Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in World Politics

PART 1. Globalization ISSUE 1. Is Globalization Likely to Create a Better World? YES: Thomas Friedman, from "States of Discord," Foreign Policy (March/April 2002) NO: Robert Kaplan, from "States of Discord," Foreign Policy (March/April 2002) Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times, contends that with good leadership, globalization will create more openness in government and business, a strong rule of law, and greater opportunities for people to experience personal freedom and to challenge government authority. Robert Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, argues that although globalization might someday bring the benefits that Friedman foresees, that is uncertain. He maintains that in the next few decades globalization is likely to cause more and more turbulence.ISSUE 2. Will State Sovereignty Survive Globalism? YES: Stephen D. Krasner, from "Sovereignty," Foreign Policy (January/February 2001) NO: Kimberly Weir, from "The Waning State of Sovereignty," An Original Essay Written for This Volume (2002) Professor of international relations Stephen D. Krasner contends that the nation-state has a keen instinct for survival and will adapt to globalization and other challenges to sovereignty. Kimberly Weir, an assistant professor of political science, maintains that the tide of history is running against the sovereign state as a governing principle, which will soon go the way of earlier, now-discarded forms of governance, such as empire.PART 2. Regional Issues ISSUE 3. Will the "Bush Doctrine" Promote a More Secure World? YES: George W. Bush, from "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" (September 2002) NO: John Steinbruner, from "Confusing Ends and Means: The Doctrine of Coercive Pre-emption," Arms Control Today (January/February 2003) George W. Bush, president of the United States, tells Americans that the United States possesses unrivaled power but is threatened by terrorists, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by rogue countries, and other perils. He argues that the United States should take strong action, preferably with other countries but alone if necessary, to ensure that enemies cannot attack or intimidate Americans and others. John Steinbruner, director of the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, contends that what has become called the "Bush doctrine" is unnecessarily provocative and that its threat to use preemptive military power against whomever the United States perceives to be a threat will increase global violence and create such hostility toward the United States that its security will be decreased. ISSUE 4. Should the United States Continue to Encourage a United Europe? YES: A. Elizabeth Jones, from Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Europe, Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (March 13, 2002) NO: John C. Hulsman, from "European Arrogance and Weakness Dictate Coalitions of the Willing," Heritage Lecture No. 777 (February 10, 2003) A. Elizabeth Jones, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, maintains that the United States looks forward to working cooperatively with such exclusively or mostly European institutions as the European Union, the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. John C. Hulsman, a research fellow for European affairs in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at the Heritage Foundation, contends that mutual exchanges of pleasantries and vague rhetoric about the value of a strong and united Europe obscure the reality that U.S.-European relations are increasingly strained. He argues that the United States should support European countries on a selective basis but not be closely tied to Europe as a whole. ISSUE 5. Do China's Armaments and Intentions Pose a Long-Term Threat? YES: Richard D. Fisher, Jr., from Statement Before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives (July 19, 2000) NO: Ivan Eland, from "Is Chinese Military Modernization a Threat to the United States?" Policy Analysis No. 465 (January 23, 2003) Richard D. Fisher, Jr., a senior fellow with the Jamestown Foundation, characterizes China's military as growing in sophistication and strength, and he argues that China's buildup has worrisome implications for U.S. national interests. Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, contends that China's military modernization is less of a threat to U.S. interests than recent studies by the Pentagon and the U.S.-China Security Review Commission indicate. ISSUE 6. Would It Be an Error to Establish a Palestinian State? YES: P. J. Berlyn, from "Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine," A Time to Speak, (December 2002) NO: Rosemary E. Shinko, from "Why a Palestinian State," An Original Essay Written for This Volume (2004) P. J. Berlyn, an author of studies on Israel, primarily its ancient history and culture, refutes 12 arguments supporting the creation of an independent state of Palestine, maintaining that such a state would not be wise, just, or desirable. Rosemary E. Shinko, who teaches in the Department of Political Science at the University of Connecticut, contends that a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians must be founded on a secure and sovereign homeland for both nations. ISSUE 7. Was the War With Iraq Unjustified? YES: John Mueller, from "Should We Invade Iraq? A Reason Online Debate," Reason (January 2003) NO: Brink Lindsey, from "Should We Invade Iraq? A Reason Online Debate," Reason (January 2003) Professor of political science John Mueller characterizes U.S. policy toward Iraq as an overreaction and an unhealthy reflection of the U.S. sense that the United States is an indispensable country. Brink Lindsey, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, asserts that Iraq's potential nuclear capability combined with Saddam Hussein's malevolence provided sufficient justification for a U.S.-led invasion. ISSUE 8. Should North Korea's Arms Program Evoke a Hard-Line Response? YES: William Norman Grigg, from "Aiding and Abetting the 'Axis,'" The New American (February 24, 2003) NO: Fred Kaplan, from "Appeasement, Please: The Case for Paying North Korea's Nuclear Blackmail," Slate, (December 31, 2002) William Norman Grigg, senior editor of The New American, argues that North Korea is a dangerous country with an untrustworthy regime and that it is an error for the United States to react to North Korea's nuclear arms program and other provocations by offering it diplomatic and economic incentives to be less confrontational. Fred Kaplan, author of the "War Stories" column in Slate, agrees that North Korea is dangerous and unstable, but he maintains that the horrendous costs of a conflict with North Korea mean that the United States and others would be better off trying to assuage North Korea than confronting it.PART 3. Economic Issues ISSUE 9. Is Free Economic Interchange Beneficial? YES: Anne O. Krueger, from Remarks at the 2002 Eisenhower National Security Conference on "National Security for the Twenty-First Century: Anticipating Challenges, Seizing Opportunities, Building Capabilities" (September 26, 2002) NO: Jose Bove, from "Globalisation's Misguided Assumptions," OECD Observer (September 2001) Anne O. Krueger, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, asserts that the growth of economic globalization is unstoppable and that supporting it is one of the best ways to improve global conditions. Jose Bove, a French farmer and anti-globalization activist, contends that multinational corporations, government leaders, and others are engaged in a propaganda campaign to sell the world on the false promise of economic globalization. ISSUE 10. Should the Rich Countries Forgive All the Debt Owed by the Poor Countries? YES: Romilly Greenhill, from "The Unbreakable Link-Debt Relief and the Millennium Development Goals," A Report From Jubilee Research at the New Economics Foundation (February 2002) NO: William Easterly, from "Debt Relief," Foreign Policy (November/December 2001) Romilly Greenhill, an economist with Jubilee Research at the New Economics Foundation, contends that if the world community is going to achieve its goal of eliminating world poverty by 2015, as stated in the UN's Millennium Declaration, then there is an urgent need to forgive the massive debt owed by the heavily indebted poor countries. William Easterly, a senior adviser in the Development Research Group at the World Bank, maintains that while debt relief is a popular cause and seems good at first glance, the reality is that debt relief is a bad deal for the world's poor. ISSUE 11. Are Patents on HIV/AIDS Drug
s Unfair to Poor Countries? YES: Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres, from "Equitable Access: Scaling Up HIV/AIDS Treatment in Developing Countries" (December 2002) NO: Alan F. Holmer, from "The Case for Innovation: The Role of Intellectual Property Protection," Statement Before the Economist's Second Annual Pharmaceuticals Roundtable (November 20, 2002) The international nongovernmental organization Medecins Sans Frontieres(Doctors Without Borders), which is based in France, argues that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is a crisis and that as part of the effort to meet that crisis, the high cost of medicines protected by patents needs to be reduced. Alan F. Holmer, president and chief executive officer of the industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, contends that the cost of research to develop new medicines is very high and that selling medicines at artificially low prices will harm the development of new pharmaceutical products.PART 4. Issues About Violence ISSUE 12. Does the Moscow Treaty Advance Nuclear Arms Reductions? YES: Donald H. Rumsfeld, from Statement Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (July 17, 2002) NO: Christopher E. Paine, from Statement Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (July 23, 2002) Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. secretary of defense, argues that the Moscow Treaty represents a decision by the United States and Russia to move toward historic reductions in their deployed offensive nuclear arsenals. Christopher E. Paine, codirector of the Nuclear Warhead Elimination and Nonproliferation Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, argues that the Moscow Treaty is too vague to be legally binding on either the United States or Russia and, worse, that the treaty is actually a step backward in the long-standing effort to reduce, even eliminate nuclear weapons. ISSUE 13. Are Military Means the Best Way to Defeat Terrorism? YES: Benjamin Netanyahu, from Statement Before the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives (September 20, 2001) NO: Bill Christison, from "Why the 'War on Terror' Won't Work," CounterPunch (March 4, 2002) Benjamin Netanyahu, former prime minister of Israel, argues that there would be little or no organized terrorism if it were not supported by the governments of various countries and that the only way to reduce or eliminate terrorism is to make it clear to countries that support it that they face military retaliation. Bill Christison, a former member of the Central Intelligence Agency, identifies what he describes as the six root causes of terrorism and argues that using force to address them may not only be ineffective but also counterproductive. ISSUE 14. Is Government-Ordered Assassination Sometimes Acceptable? YES: Bruce Berkowitz, from "Is Assassination an Option?" Hoover Digest (Winter 2002) NO: Margot Patterson, from "Assassination as a Weapon," National Catholic Reporter (September 6, 2002) Bruce Berkowitz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, argues that while government-directed political assassinations are hard to accomplish and are not a reliably effective political tool, there are instances where targeting and killing an individual is both prudent and legitimate. Margot Patterson, a senior writer for National Catholic Reporter, contends that assassinations are morally troubling, often counterproductive, and have a range of other drawbacks.ISSUE 15. Would World Affairs Be More Peaceful If Women Dominated Politics? YES: Francis Fukuyama, from "Women and the Evolution of World Politics," Foreign Affairs (September/October 1998) NO: Mary Caprioli, from "The Myth of Women's Pacifism," An Original Essay Written for This Volume (1999) Francis Fukuyama, the Hirst Professor of Public Policy at GeorgeMason University, contends that a truly matriarchal world wouldbe less prone to conflict and more conciliatory and cooperativethan the largely male-dominated world that we live in now. Assistant professor of political science Mary Caprioli contends thatFukuyama's argument is based on a number of unproven assumptions and thatwhen women assume more political power and have a chance to actaggressively, they are as apt to do so as men are.PART 5. International Law and Organization Issues ISSUE 16. Should the United Nations Be Given Stronger Peacekeeping Capabilities? YES: Lionel Rosenblatt and Larry Thompson, from "The Door of Opportunity: Creating a Permanent Peacekeeping Force," World Policy Journal (Spring 1998) NO: John Hillen, from Statement Before the Subcommittee on International Operations, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (April 5, 2000) Lionel Rosenblatt and Larry Thompson, president and senior associate,respectively, of Refugees International in Washington, D.C., advocate thecreation of a permanent UN peacekeeping force on the grounds that thepresent system of peacekeeping is too slow, too cumbersome, tooinefficient, and too prone to failure. John Hillen, a policy analyst for defense and national securityissues at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., contends that theUnited Nations was never intended to have, nor should it be augmented tohave, the authority and capability to handle significant militaryoperations in dangerous environments. ISSUE 17. Do International Financial Organizations Require Radical Reform? YES: Joseph Stiglitz, from "Joseph Stiglitz: The Progressive Interview," interview by Lucy Komisar, The Progressive (June 2000) NO: Kenneth Rogoff, from "An Open Letter to Joseph Stiglitz," International Monetary Fund, (July 2, 2002) In an interview conducted by Lucy Komisar, Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank, argues that the policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are driven by the economic model favored by the United States and other powerful and prosperous countries rather than the interests of the poor countries that the World Bank and the IMF are supposed to be helping. Kenneth Rogoff, economic counselor and director of research for the International Monetary Fund, concedes that the World Bank and the IMF, like all human organizations, fall short of perfection. He contends, however, that Stiglitz's unbridled criticisms of the two organizations are often factually faulty and that the reforms he favors are unwise.ISSUE 18. Should the United States Ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty? YES: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, from Statement Before the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (July 25, 2000) NO: John R. Bolton, from Statement Before the Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives (July 25, 2000) The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, in a statement submitted tothe U.S. Congress, contends that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an expression, in institutional form, of a global aspiration for justice. John R. Bolton, senior vice president of the AmericanEnterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., contends that support for aninternational criminal court is based largely on naive emotion and thatadhering to its provisions is not wise.PART 6. The Environment ISSUE 19. Do Environmentalists Overstate Their Case? YES: Bjorn Lomborg, from "Debating 'The Skeptical Environmentalist,'" A Debate Held at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (April 9, 2002) NO: Fred Krupp, from "Debating 'The Skeptical Environmentalist,'" A Debate Held at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (April 9, 2002) Professor of statistics Bjorn Lomborg argues that it is a myth that the world is in deep trouble on a range of environmental issues and that drastic action must be taken immediately to avoid an ecological catastrophe. Fred Krupp, executive director of Environmental Defense, asserts that although Lomborg's message is alluring because it says we can relax, the reality is that there are serious problems that, if not addressed, will have a deleterious effect on the global environment.