Explaining Net Neutrality

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-2 to open the debate over net neutrality to the public. The fundamental question at hand is whether or not companies can pay to have Internet Service Providers (ISPs) deliver their information faster than other Internet users, including bloggers, new businesses and independent online media. The implications for ending net neutrality are far reaching, which address key issues regarding the democratic nature of the Internet as a socio-political, cultural and commercial space.

Internet map 1024 - transparent

A partial map of the Internet from 2005 based on lines drawn between nodes. Each node represents an IP address; the length of the lines represents the delay between them. December 1, 2006 (The Opte Project/Wikimedia Commons).

If one accepts that the public has a right to send mail using a common carrier that does not discriminate, then a natural extension of those rights is the right to send information over the Internet without any kind of discrimination. Basically, if I send mail from my local post office in South Central Los Angeles, then I will get the same quality of service as the rich and famous at their local Beverly Hills post office. On the Internet, this translates to content from Bloomberg News being delivered just as fast as the content from the independent blog I follow to stay up to date on French Politics.

Proponents of net neutrality maintain that the Internet was intended to be an open, free democratic space. In the US, supporters appeal to civil liberties such as the freedom of speech. Those arguing against net neutrality in the US, such as Viacom, Verizon and Time Warner, make the case that net neutrality laws place an undue regulatory burden on their industry. They also argue that being able to allocate bandwidth would help spur innovation and help recoup investments in developing networks. However, companies such as Amazon, Facebook and Google stoutly reject these notions. Google has even begun providing network neutral Internet Service with Google Fibre which currently exists in select American cities.

Where does the US compare to other countries when it comes to net neutrality? The debate internationally has taken place over a similar timeline. Chile was the first country to pass laws explicitly upholding net neutrality in 2010. Shortly thereafter, most of Europe followed suit as well as Brazil, Israel and Japan. Brazil went as far as to enshrine net neutrality in an “Internet Constitution” – a Bill of Rights for citizens on the Internet, the first of its kind.

The two countries that do not uphold net neutrality are the Russian Federation – on the grounds of “security” – and the People’s Republic of China. China has always tightly controlled the flow of information within its borders to preserve political stability and authority. So, even if the US ends up striking down net neutrality in the interest of private telecommunications companies, the “City on the Hill” would join a list of countries that, quite frankly, it should not be on.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

A New Grand Strategy for a Changing World

American political thinkers en masse have not engaged in meaningful debates on American grand strategy since George H. W. Bush’s proclamation of the ‘New World Order’ in the early 1990s. There have been sincere yet misinformed attempts to change America’s role, including the globalization prophets of the Clinton years, the Terror Warriors of the Bush years, and the liberal re-setters of the Obama years. However, no major faction of thinkers has articulated a practical and influential foreign policy capable of protecting America and the liberal international order in our changing world.

Dollarnote siegel hq

The reverse side of The Great Seal of the United States. ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum’ is Latin for ‘New World Order,’ the main theme of George H. W. Bush’s successful foreign policy. This order has been called into question in recent years. September 20, 2009 (U.S. Public Domain/Wikimedia Commons)

Remodeling America’s grand strategy will be difficult. In the near future the necessary lights will return to the foreground and shape the debate towards the best possible ends. At the moment, though, it would be beneficial to examine what coming paradigm shifts may look like to prepare us for the shock.

First, the supposedly transcendent norms of democratization and liberalization that swept the globe and led to a new world order over the last two decades are, in fact, not false illusions, but rather social and political constructions whose dissemination has been made possible only by the geopolitical situation of the Post-Cold War world. American hegemony, an interconnected international economic order focused on the United States, Europe, and China, the political bankruptcy of Communism, and the lack of dominant powers in any of the non-North American regions of the world created an environment wherein general interstate peace, the deepening of trade flows between the world’s major economic hubs, the spread of Western-encouraged democratization and liberalization, and multilateralism as standard diplomacy seemed to be basic forces of history rather than historically-contingent phenomena. The success of internationalism and American ideals blinded American political players to some of the unfortunate realities of international political life.

The global geopolitical situation has certainly changed over the last two decades, particularly with the assertiveness of China and the adventurism of Russia over the last six years. The resurgence of other political and economic centers of power, particularly in Russia, China, and Iran, and to a lesser extent India and Japan, has threatened American hegemony. Economic troubles in the US, Europe, and Japan, coupled with resurgent economic nationalism, have stalled the progress of the global commercial and financial order, proving globalization to be a double-edged sword. The ugly offspring of ‘democracy’ in Egypt, Libya, Myanmar, Pakistan, and other developing nations, as well as the local mutation of American-style liberalism in East Asia, Latin America, and even Western Europe of all places, have threatened formerly ‘universalist’ liberal values. Russia’s forays into Georgia and Crimea, China’s posturing with Vietnam, the Philippines, and Japan, and Iran’s manipulation of the situations in Syria and Iraq have brought the phantasmal ideals of perpetual peace, the triumph of multilateralism, and the end of interstate war to an ironic stalemate.

Moreover, innumerable trends in areas beyond the economy and politics are demanding a fundamental rethinking of how we manage foreign policy. Exponential technological advancement in fields as diverse as information technology, biotechnology, communications, energy, transportation, and manufacturing are restructuring societies, militaries, and economies. The ‘New Medievalism’ – a localization of many political units and the transition of duties formerly embraced by the state to various non-state actors such as corporations, non-governmental organizations, stateless nations, cartels, and insurgent groups – has resulted in a new anarchic political dynamic that cannot be managed by traditional statecraft alone. Environmental change, demographic shifts, and other unpredictable historical forces will continue to shape international and domestic politics in the coming decades.

How can the principles of liberal world order, American pre-eminence, and the balance of power be maintained in a world where increasingly assertive regional powers bolster their presence along their frontiers while developing societies crumble in the face of insurmountable domestic odds?

To start, the United States should determine whether or not maintaining the balance of power in every critical region of the world is feasible. Preventing the Russians from dominating Eastern Europe, the Iranians from intervening in the Greater Middle East, and the Chinese from bullying East Asia has certainly kept America the predominant power in those regions. At the same time, it has cost America blood and treasure, alienated three potential partners, and prevented those states from crafting local political orders that might be far more effective at stymying anarchy than the internationalist pretensions of the Western elite, who are proving to be far too incompetent at handling their own problems to be trusted with the affairs of others.

Balancing the Indians and Pakistanis, the Iranians and Israelis, the Japanese and the Chinese, and the Russians and the Europeans has perpetuated regional rivalries and conflicts and prevented the emergence of other hegemons. These rivalries serve America’s strategic interests in preventing the rise of challengers, but in light of present shifts in the balance of power, it is not clear whether the United States has the resources or will to perpetuate such situations and serve as the global lever. While allowing the emergence of regional hegemons is nowhere near ideal, it may be worthwhile to have go-to strongmen in the world’s critical regions who would be, if not dependable, at least predictable. Such a global concert system, populated by regional leaders as Germany, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Japan, and Brazil, and maintained by the United States, would certainly provide a more orderly international system than the vaguely law-based equality of all states existing on paper today.

Geopolitics South Russia

This geopolitical map of the South Russian frontier depicts some of strategic movements the Russians have been making in recent years. March 6, 2014 (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu/Wikimedia Commons)

Now, it may be worthwhile to stymie potential challengers. But if current political, economic, and demographic trends are to be trusted, it appears that this will ultimately be a futile endeavor, as developing nations transition into middle-class economies, their subsequent power may be too much for us to keep in check, and our attempts at policing will certainly invite contempt.

America would benefit from maintaining a liberal world order through control of the seas and dominance in military and economic might wherein fellow developed nations would come to the table, manage their own affairs, solve mutual problems, and generally strive to keep order around the world. American values could be promoted, but it would not be wise to export them and seek to impose them on our fellow states. And if the world trended towards war, it would be far easier to manage such a crisis in a world of developed states with mutual understandings, rather than a polarized world of the decadent West and the resurgent rest.

The international system is presently enmeshed in a period of great stress and tension, and a new method of thinking about politics will have to conquer the decadent contemporary orthodoxy. The statesmen of the future must engage in these discussions and seek dynamic and creative solutions – the fate of our nation demands nothing less.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

The Amazon on Life Support?

Deforestation in the Amazon as seen by satellite (by NASA, via Wikimedia Commons).

Every minute, an area the size of 50 soccer fields is destroyed in the Amazon Rainforest.  Over the past 40 years, nearly 20% of the forest has been destroyed – an area roughly the size of Alaska. Simply put, in less than half of a century more of the rainforest was destroyed than in the previous 450 years – combined.  High-resolution satellite images tell a story of devastating deforestation in the planet’s largest and most diverse rainforest. Many areas that were once a sea of lush greenery have been transformed into a barren, muddy landscape.

The Amazon represents more than half the remaining rainforest on the planet.  Humans depend on these ecosystems as a source for the planet’s carbon, water, and climate systems. Thus, it isn’t surprising that losing 2.3 million square kilometers of forest in a mere 13 years, as new research indicates, is of great concern to both environmental groups and national governments. While the majority of the Amazon is located in Brazil, the forest expands across nine countries making deforestation an international crisis.

With 20% of the forest already cut down and another 20%, as expected by scientists, to be on the chopping block over the next two decades, it is only a matter of time until the Amazon’s ecology will begin to collapse. Adding global warming to the mix makes the outlook seem worse. Over 100,000 miles of illegal roads, forged by loggers who aim to reach the prime hardwood trees deep in the forest, snake through the labyrinth of vegetation. Consequences of these new roads turn out to be equally as destructive as the actual logging. Land sharks slide in unnoticed and claim the land making land thievery a common crime. As is the case with many lucrative businesses, with high profits comes violence and corruption. Armed guards, hired gunmen, and corrupt government officials all help to facilitate these illegal activities.

It isn’t all bad news for the Amazon, however. Since the devastating revelation in the early 2000s, Brazil and other South American countries have committed to reversing the damage. New data shows that while Brazil still suffers from very high rates of forest clearing, the country has cut the annual rate of forest loss to half of what it once was. In turn, many of the strategies that Brazil has implemented as a deterrent to deforestation will help policymakers in other countries respond to the troubling rates of forest decline.

Nonetheless, the deforestation rates of 2013 were far from encouraging. It is clear that changes have to be made, as deforestation is threatening the local populations’ basic needs. In the most recent Amazonia Security Agenda, it was reported  “compromising Amazonia’s ecosystems, deforestation is now threatening not only the wellbeing and rights of the region’s people, but also the economic sustainability of the very industries that it has enabled.” Scarcity of food, water, and even energy are all threatened by exploitation of the Amazon.

Escalations in forest clearing are primarily being blamed on the weakening of legal protections in the Brazilian Forest Code that were passed under Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. The reform was riddled with controversy, and was heavily supported by members of the farmer’s lobby known as the ruralists. In Brazil, where agriculture accounts for 5% of the country’s GDP, lobbyist influence has indirectly led to increased deforestation by loggers and farmers. At the United Nation’s Summit on Climate Change, the environment minister, Izabella Teixeira, chose to focus on Brazil’s triumphs, noting the overall trend was has been positive. She attributed the elevation in deforestation to organized crime and acknowledged that the government had taken steps to fight back, saying: “What is happening are crimes, we have 3,921 police investigations, some of them involving civil servants. We are cutting into our own flesh.” Teixeira strongly emphasized that eliminating illegal deforestation remained the goal in the eyes of the government and the crimes of loggers would not be tolerated. Going forward, it is up to the Brazilian government and their counterparts, as well as the global community, to secure the future of the world’s most important forest.

What’s Eating Brazil’s Rapid Growth Rates?

A demonstrator tries to stop the riot police during one of many protests around Brazil's major cities in Rio de Janeiro June 20, 2013. Tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets of Brazil's biggest cities on Thursday in a growing protest that is tapping into widespread anger at poor public services, police violence and government corruption. REUTERS/Sergio Moraes

A demonstrator tries to stop the riot police during one of many protests around Brazil’s major cities in Rio de Janeiro June 20, 2013. Tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets of Brazil’s biggest cities on Thursday in a growing protest that is tapping into widespread anger at poor public services, police violence and government corruption. REUTERS/Sergio Moraes

Only a few years ago Brazil was on the rise. Both a BRIC country and economic the superstar of Latin America, Brazil enjoyed fantastic growth rates as it rode the wave of a commodity boom. With a young population and many untapped growth opportunities, Brazil seemed poised for continued growth and prosperity.

Unfortunately, even the commodity king of Latin America is not immune to an economic malaise. In contrast to its impressive 7.5% growth rate in 2010, Brazil puttered along at a meager 0.9% in 2012. While growth rates are forecast to rise in 2014, social unrest abounds. Just last year, protesters took to the streets in response to hikes on bus fares and corruption scandals in addition to a general outrage for exuberant government spending on stadiums for the upcoming World Cup and Summer Olympics.

The protestors’ indignation is understandable but would be better directed at failed policies and excessive government spending than at publicized scandals. A whopping 11.3% of Brazil’s GDP is spent on public pension plans, comparable to OECD European nations with much older populations. Its public spending, which amounts to 38.5% of GDP, rivals that of many developed countries.

Opponents of austerity will counter that the anti-poverty policies embraced by former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, or “Lula” for short, lifted nearly 25 million Brazilians out of poverty. Now close to half of Brazil’s population lives in the middle class, and while real income has increased by only 20% for the 10% wealthiest Brazilians, its poorest 10% have seen their real wages double in the last decade. So long as Brazil finds other paths to economic growth, such expensive state intervention can be sustained.

Brazil’s best shot at stimulating growth rates lies in meaningful reform. A disproportionate amount of Brazil’s education spending is lavished upon institutions of higher learning. More of this money should be spent on primary and secondary schooling, and less of it should go to teacher’s pensions, which are unsustainably high.

Reallocation of money from its inflated pension system to investments in infrastructure could pay enormous dividends to Brazil’s economy. While Brazil’s agricultural and commodity production is globally competitive, it is stymied by exorbitant transportation costs that eat up as much as 22% of the costs of production. Improved roads and developed transportation systems could work to alleviate this inefficiency.

Policy makers should also work to streamline its onerous tax code and customs procedures. Doing so would sharply curtail exportation and production costs, in turn bringing Brazilian products to a higher echelon of competitiveness. At the moment, manufacturing costs are continuing to rise while technological advances in production are stagnant. A concerted effort by policy makers to cut manufacturing costs does not need to be a priority, but should be on the backburner as a way of diversifying Brazil’s national income.

These barriers to economic growth are easily remedied. If President Dilma Rousseff or her successors adequately respond with sound economic policies in the coming decade, Brazil will be well on its way to solidifying its place as a world economic power. With a high national birth rate, copious amounts of land and resources, and countless opportunities for reform and infrastructure development, Brazil’s prospects are excellent. In the end, it is not a question of whether Brazil’s economy will continue to grow, but whether its government will allow it to.