Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Politics, Expanded

YES: International Monetary Fund Staff, from “Globalization: A Brief Overview,” Issues Brief (May 2008)

NO: Ravinder Rena, from “Globalization Still Hurting Poor Nations,” Africa Economic Analysis (January 2008)

Staff members of the International Monetary Fund conclude on the basis of experiences across the world that unhindered international economic interchange, the core principle of globalization, seems to underpin greater prosperity. Ravinder Rena, an associate professor of economics at the -Eritrea Institute of Technology, contends that globalization creates losers as well as winners and the losers are disproportionately found among the world’s poorer countries.

YES: Walden Bello, from “Capitalism in an Apocalyptic Mood” Foreign Policy In Focus (February 20, 2008)

NO: Dani Rodrik, from “Coming Soon: Capitalism 3.0,” The Taipei Times (February 11, 2009)

Walden Bello, the president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, examines on the part played by events in the United States in creating the global financial crisis beginning in 2008 and argues that capitalism is failing as a national and global model. Dani Rodrik, a professor of political economy at Harvard -University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, concedes that various aspects of capitalism caused the crisis, but contends that capitalism can be reformed and remain as the prevailing economic model across the globe.

YES: Allan Brian Ssenyonga, from “Americanization or Globalization,” Global Envision (October 2, 2006)

NO: Philippe Legrain, from “In Defense of Globalization,” The -International Economy (Summer 2003)

Allan Brian Ssenyonga, a Ugandan freelance writer for The New Times, an English daily in Rwanda, claims that one of the negative effects of globalization is cultural assimilation via cultural -imperialism. Philippe Legrain, the chief economist of Britain in Europe, an -organization supporting the adoption by Great Britain of the euro as its currency, counters that it is a myth that globalization -involves the imposition of Americanized uniformity, rather than an -explosion of cultural exchange.

YES: Christopher Layne, from “Graceful Decline: The End of Pax Americana,” The American Conservative (May 1, 2010)

NO: Alan W. Dowd, from “Declinism,” Policy Review (August 1, 2007)

Christopher Layne, who holds the Robert M. Gates chair in National Security in the George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, argues that the United States is declining in its power and increasingly unable to play a dominant role on the world stage. Alan W. Dowd, a senior fellow at the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research, contends that there have been previous pronouncements of the end of U.S. dominance on the world stage that have proved to be incorrect and the current ones may well be wrong also.

YES: Stephen Sestanovich, from Testimony during Joint Hearings on “A Relic of the Cold War: Is It Time to Repeal Jackson–Vanik for Russia?” before the Subcommittees on Europe and on Terrorism, Non-Proliferation, and Trade, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (April 27, 2010)

NO: David Satter, from Testimony during Joint Hearings on “A Relic of the Cold War: Is It Time to Repeal Jackson–Vanik for -Russia?” before the Subcommittees on Europe and on Terrorism, Non-Proliferation, and Trade, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (April 27, 2010)

Stephen Sestanovich, the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at -Columbia University, says that it is hard to think of another piece of legislation with such an honorable past that has sunk into a comparable state of purposelessness and confusion as the Jackson–Vanik amendment. David Satter, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, contends that the -Jackson–Vanik amendment is far from obsolete when applied to Russia today and should be left in force.

YES: John J. Tkacik, Jr., from “A Chinese Military Superpower?” Heritage Foundation Web Memo #1389 (March 8, 2007)

NO: Samuel A. Bleicher, from “China: Superpower or Basket Case?” Foreign Policy In Focus (May 8, 2008)

John J. Tkacik, Jr., a senior research fellow in China policy at the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation in -Washington, DC, contends that the evidence suggests instead that China’s intent is to challenge the United States as a military superpower. Samuel A. Bleicher, principal in his international consulting firm, The Strategic Path LLC, argues that while China has made some remarkable economic progress, the reality is that the Chinese “Communist” central government and Chinese economic, social, political, and legal institutions are quite weak.

YES: Patricia Berlyn, from “Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine,” An Original Essay Written for This Volume (2006)

NO: Rosemary E. Shinko, from “Why a Palestinian State,” An Original Essay Written for This Volume (October 2006)

Patricia 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 politi-cal science at the University of Connecticut, contends that a last-ing peace between Israelis and Palestinians must be founded on a secure and sovereign homeland for both nations.

YES: Christopher Hemmer, from “Responding to a Nuclear Iran,” Parameters (Autumn 2007)

NO: Norman Podhoretz, from “Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands,” Commentary (February 2008)

Christopher Hemmer, an associate professor in the Department of International Security Studies at the Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama, writes that while a nuclear-armed Iran will pose challenges for the United States, they can be met through an active policy of deterrence, containment, engagement, and the reassurance of America’s allies in the region. Norman Podhoretz, editor-at-large of the opinion journal Commentary, argues that the consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will be disastrous and that there is far less risk using whatever measures are necessary, including military force, to prevent that than there is in dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.

YES: Arturo A. Valenzuela, from Testimony during Hearings on “U.S. Policy Toward the Americas in 2010 and Beyond” before the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (March 10, 2010)

NO: Otto J. Reich, from Testimony during Hearings on “U.S. Policy Toward the Americas in 2010 and Beyond” before the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (March 10, 2010)

Arturo A. Valenzuela, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, describes the views and policies of the Obama administration regarding the Western Hemisphere, as -focused on three priorities critical to everyone in the region: promoting -social and economic opportunity, ensuring safety, and strengthening effective institutions of democratic governance. Otto J. Reich, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, tells Congress that he believes the U.S. government today is underestimating the security threats in the Western Hemis-phere.

YES: C. Fred Bergsten, from “Correcting the Chinese Exchange Rate: An Action Plan,” Testimony during Hearings on “China’s Exchange Rate Policy” before the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (March 24, 2010)

NO: Pieter Bottelier and Uri Dadush, from “The RMB: Myths and Tougher-To-Deal-With Realities,” Testimony during Hearings on “China’s Exchange Rate Policy” before the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (March 24, 2010)

C. Fred Bergsten, the director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former (1977–1981) assistant secretary of the treasury for international affairs, argues that China is manipulating the value of its currency in a way that is harming the U.S. international economic position and that it is time to use international and, if necessary, national pressure to remedy the situation. Pieter Bottelier, the senior adjunct professor of China studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and the former chief of the World Bank’s resident mission in Beijing, and Uri Dadush, the director of the International Economics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former (2002–2008) World Bank’s director of international trade, contend that dangerous myths about China’s currency may unwisely touch off a strong U.S. reaction while more effective solutions will be overlooked.

YES: Dan Siciliano, from Testimony during Hearings on “Immi-gra-tion: Economic Impact,” before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (April 24, 2006)

NO: Barry R. Chiswick, from Testimony during Hearings on “Immigration: Economic Impact,” before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (April 24, 2006)

Dan Siciliano, executive director, Program in Law, Business, and Economics, and research fellow with the Immigration Policy Center at the American Immigration Law Foundation, Stanford Law School, contends that immigration provides many economic benefits for the United States. Barry R. Chiswick, UIC Distinguished Professor, and program director, Migration Studies IZA—Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany, takes the position that legal immigration has a negative impact on the U.S. economy and that illegal immigration increases the problems.

YES: John L. Hennessy, from Testimony during Hearings on “The Impact of U.S. Export Controls on National Security, Science and Technological Leadership” before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (January 15, 2010)

NO: William C. Potter, from Testimony during Hearings on “The Impact of U.S. Export Controls on National Security, Science and Technological Leadership” before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives (January 15, 2010)

John L. Hennessy, the president of Stanford University, focuses on export control that involves sharing knowledge and says that it is negatively impacting Americans’ ability to conduct fundamental research that can benefit the United States economically and militarily. William C. Potter, the founding director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, urges caution when deciding what export control to loosen or abolish.

YES: Ariel Cohen, from “Dangerous Trajectories: Obama’s Approach to Arms Control Misreads Russian Nuclear Strategy,” Backgrounder on Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Nuclear Arms Race and Russia and Eurasia, The Heritage Foundation (November 9, 2009)

NO: Robert Farley, from “The Nuclear Posture Attack,” Right Web (June 2, 2010)

Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies at the Heritage Foundation, charges that President Obama’s arms control strategy is overambitious and based too much on unilateral concessions that will not prevent a new arms race. Robert Farley, faculty member of the University of Kentucky’s Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, defends the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy and characterizes the arguments from groups like the Heritage Foundation as outdated, nostalgic concepts from the heyday of the cold warriors.

YES: Barack Obama, from “The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” an address to the nation, delivered at the United States Military Academy at West Point (December 12, 2009)

NO: Dennis Kucinich, from “Removal of United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan,” Debate on House Concurrent Resolution 248, Congressional Record (March 10, 2010)

Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States, tells the cadets at West Point and, beyond them, the American people that the United States did not ask for a war in Afghanistan but must successfully wage it. Dennis Kucinich, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio’s 10th Congressional District, explains to members of the House why he sponsored a resolution demanding the president to withdraw U.S. military forces from Afghanistan by December 31, 2010, and urges the members to pass the legislation.

YES: Mary Ellen O’Connell, from “Lawful Use of Combat Drones,” Testimony during Hearings on “Rise of the Drones II: Examining the Legality of Unmanned Targeting,” before the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives (April 28, 2010)

NO: Michael W. Lewis, from “Examining the Legality of Unmanned Targeting,” Testimony during Hearings on “Rise of the Drones II: Examining the Legality of Unmanned Targeting,” before the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives (April 28, 2010)

Mary Ellen O’Connell, a research professor at the Kroc Institute, University of Notre Dame, and the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law at the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, tells a congressional committee that the United States is failing more often than not to follow the most important single rule -governing drones: restricting their use to the battlefield. Michael W. Lewis, a professor of law at Ohio Northern -University’s Pettit College of Law, disagrees, contending that there is -nothing inherently illegal about using drones to target specific terrorists or groups of terrorists on or away from the battlefield.

YES: Brett D. Schaefer, from Testimony during Hearings on “United Nations Peacekeeping: Challenges and Opportunities,” before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy, and Human Rights, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (July 23, 2008)

NO: William J. Durch, from “Peace and Stability Operations: Challenges and Opportunities for the Next U.S. Administration,” Testimony during Hearings on “United Nations Peacekeeping: Challenges and Opportunities,” before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (July 23, 2008)

Brett D. Schaefer, the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, DC, contends that the increased number and size of recent UN deployments have overwhelmed the capabilities of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, leading to problems that make support of UN peacekeeping questionable. William J. Durch, senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center, an internationalist-oriented think tank in Washington, DC, acknowledges that UN peacekeeping has had problems, but argues that the UN is making major reforms and deserves strong support.

YES: Brett Schaefer and Steven Groves, from “The U.S. Should Not Join the International Criminal Court,” Backgrounder on International Organization, The Heritage Foundation (August 18, 2009)

NO: Jonathan F. Fanton, from “The Challenge of International -Justice,” Remarks to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York (May 5, 2008)

Brett D. Schaefer, the Jay Kingham fellow in international -regulatory affairs at the Heritage Foundation, and Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, contend that although the court’s supporters have a noble purpose, there are a number of reasons to be cautious and concerned about how ratification of the Rome Statute would affect U.S. sovereignty and how ICC action could affect politically precarious situations around the world. Jonathan F. Fanton, president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which is headquartered in Chicago, IL, and is among the world’s largest independent foundations, maintains that creation of the International Court of Justice is an important step toward creating a more just world, and that the fear that many Americans have expressed about the court has not -materialized.

YES: Harold Hongju Koh, from Testimony during Hearings on “Ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,” before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate (June 13, 2002)

NO: Grace Smith Melton, from “CEDAW: How U.N. Interference Threatens the Rights of American Women,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2227 (January 9, 2009)

Harold Hongju Koh, the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale University and former U.S. assistant secretary of state, contends that the United States cannot champion progress for women’s human rights around the world unless it is also a party to the global women’s treaty. Grace Smith Melton, an associate for social issues at the United Nations with the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, contends that ratifying would neither advance women’s equality nor serve American -foreign -policy interests, including the security and advancement of women around the globe.

YES: James Inhofe, from Remarks on the Floor of the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record (October 26, 2007)

NO: Barbara Boxer, from Remarks on the Floor of the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record (October 29, 2007)

James Inhofe, a Republican member of the U.S. Senate from Oklahoma, tells the Senate that objective, evidence-based science is beginning to show that the predictions of catastrophic humanmade global warming are overwought. Barbara Boxer, a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate from California, responds that Senator Inhofe’s is one of the very few isolated and lonely voices that keeps on saying we do not have to worry about global warming, while, in reality, it is a major problem that demands a prompt response.

YES: Hillary Rodham Clinton, from Keynote Address at the National Democratic Institute's 2011 Democracy Awards Dinner, Washington,DC(November 7, 2011)

NO: Bruce Thornton, from “The Arab Winter Approaches,” Defining Idea (November 22, 2011)

U. S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton welcomes the Arab democratization movement and contends that it is a positive development for the national interest of the United States. Bruce Thornton, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, argues that recent developments in the Arab countries that have recently overthrow their authoritarian regimes are calling into question the optimism with which the Arab Spring was initially greeted.

YES: Ellen Tauscher, from “The Case for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,” Remarks at the Arms Control Association Annual Meeting at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC (May 10, 2011)

NO: Baker Spring, from “U. S. Should Reject Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,” Heritage Foundation Web Memo #3272 (May 26, 2011)

U. S. Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher expresses the view that the United States will lose nothing and gains much my ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Baker Spring, the F. M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation, asserts that the problems with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that led the U. S. Senate to reject it in 1999 have, if anything, worsened in the intervening.