Topic: Discuss how global economic reforms and reforms to global institutions or corporations could lead to a more equitable and therefore a more peaceful world.??

Topic: Discuss how global economic reforms and reforms to global institutions or corporations could lead to a more equitable and therefore a more peaceful world.?? Order Description 2500-3000 words?? Essay requires a minimum of 10 references. Reference List at end. Page numbering top LH corner (Header note) TOPIC 1: INTRODUCTION TO GLOBALISATION AND PEACE Essential reading Chapter One of the textbook: ‘Introducing Globalization1 and Global Issues’ plus at least one of the articles on peace mentioned below. The Moodle articles are provided to give you further reading possibilities – the more you read, the better informed you will be. Learning Outcomes After doing the readings and joining discussions for this topic, you should be able to define globalisation, identify a few key concepts, and understand what disciplines cover it. You should also have a basic understanding of ‘positive peace’, ‘structural violence’ and ‘cultural violence’. Globalisation Defining your terms is a vital first step in academic research. Let us try to get a handle on what exactly we mean by globalisation, as it can mean very different things to different people. It also depends on which lens you are looking through – political, economic, feminist etc. In Peace Studies we encourage a multi-disciplinary approach, as peace is impacted by many factors, from the political economy of the international arms trade at the macro-level to a parent’s resistance to violent movies and games at the micro-level which, multiplied by millions globally, can also be powerful. Read Chapter One of the textbook: ‘Introducing Globalization and Global Issues’. Snarr gives an idea of the complexity of the issue, showing how important it is not to over-generalise. For example, the idea that globalisation is new and leading to a shrinking world is challenged by critics who argue that labour, trade and capital moved at least as freely in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The movement of people (within Asia, for example) was huge, and much less regulated by passports, visas and so on than it is now. Another important point is that the increase in interdependence and advanced technologies is true in the wealthier countries, but not true for the vast majority of people in the world, who live in the less developed countries of the “South” (or “Third World”). They are much less likely to use the internet, but more likely to have mountains of toxic ‘e-waste’ dumped on them by wealthy nations. There are also forces of disintegration at work (such as the recent breakup of Sudan) at the same time as there are globalising forces. Similarly, the question of whether globalisation is good or bad depends on many variables, such as good or bad for whom (eg Third World workers or First World shareholders)? Is the power of the state being eroded, and what impact will this have? Importantly, Snarr points to the need to consider issues such as poverty not in isolation, but as interconnected with numerous other issues, such as health and the environment. 1 I prefer the Australian spelling: globalisation. Read Introduction and Chapter One of Globalisation of World Politics (2014) by Baylis et al. These introduce you to some key concepts, with a focus on politics and international relations. Chapter One of Introducing Globalisation (Sparke 2013) is another current introduction, with a focus on political economic aspects, such as neoliberalism. Both can be found on Moodle or online. ‘Challenging globalization - An introduction’ by John Feffer is also well worth reading, as is ‘How to judge globalism’, by Amartya Sen (both in e-reserve). These chapters examine some of the history of globalisation, and point out some pros and cons of globalisation. They discuss different models of ‘development’, and point out that a key economic idea, shared by both capitalists and communists, is the drive for rapid economic growth. Some major aspects of globalisation which you will need to get your head around include free trade, deregulation, multinational corporations (MNCs), monopolies, privatisation, market fundamentalism, technological advances, dependency, ‘free market’, ‘democracy’, and transparency. They examine who is pushing globalisation, who is challenging it (or more usually aspects of it, such as neo-liberalism), and what alternatives to the dominant paradigm are out there. In the weeks to come we will look more closely at concepts like the free market, democracy and growth, and examine the impacts and methods of MNCs (especially those in the military-industrial complex). Then we too will look at the dissenting voices and the solutions they propose. Some authors challenge the view that globalisation is a new and purely Western phenomenon, because of past examples of internationalisation. Would you agree, or do you think that current globalisation is, on balance, primarily driven by Western economic forces? How do the Asian or emerging economies such as Japan, China and India fit into this worldview? Another question to think about is whether globalisation is unstoppable or inevitable. If so, why are there groups deemed ‘anti-globalisation’? Sen talks about antiglobalisation movements and characterises them as lacking an appropriate focus. But what evidence does he give for this focus, or even for the characterisation of such movements as anti-globalisation? Is this just a media beat-up, since many such activists call themselves not ‘anti-globalisation’ but part of a ‘global justice’ movement, which actively embraces globalised communications technologies and networking? As we will see from Topic Five onwards, such movements clearly do not see that everything about globalisation is inevitable, as they put considerable energy into transforming or resisting it. They believe that even ordinary people can have some control over the process, particularly if they use the synergies created when working together. This unit is particularly concerned with the relationship between globalisation and peace, so it’s important to understand what is meant by peace. Below is a brief discussion of the concept of positive peace, which is necessary to counter ‘structural violence’ and ‘cultural violence’ as well as the more obvious ‘direct violence’. Some of you will already have an understanding of different definitions of peace, and different types of violence, from other Peace Studies units (such as PEAC101 ‘Introduction to Peace Studies’). Nevertheless, you should read through these notes to refresh your memories, get a deeper understanding, and understand some different perspectives. Throughout the unit we will explore the interconnectedness of peace and issues like global food security, global warming and militarism. We will examine the impacts on peace of various economic and political policies implemented by international bodies such as the United Nations and its Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Perhaps more importantly, given the power and influence of multinational corporations, we will ask how a global economic system dominated by such corporations contributes towards peace or conflict? And what is the role of the military-industrial complex, a global economic force that is much less scrutinised than others? We will also examine people and movements who are using globalisation to promote and create peace. What groups are following the advice of the old protest banner: “THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY’? Are they also trying to link with other groups in the region or even in far-flung places? Who is trying to create global movements for peace, solidarity and sustainability? What methods do they use? How can globalised communication technologies aid such movements? Who is trying to preserve the unique aspects of their cultures against an onslaught of homogeneity, or merely struggling to feed their families in a rapidly-changing world? Positive Peace2 Johan Galtung, the ‘father of peace studies’, often refers to the distinction between ‘negative peace’ and ‘positive peace’ (e.g. Galtung 1996). Negative peace refers to the absence of violence. When, for example, a ceasefire is enacted, a negative peace will ensue. Although something undesirable stopped happening (e.g. the violence stopped, the obvious oppression ended), it is negative because there is still strong potential for violence to re-erupt, because the underlying causes of it have not been addressed. Positive peace, on the other hand, is filled with positive content such as restoration of relationships, the creation of social systems that serve the needs of the whole population and the constructive resolution of conflict. (Helen Ware, on the other hand, prefers the term Peace Zero for armed conflict, Peace One for negative peace, and Peace Two and Peace Three as a society progresses towards the ideal but perhaps unattainable positive peace.) Peace does not mean the total absence of any conflict. Conflict is inevitable in even the healthiest societies, and if handled well can lead to good dialogue, consideration of alternative or minority views, and creative solutions. Positive peace, however, means the absence of violence in all forms and the unfolding of conflict in a constructive way. It is well-managed social conflict. Peace therefore exists where people are interacting nonviolently and are managing their conflict positively – with respectful attention to the legitimate needs and interest of all concerned. Relevant readings include: Galtung, J 1964, ‘An Editorial’, Journal of Peace Research, 1 (1), 1-4 2 Some of you will already have an understanding of different definitions of peace, and different types of violence. Nevertheless, you should read through these notes to refresh your memories, get a deeper understanding, and understand some different perspectives. Galtung, J 1996, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilisation, Prio, Oslo. Grewal, Baljit Singh 2003, Johan Galtung: Positive and Negative Peace, Auckland University of Technology www.knowledgepolicy.com/2005/08/positive-and-negative-peace.html Structural Violence For much of the world's population, hunger, not war, is the pressing issue, and it is hard to imagine a genuine peace that did not overcome our current global pattern of extensive poverty in the midst of plenty. Far more people die from structural violence than war, but those deaths rarely reach the headlines. Hunger and poverty are two prime examples of what is described as "structural violence," that is, physical and psychological harm that results from exploitive and unjust social, political and economic systems. It is something that most of us know is going on, and some of us have experienced, but in its starker forms, it is sufficiently distant from our lives that it is hard to get a good perspective on it. Structural violence includes any violence or suffering caused by the structures and institutions of a society. People who suffer from structural violence cannot control the conditions that have caused their suffering. For this reason, structural violence often leads to feelings of complete and utter hopelessness. It is a form of violence based on the systemic ways in which a given social structure or social institution harms people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. Institutionalized elitism, ethnocentrism, classism, racism, sexism, nationalism, heterosexism and ageism are some examples of structural violence. Structural violence and direct violence are highly interdependent. Structural violence inevitably produces conflict in the long term and often direct violence, including family violence, racial violence, hate crimes, terrorism, genocide, and war. As Deborah Winter and Dana Leighton write: Direct violence is horrific, but its brutality usually gets our attention: we notice it, and often respond to it. Structural violence, however, is almost always invisible, embedded in ubiquitous social structures, normalized by stable institutions and regular experience. Structural violence occurs whenever people are disadvantaged by political, legal, economic or cultural traditions. Because they are longstanding, structural inequities usually seem ordinary, the way things are and always have been.…. Structured inequities produce suffering and death as often as direct violence does, though the damage is slower, more subtle, more common, and more difficult to repair. Globally, poverty is correlated with infant mortality, infectious disease, and shortened lifespans. Whenever people are denied access to society’s resources, physical and psychological violence exists (Winter & Leighton 2001:1). You can download their article online: Winter, D. D., & Leighton, D. C. 2001 ‘Structural Violence’; in D. J. Christie, R. V. Wagner & D. D. Winter (Eds.), Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century. New York: Prentice-Hall. Alternatively, read: Galtung, Johan. "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research" Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1969), pp. 167-191 (on Moodle). Cultural violence As well as direct violence and structural violence, a third form of violence has been identified by Galtung: Cultural violence' is defined here as any aspect of a culture that can be used to legitimize violence in its direct or structural form. Symbolic violence built into a culture does not kill or maim like direct violence or the violence built into the structure. However, it is used to legitimize either or both, as for instance in the theory of a Herrenvolk, or a superior race (Galtung 1990:291) It may be exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science. Cultural violence makes direct and structural violence look or feel "right," or at least not wrong. The study of cultural violence highlights the way in which the act of direct violence and the fact of structural violence are legitimised and thus made acceptable in society. The topic of Cultural Resistance (Topic 8) examines how culture can be used for cultivating peace. For background, read Galtung, Johan 1990 ‘Cultural Violence’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Aug., 1990), pp. 291-305 (on Moodle). There are also some good general guides to peace studies, such as: Webel, Charles P and Galtung, Johann 2007 Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, EBooks Corporation (e-book) or Rees, Stuart 2003 Passion for Peace: Exercising power creatively, UNSW Press, Sydney. Other Peace Studies units examine different aspects of peace and violence.3After doing some of the readings above, however, you should understand peace as a multifaceted concept which is relevant to numerous aspects of globalisation. 3 For more detailed study of peace issues I recommend PEAC328/528 ‘Peacemaking’, PEAC352/552 ‘Building Peace in Post-Conflict Situations’, PEAC354/554 ‘Postconflict Justice and Reconciliation Processes’. Nonviolence is another related issue which is taught in PEAC 303/503 ‘Active Resistance: Contemporary Nonviolence’; it complements the second part of this unit. To explore environmental issues further, I recommend PEAC304/504 ‘Environmental Security’ and PAIS365/565 ‘Politics and the Environment: Intersecting Crises’, while refugee issues are covered in PEAC 388 ‘Constructing Aliens: Refugees in Contemporary Australia’.