demand referendums.

Decision-making is partly intergovernmental and partly supranational within the Community areas. The latter provides a higher degree of institutional scrutiny both via the Parliament and through the Consultative Committees. Intergovernmentalism provides for less democratic oversight, especially where the institution such as the Council of Ministers or the European Council takes place behind closed doors, rather than in a parliamentary chamber.

A supranational authority can have some independence from member state governments in specific areas, although not as much independence as with a federal government. Supranational institutions, like federal governments, imply the possibility of pursuing agendas in ways that the delegating states did not initially envision. Democratic supranational Communities, however, are defined by treaty and by law. Their activity is controlled by a Court, democratic institutions and the rule of law.

The union has legal supremacy over its member states (only) to the extent that its member state governments have conferred competences on the union. It is up to the individual governments to assure that they have full democratic backing in each of the member states. The citizens of the member states, though retaining their nationality and national citizenship, additionally become citizens of the union.

The European Union, the only clear example of a supranational union, has a parliament with legislative oversight, elected by its citizens. To this extent, a supranational union like the European Union has characteristics that are not entirely dissimilar to the characteristics of a federal state like the United States

of America. However, the differences in scale become apparent if one compares the United States federal budget with the budget of the European Union (which amounts only to about one percent of combined GDP) or the size of the federal civil service of the United States with the Civil Service of the European Union.

Chapter 5

Devolution

Devolution is the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as regional, local, or state level. It is a form of decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area.

Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute.

Federal systems, or federations, differ in that state or provincial government is guaranteed in the constitution. Australia, Canada, India, and the United States have federal systems, and have constitutions. They also have territories, with less power and authority than a state or province. Non-English-speaking federations include Mexico, Germany, and Switzerland.

In the United States only the federal government, state governments, and the federally recognized American Indian tribal nations are recognized by the United States Constitution, so local governments are subdivisions of states. A subdivision of a state is either a devolution of that state or not depending on its status under that state’s constitution.

In the United States, the District of Columbia offers an illustration of devolved government. The District is separate from any state, and has its own elected government; in many ways, on a day-to-day basis, it operates much like another state, with its own laws, court system, Department of Motor Vehicles, public university, and so on. However, the governments of the 50 states reserved a broad range of powers in the U. S. Constitution, and most of their laws cannot be voided by any act of U.S. federal government. The District of Columbia, by contrast, is constitutionally under the sole control of the United states Congress, which created the current District government by statue. Any law passed by the District legislature can be nullified by congressional action, and indeed the district government could be significantly altered or eliminated entirely by a simple majority vote in Congress.

Chapter 6

Terrorism

In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or Jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals.

The word "terrorism" is politically loaded and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of "terrorism". In some cases, the same group may be described as "freedom fighters" by its supporters and considered to be terrorists by its opponents. The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other

opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state). At the same time, the reverse may also take place when states perpetrate or are accused of perpetrating state terrorism. The usage of the term has a controversial history, with individuals such as ANC leader Nelson Mandela at one point also branded a terrorist.

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations to further their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against non-combatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. The symbolism of terrorism can exploit human fear to help achieve these goals.

ORIGIN OF THE TERM

"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme, and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the 1793–1794 Reigns Of Terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terreōmeaning "I frighten". The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse. Although "terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people for political purposes in such a way as to create a media spectacle. This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who

described himself as a "terrorist". Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная расправа) in 1869.

In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged. In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated,

The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self- determination.

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. The international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities.

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

Bruce Hoffman, author of Inside Terrorism, published in 1998 noted in that book: It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, “Political Terrorism: A Research Guide,” Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definitions of terrorism in an effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schmid was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on". Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in his work on the subject “Terrorism: A Brief History,” maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt.

Eco-terrorism has described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as violence and terrorism and terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose. This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic" struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.

The United States State Department publishes a comprehensive list of terrorist organizations around the world. They define terrorism in Title 22 of the U.S. Code 2656 as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” Critics of the State Department will also use this list when an organization who commits a terrorist act is not on the official list. Terror organizations appear on the scene usually after they commit an act of terror. For this reason the State Department continually revises this list. In the following link the latest list is provided.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

Terrorism: a Brief History Walter Laqueur What is terrorism? There are more than a hundred definitions. The Department of State has one, Title 22 of the U.S. Code Section 2656: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." The Department of Defense has another, and also the Federal Bureau of Investigation, while the present writer has contributed two or three definitions of his own. But none is wholly satisfactory.

Too much has been made, in my opinion, of the element of "noncombatant targets" in order to define terrorism; there has not been a terrorist group in history that has attacked only soldiers or policemen. And what if a group of gunmen attack soldiers in the morning and civilians at night: Are they terrorists, do they belong to a different category, or do they change their character in the course of a day?

No all-embracing definition will ever be found for the simple reason that there is not one terrorism, but there have been many terrorisms, greatly differing in time and space, in motivation, and in manifestations and aims.

Initial Studies

When the systematic study of terrorism began in the 1970s, it was—mistakenly—believed by some that terrorism was more or less a monopoly of extreme left-wing groups, such as the Italian Red Brigades or the German Red Army or various Latin American groups. (There was also ethnic-nationalist terrorism, such as in Northern Ireland, but it figured less prominently.) Hence the conclusion: Terrorism comes into being wherever people are most exploited and most cruelly oppressed. Terrorism, therefore, could easily be ended by removing exploitation and oppression.

However, it should have been clear even then that this could not possibly be a correct explanation because terrorism had been altogether absent precisely in the most oppressive regimes of the 20th century—Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. True, there was virtually no terrorism in the very richest societies and the most egalitarian—but nor was there terrorism in the very poorest.

A decade passed and most of the terrorist groups of the Far Left disappeared. If there was terrorism during the 1980s, it came to large extent from small cells of the Extreme Right.

Investigators examine the remains of Pan Am flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 22, 1988. All 259 persons on board and 11 people on the ground died. The victims and debris were strewn over an area of 2,189 square kilometers. ©AP Images

There were some instances of aircraft hijackings and bombings (such as over Lockerbie, Scotland), and a few embassies were attacked or even seized (such as in Tehran), but these operations were not carried out by groups of the Extreme Left.

The most deadly terrorist act in the United States prior to September 11, 2001, was the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, carried out by right-wing extremist sectarians. Nationalist terrorism continued (in Ulster, the Basque region of Spain, Sri Lanka, Israel, and some other places), but the Islamist terrorism that figures so prominently today was, as yet, hardly in appearance except, sporadically, in some Middle Eastern countries.

Today, terrorism and al-Qaida, and similar groups motivated by religious fanaticism, have virtually become synonyms, inevitably, perhaps, because most contemporary terrorism is carried out by their adherents. But the temptation to equate terrorism with these groups should be resisted for the simple reason that terrorism antedates militant Islamism by a very long time and, for all one knows, will continue to exist well after the present protagonists of jihadism have disappeared.

Terrorism is not a political doctrine, even though some have attempted to transform it into an ideology; it is, instead, one of the oldest forms of violence—even though it goes without saying that not all violence is terrorism. It probably antedates regular warfare because the fighting of armies involves a certain amount of organization and sophisticated logistics that primitive man did not have.

Historical Background

Terrorism appears in the Bible's Old Testament, and there were frequent incidents of political murder, even systematic assassination, in Greek and Roman history. The murder of Julius Caesar, to give but one example, preoccupied writers and artists for the next two millennia. The question of whether tyrannicide (such as undertaken by William Tell, the national hero of Swiss sagas) was permissible kept generations of theologians and philosophers busy.

There was no total unanimity, but the majority opinion was that terrorism was permissible in certain conditions. When a cruel oppressor—a tyrant—being an enemy of all mankind, in violation of the law of God and human justice, left his victims no other way out of intolerable oppression, commission of a terrorist act was ultima ratio, the last refuge of the oppressed, all other means having been exhausted.

But philosophers and theologians were aware even then that there was a grave danger of misusing the doctrine of justifiable tyrannicide, claiming ultima ratio when, in fact, there was no justifiable reason for killing (such as in the case of the murder of the good King Henri IV of France) or when there existed other ways to express protest and resistance.

In the meantime, small groups engaging in systematic terrorism over long periods had arisen, such as the secret sect of the Assassins, an offshoot of the Muslim Ismailis, which operated from the 8th into the 14th century from what is now Iraq and Iran, killing governors, prefects, caliphs, and a crusader king of Jerusalem. They pioneered suicide terrorism—their weapon was always the dagger, and since their victims were usually well guarded, the chances of escaping were virtually nil. Even the language they used has survived—a fighter was a fida'i, a term used to this day.

Terrorism continued to be active through the end of the Middle Ages into Modern Times, though on a somewhat reduced scale. This was the age of great wars such as the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815). And in such periods, when a great many people were killed and wounded on the battlefields, no one would pay much attention if terrorist violence occurred here and there on a small scale.

The High Tide of Terrorism

The high tide of terrorism rose toward the end of the 19th century. Among the main active groups were the Irish rebels, the Russian Socialist Revolutionaries, and assorted anarchists all over Europe and North America. But secret societies were also actively engaging in terrorism outside Europe—in Egypt, for instance, as well as in India and China—aiming at national liberation. Some of these attacks had tragic consequences; others were more successful in the long, rather than the short, run.

The violence of the 19th century terrorists was notable—they killed a Russian tsar (Alexander II), as well as many ministers, archdukes, and generals; American presidents

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife by a Pan- Slavism nationalist group during the royals' visit to Sarajevo, Bosnia, on June 28, 1914, precipitated World War I. ©AP Images

(William McKinley in 1901 and, before him in 1881, James Garfield); King Umberto of Italy; an empress (Zita) of the Austro- Hungarian monarchy; Sadi Carnot, president of France; Antonio Canovas, the Spanish prime minister—to mention only some of the most prominent victims. The First World War, of course, was triggered by the murder of Franz Ferdinand, the Austrian heir to the throne, in Sarajevo in 1914.

Rereading the press of that period (and also novels by leading writers from Fyodor Dostoevsky to Henry James and Joseph Conrad), one could easily gain the impression that terrorism was the greatest danger facing mankind and that the end of civilized life was at hand. But as so often before and after, the terrorist danger passed, and, as the Russian Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky noted on one occasion, one minister was killed, but several others were only too eager to replace him.

Contemporary Terrorism

Terrorism reappeared after World War I in various countries, such as Germany and the Balkan nations. Before coming to power, both Fascists and Communists believed in mass violence rather than individual terrorist acts—with some occasional exceptions, such as the assassination of the Italian Socialist leader Giacomo Matteoti.

There was little terrorism during World War II and during the two decades thereafter. This explains, perhaps, why the renewal of terrorist operations in the 1970s and, a fortiori, the appearance of Islamist terrorism were interpreted by many, oblivious of the

Three unidentified people wearing Basque berets and seated in front of

an ETA flag appeared on a 2006 television video. ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, or Basque Homeland and Freedom), which seeks a Basque state independent from Spain, is a designated terrorist group. ©AP Images

long, earlier history of terrorism, as something wholly new and unprecedented. This was particularly striking with regard to suicide terrorism. As noted earlier, most terrorism up to the late 19th century had been suicide missions, simply because the only available weapons were daggers, short-range pistols, or highly unstable bombs likely to explode in the hands of the attackers.

It is true, however, that contemporary terrorism differs in some essential respects from that perpetrated in the 19th century and earlier on.

Traditional terrorism had its "code of honor": It targeted kings, military leaders, ministers, and other leading public figures, but if there were a danger that the wife or the children of the target would be killed in an attack, terrorists would refrain from striking, even if doing so endangered their own lives.

Today, indiscriminate terrorism has become the rule; very few leading politicians or generals have been killed, but very many wholly innocent people have. The term terrorism has, therefore, very negative connotations, and terrorists now insist on being called by another name. When Boris Savinkov, who headed the Russian Socialist Revolutionaries before World War I, published his autobiography, he had no hesitation in giving it the title Memoirs of a Terrorist. Today this would be unthinkable—the modern terrorist wants to be known as a freedom fighter, a guerrilla, a militant, an insurgent, a rebel, a revolutionary—anything but a terrorist, a killer of random innocents.

If there is no agreement concerning a definition of terrorism, does it mean that total confusion and relativism prevail, that one view is as good as another? It is perfectly true that, as an often quoted saying goes, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. But since even the greatest mass murderers in history had their admirers, from Hitler to Pol Pot, such wisdom does not take us very far. Most of those who have studied terrorism and are reasonably free from bias will agree much of the time in their judgment of an action, even if perfect definitions of terrorism do not exist. Someone has compared it with pornography or obscenity, which is also difficult to define, but an observer with some experience will know it when he sees it.

There are no shortcuts to explain why people choose to be terrorists, no magic formulas or

Former hostage Victor Amburgy hugs an unidentified

child after his arrival back in the United States on July 2, 1985. Amburgy was among the 153 international passengers and crew of TWA flight 847, hijacked by Lebanese terrorists shortly after its June 14 takeoff from Greece and held for two weeks. © AP Images/Dennis Cook

laws similar to Newton's and Einstein's in the physical world. From time to time, new insights are offered that do not, however, usually survive critical examination. Recently, for instance, it has been suggested that terrorism occurs only (or mainly) where there has been a foreign invasion of a country. This proposition is true in some cases, such as Napoleon's occupation of Spain or the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. But a look at the geopolitical map of contemporary terrorism shows that, in most cases, from Sri Lanka to Bangladesh to Algeria to Europe, foreign invasion is not the decisive factor. And even in Iraq, the great majority of terrorist victims occur not among the occupying forces but as the result of attacks of

Sunnis against Shiites, and vice versa.

Generational Phenomenon

Does history offer any lessons?

Again, there are no clear-cut answers except in a very general way. Terrorism has seldom, if ever, occurred in effective dictatorships. In the modern world, it appears, ironically, that terrorists take advantage of the freedoms of thought, speech, religion, movement, and assembly offered by democracies. Terrorism is also a problem of failed states in which central power is weak or nonexistent. There was, for example, virtually no terrorism from the street in Franco's Spain, but as his dictatorship was dismantled, it appeared on the political scene. In the Middle East, even mildly authoritarian regimes have put down terrorism without great difficulty—Turkey and Syria in the 1980s, Algeria and Egypt in the decade thereafter.

Terrorism has sometimes succeeded but, at least equally and probably more often, has failed to attain its aims. And in some cases, it has resulted in the opposite of what its perpetrators wanted to achieve.

But terrorism is largely a generational phenomenon, and even if defeated, it may recur at a later date. There is no good reason to expect the disappearance of terrorism in our time. In an age in which large-scale wars have become too dangerous and expensive, terrorism is the prevailing form of violent conflict. As long as there are conflicts on Earth, there will be terrorism.

CHAPTER 7

WORLDWIDE MILITARY SPENDING

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes…known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

LIST OF STATES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS

There are eight sovereign states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be “nuclear- weapon states” (NWS) under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, France, and China.

Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, three states that were not parties to the Treaty have conducted nuclear tests, namely India, Pakistan, and North Korea. North Korea had been a party to the NPT but withdrew in 2003. Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding this, and is not known definitively to have conducted a nuclear test.

In summary the five NPT designated states are China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States. Other states with nuclear weapons are India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel is believed to have nuclear weapons. NATO nuclear weapons sharing states are Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey. And states that have formerly possessed nuclear weapons are Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and South Africa.

According to a Wikipedia search, the following is a list of the nuclear weapons that exist now. Each country will be listed with two numbers—active warheads/total warheads.

1) United States—2104/7315 2) Russia—1600/8000 3) United Kingdom—160/225 4) France—290/300 5) China—n.a./250 6) India—n.a./90-110 7) Pakistan—n.a./100-120 8) North Korea—n.a./10 9) Israel—n.a. / suspected 60-400