The Gordian Knot of Brazilian Foreign Policy: Promoting democracy while respecting sovereignty

President Cardoso has provided decisive impetus for strengthening Brazil's commitment to democracy abroad, both through multilateral diplomacy and foreign policy. However, there exist inherent tensions between the dual principles guiding Brazilian foreign policy, the promotion and protection of democracy abroad and the attachment to national sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. This study assesses Brazil's response to threats to democracy during the last decade in 10 case studies. It argues that presidential diplomacy has played a key role in furthering the democratic commitment of Brazilian foreign policy. The author thanks Paulo Roberto de Almeida, Juan Fernando London ?o, Anja Linder, and Riordan Roett and gratefully acknowledges the support of the Democracy Coalition Project (DCP) of the Open Society Institute (OSI) in Washington DC.     

United States Hegemony and Globalisation: What Role for Theories of Imperialism?

This article examines the return of the subject of imperialism to the social sciences since 2001, focusing in particular on Marxist and Marxist-related attempts to reconstruct an analysis of the US-led international order based on this concept. It does so by first examining attempts to update Marxist and Marxian work to understand contemporary globalisation, and then points to both the weaknesses of these approaches and international events that have undermined these theories. The paper then examines the return of imperialism in some detail. While the international order can still be described as imperialist, the article is sceptical of many accounts of the ‘new imperialism’. This is partly because the utility of classical theories was questionable in the pre-1914 era, and are even more so now. Theorising imperialism in turns of surplus capital or a spatial fix ignores the direction of capital flows, both before the First World War, and in the current era. Moreover, as Marxist and Marxian theories of globalisation point out, the current era is one of greater openness and international integration than the pre-1914 era, and there is far greater cooperation between the core capitalist states, as well as sovereign states in the developing world. Contemporary imperialism is characterised by US hegemony but also greater global interdependence, and US military domination does not guarantee its economic domination. At the same time however, US hegemony is closely related to neo-liberalism and, despite as much as because of US intentions, these same policies undermine the prospects for development in the ‘South’. In this respect, US attempts to ‘Americanise’ the world are undermined by US hegemony and the imperialism of free trade.     

Reification and Theoreticism in the Study of Globalisation,Imperialism and Hegemony: Response to Kiely,Pozo-Martin and Valladão

This commentary critiques the nation-state framework of analysis that informs papers published by Ray Kiely, Gonzalo Pozo-Martin and Alfredo Valladão in a section appearing in the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19:2 (2006), on the theme of globalisation, imperialism and hegemony. Kiely, Pozo-Martin and Valladão reify the state and the inter-state system by giving them an agency independent of historical social forces. They fail to put forward a conception of agency and institutions that could address the central problematic of the political management, or rule, of global capitalism. They presuppose a state-based understanding of global politics that ignores the reality of transnational capital and transnational social forces and that reduces global capitalism to international capitalism. We should focus not on states as fictitious macro-agents but on historically changing constellations of social forces operating through multiple institutions, including state apparatuses that are themselves in a process of transformation as a consequence of collective agencies.     

Does Globalisation Threaten the State? Thesis on the Fractal State

There has been much recent debate concerning the role of the state. What should we make of this unease? There are two possibilities: the first involves taking a clear position on the debate by stating that globalisation leads to the downgrading of states in global regulation, to the benefit of the market. This suggests that the era of the state will be followed by the era of the market. While this thesis has many elements of truth, it underestimates the capacity of the state to transform itself, at the risk of opposing the state too systematically to the market. The second takes the opposite point of view by saying that the globalisation leaves the state neither defenceless nor weakened. The tenants of this analysis use the historical plasticity of the state and the falling numbers of states in the world as evidence. At the same time, they hide the size of the crisis of legitimacy of public policies. The problem comes from the fact that these two theses, reputed to be mutually antagonistic, are in fact perfectly complementary. Accordingly, instead of choosing between them, it seems useful to address them simultaneously before moving beyond them to propose the following thesis: globalisation develops at once against and with the state. This inherent contradiction transforms the state into a fractal actor, that is to say a state that no longer poises itself over society, but who at the same time remains the guarantor of a public rationality.     

Globalisation and the Restructuring of State Power in the Arab World

The dynamics of change in the Arab world today are part of a much larger global process–the neo-liberal phase of globalisation–that started in the 1980s and engendered a process of state power restructuring, both for peripheral “weak” states and core industrialised countries. Beyond national differences, the restructuring of the Arab states has implied the consolidation of neo-authoritarian political regimes characterised by fragmentation of the power structure and by an increase in informal modes of government (neo-patrimonialism, corruption), accompanied by the parallel political and economic marginalisation of large sectors of society. These less centralised and more elitist regimes are likely to be more dependent and vulnerable than their predecessors to external pressures and foreign influence.     

Globalisation,Universities and Professors

Globalisation has an increasingly profound impact on a broad range of human activities in political, economic and cultural areas. From the perspective of higher education, globalisation raises a number of challenges and concerns, particularly in preparing students--our future leaders of commerce and politics--to adequately address the demands of an ever-increasing global interdependence. Colleges and universities worldwide are responding to this challenge with an array of exchange programmes and curricular initiatives, and a recent international survey of the academic profession indicates that professors worldwide support these efforts. However, this support is considerably weaker among teachers than researchers. This has implications for policies and programmes that focus on developing more globally minded university teachers, in order to prepare our youth to adequately meet the challenges of globalisation.     

Globalisation,civil society,and the multilateral system

This paper analyses the significance and scope of globalisation, focusing on its implications for the autonomy of national actors, on the one hand, and on the new demands that global governance imposes upon multilateral action, on the other. It is argued that the current form of globalisation is in fact compatible with some degree of autonomous coordinated social action outside the realm of the market. This allows us both to differentiate between the realities and mystification (i.e. ideology) that underlie the concept of globalisation and to reject the standard discourse and economic therapy offered by certain international organisations to developing countries. If globalisation does not rule out the possibility of autonomous nationallevel action, it also establishes the basis for more solid and effective multilateral action. The factors that support the need for such action in the future are analysed; action that responds to demands for greater management of international public assets, and to calls for more effective global governance. The article ends by identifying the essential characteristics of such a multilateral system if it is to meet the needs arising from a new international reality.     

Reading The Economist on Globalisation: Knowledge,Identity, and Power

The UK-based magazine The Economist portrays globalisation as a positive extension of liberal capitalism. While consistent with the magazine's pro-market bent, the rationale for the coverage is complex, since many readers presumably share the magazine's dominant code and do not need persuasion. This paper first explores tactics used to limit discourse on globalisation to realms of economic knowledge, while devaluing knowledge from other domains. Then, using cultural theories of how people read, I argue that coverage provokes reader anxieties about a changing world--while allaying them through tales of a future in which growth continues, the lot of the poor improves, and power remains vested in the institutions, knowledge, and people that have it currently. As such, The Economist provides a utopian vision of the future and tools for shaping identity to fractions of dominant groups seeking to define their strategies in a changing world.     

Globalisation,Reconciliation and the Conditions for Conserving Peace

This paper analyses the relationship between globalisation and peace. The first part focuses on the diachronic process by which world globalisation developed after the Peace of Westphalia by means of the mechanical and subsequently organic formation of globalisation. Globalisation is analytically conceptualised as a global market of instrumentalities in which everything, like the lingua franca, is common—culture, communication, transport. Globalisation is then analysed with reference to peace and conflicts. A starting point is the observation that globalisation needs peace and pacified environments, whereas peace does not depend on globalisation. To show this the author discusses the polysemy of peace, generated by the peace of tradition and modernity and the peace of good and goods. In terms of practical relations a key role is played by how these various conceptions of peace relate to ultimate and intermediate values. The range of conceptions of peace is applied to a model of four categories of national society and each of these categories is placed in relation with another, since these reciprocal relations are the condition generating world globalisation. The result of the comparison is that globalisation produces conflict because the different conceptions of peace prevalent in each society are unable to enter into dialogue with each other. In the real world contemporary globalisation is made possible and effective by a range of engines (political and military centres, and peacemaking centres–international organisations), control functions (individuals, organisations, public opinion, a worldwide creative “multitude”) and instruments (reconciliation, negotiation, a tendency in relations for intermediate values to prevail over ultimate values).     

Globalisation,Transnational Political Mobilisation,and Networks of Violence

This article examines how globalisation processes provide new incentives and opportunities for non-state political entrepreneurs to build transnational political movements. Drawing on the literatures on non-violent social movements and transnational networks, the article examines terrorism and political violence as components of the ‘repertoires of contention’ used by radical transnational groups seeking political change. Examples from both the pre- and post-9/11 periods are provided, and the implications for traditional models of state security are discussed. The article concludes by contending that the combination of increased levels of globalisation and the emergence of new networks of violence is creating a fundamental shift in the international security environment, in which the distinction between internal and external security threats is increasingly blurred. While state security strategies are reflecting these changes, less attention has been paid to the political implications of these changes. New security responses need to also be matched by new sets of political strategies at the global level.     

Electoral Competition,the State,and Communal Violence: A Reply

In a review of my 2004 book Votes and Violence,Ashutosh Varshney and Joshua Gubler criticize various aspects of the book and its electoral incentives theory. The implication is that Varshney's own local civic engagement theory provides a superior explanation for communal violence. This article responds to the specific criticisms of my arguments about the role of electoral incentives and state action, or inaction, in leading to communal violence, showing why these are wrong or unimportant. I cite three important recent studies, by scholars working independently of me, who come to the same conclusions I do about the key role of electoral incentives and the importance of the state. I also cite the work of other scholars, based on careful fieldwork, who have questioned Varshney's characterization of the causes of conflict and peace in the cities he discusses in his own 2002 book Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life.