Successful negotiation boils down to three essential factors: agency, operation, and language. There has to be a drive by both sides to talk. Our readings this week have adequality shown when and where those meeting points transpire, of which they are rooted in the struggles for power and whichever side of the conflict is losing or winning, as well as the general population’s perspective on either group. That appears to be something akin to the proverb ‘it is what it is.’ What is entirely disheartening about that is the ‘is’ in this case is war and civilian death. However, it is legitimate to base an understanding of negotiation on the disparity between conflicting groups. Where I find a much greater need for agency and discourse on agency in negotiations would be the international response to intrastate conflict.
Today is a day of reflection. Today is a day to wonder what will come about tomorrow and the day after. What exactly does the United Kingdom leaving the European Union mean? Why do so many say this is the dawn of a new era? There is a lot that will be told and learned in the time to come. Right now the shock is achingly real making it worrisome to ponder predictions, besides the overall worrisome that comes with predictions. However, one cannot feel there is something to worry about in all this. While it might not be understood, the economics might fly over our head, and the politics are muddy, something still feels ominous about this new relation in the UK.
The age of disparity should be yesterday, but it is not. One cannot stand very firm with the notion the UK does not carry an unequal amount of global influence. It is entirely accurate to say that a sovereign nation much like people will follow the leader is an oversimplification. However, in this case, the proverb might ring quite true. Should we even worry about the precedent this sets up with other countries in the EU? Does this apply to those countries that are not in a union similar to the UK but rather still possess an environment where influence could be burdensome?
The answer is yes; we should worry about this on all fronts because of the influence the UK carries and the painfully critical times at hand. Deciding against cooperation might just be the spark numerous other disgruntled countries need to close their doors. We live in times where cooperation is decreasing globally and misconceptions and doubt reign supreme. A global power like the UK should not set an example of going at it alone. Going ‘Rogue’ could have sinister causalities that we do not see coming.
Have the worst wounds of the crisis been avoided? We might have cauterized the injury with an infection still inside. To name a few: advanced economies, the European Union (EU) and emerging nations face dire economic imbalances; archaic geopolitical style maneuvering is occurring at rising rates in Eastern Europe while Africa and the Arab region are bleeding migrants in alarming numbers. Even if you do not add in a changing climate, these relations will not equal a description of ‘smooth sailing’ for global economics in the foreseeable future. At the very least, they show an expressed need to move away from crisis economics as a ‘new normal’ and return to the ability to use conventional Keynesian models of economics. If taken as critical, as they should be, there is a need for broad structural changes that would see new models of economics that temper global arrangements in exchange for a more powerful state.
To Build a Review of Dead Aid
Dambisa Moyo confounded developmental economists and academia in 2009 with her pointed critique of the assistance regime surrounding development in sub-Saharan Africa when she published Dead Aid. Since that time, the ideas professed by Moyo have been considered rather profound yet divisive. Niall Ferguson sums up the initial basic question Moyo asks in his foreword to Dead Aid. Ferguson states, “why, ask Moyo, do the majority of sub-Saharan countries ‘flounder in a seemingly never-ending cycle of corruption, disease, poverty, and aid-dependency, despite the fact that their countries have received more than US$300 billion in development assistance since 1970” (Ferguson, 2009). Moyo claims within the writings of Dead Aid that the support or aid given to sub-Saharan Africa has failed in its scope by making the region poorer and that there are alternatives to the regime of assistance. This essay will summarize and critique Dead Aid but also apply the findings to the broader debate on global integration. Moyo gives readers within Dead Aid a particular insight into the duality between ‘no-strings’ attached foreign direct investment (FDI) typified by the Eastern style of support to the Western ideology of democracy building as a contingency to aid.
Before diving into the summary and critique of Dead Aid, a few words on the uniqueness and background of Dambisa Moyo are in order. Moyo has a few significant benefits to the majority of theorist’s writing about sub-Saharan Africa. In borrowing from and summarizing Ferguson’s foreword to Dead Aid, Moyo is a black female born and raised in Zambia, a sub-Saharan African nation (Ferguson, 2009). On those merits alone she represents a perspective that should not be ignored. However, her education and career have taken her from places like Havard University all the way to Oxford University, and then to the professional world of economics with Goldman-Sachs for eight years in New York City (Ferguson, 2009). With her education and personal demographics, readers can see how she developed quite visceral views to aid in sub-Saharan Africa.