General Announcements - October 16, 2009
Globalization and Sovereignty Subject of New Book by IPI Editor
At the turn of the millennium, the idea of globalization was unavoidable, capturing the sense that the world was on the cusp of a revolutionary moment.
The rapid expansion of the internet promised to make the barriers of distance meaningless, and a bullish consensus among key policy-makers on the merits of free trade and deregulated markets led to declarations that a unified global economy was in the offing—and the world would be all the better for it. On the now classic Cisco Systems ad, starry-eyed children from all over the world asked, “Are you ready?”
Well, it turns out, not everyone was. By the end of 1999 protesters had paralyzed the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, sounding an altogether different bell about globalization, one that rang a tone of warning, not celebration. For the protesters, globalization represented gross inequality and the dominance of multinational corporations: unhindered capitalism run amuck. The “Battle of Seattle,” and the capacity of civil society to pressure an international institution like the World Trade Organization, promised to breathe new life into progressive, anti-system movements at a time when many were declaring them dead and defeated at the end of “history,” “ideology,” and “utopia.”
And then the attacks of September 11, 2001, shook everything and everyone, and terrorism became a dominant concern. For a time, debate shifted away from globalization toward discussions of imperial hegemony, as the US and the Bush Administration ramped up its military response to the attacks, from the mountains of Afghanistan, to the sands and cities of Iraq, to Guantánamo Bay and “undisclosed locations” without number. For some, the vision of a world united under a comprehensive form of global governance and economies without borders entailed an only slightly veiled form of neo-imperialism.
Since then, with the extended fight in Iraq, the stubborn conflict in Afghanistan, and a weakening US economy, the debate has shifted further: from globalization through empire to multi-polarity and the emergence of new powers, punctuated by the events of 08-08-08, as a lame duck US president watched the official “arrival” of China and Russia — watching, literally, as a spectator at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, and figuratively, as a hamstrung bystander, while Russia invaded Georgia, a US ally. At the same time, events have proven just how important globalization remains. An enormous financial crisis with roots in the US housing market rippled across the world in 2008, precipitating an international credit crunch that contributed to a global recession. As a result, Western leaders planned openly for a globally coordinated response.
Meanwhile, the debate over globalization has moved from one between global optimists and global skeptics to one over the character of globalization itself. The political struggle is not between globalists and anti-globalists, but among competing visions of alternative forms of globalization. That is, the key question is no longer, whether or not globalization, but, rather, which globalization?
In pursuing answers to this question, it is clear that globalization presents a fundamental dilemma: Democracy has become more widely accepted than ever, yet, confronted by global challenges, nationally based democratic institutions appear increasingly insufficient. As a result, new transnational structures are emerging, threatening to leave behind the traditional mechanisms of democratic accountability. Do we need to choose between global governance and democratic governance? We must ask, how can the rule of the people be maintained in a transnational age? This is the most basic question that has driven this project from the beginning. And answering this question requires a fundamental rethinking of the categories of democratic theory, starting with the concept of popular sovereignty.
Excerpted from the preface of Globalization and Popular Sovereignty: Democracy’s Transnational Dilemma by Dr. Adam Lupel, IPI Editor.
Read about the book on the Routledge Web site.
Download Dr. Lupel's keynote address on this topic from the recent conference "2009 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy" which took place in Seoul, South Korea.
The Global Observatory
As Russia and the West Joust, Ukraine Risks Deeper Divisions and More Violence
The longer this stand-off continues, the greater the risk that divisions will harden into permanent fault-lines and doom Ukraine to a bitter and potentially violent disintegration.
Key Global Events to Watch in April
A list of key upcoming meetings and events with implications for global affairs.
2014 Top 10 Issues to Watch in Peace & Security: The Global Arena
A list of ten key issues to watch that are likely to impact international peace and security in 2014, compiled by IPI's Francesco Mancini.
The Global Observatory, produced by IPI, provides timely analysis on peace and security issues, interviews with leading policymakers, interactive maps, and more.
April 05, 2014
IPI Opens Middle East Regional Office
International Peace Institute President Terje Rød-Larsen inaugurated IPI’s new Middle East Regional Office with a recognition of the area’s critical importance to the world and the rapid political changes underway in the countries of the region, and he asserted that IPI has an “important role” to play there.
April 03, 2014
In Horn of Africa, Links Between Disaster, Conflict, and Displacement
What are the links between climate change, conflict, and the displacement of people? A panel of experts discussed this nexus and its implications in the Horn of Africa at the International Peace Institute on April 3rd in an event cosponsored by the Nansen Initiative.
March 26, 2014
Derek Plumbly on Lebanese Resilience Amid Rising Challenges
Lebanon has exceeded expectations in dealing with the continuing fallout from the crisis in neighboring Syria, said Derek Plumbly, United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon, on March 26th. Speaking at the International Peace Institute, Mr. Plumbly praised the Lebanese people for “actually sustaining a measure of stability in their country.”