0
Shares
Pinterest Google+

Author: Kanan Parida

IMG_7950

The inaugural event for the London Globalist, ‘Pessimistic and Bleak News- What realistic hopes can we have for the future?’ was held on Thursday 15th October. The panel debate focused broadly on the theme of failing international institutions and mechanisms. Specifically, the panel considered the Russian intervention in Syria, the Greek financial crisis and the Refugee Crisis from a multidisciplinary perspective. Chaired by Globalist Editor-in-Chief, Krish Anil, the panel consisted of Professor Robert Wade from the International Development department, Anthropology professor Dr. David Graeber, Dr Joe Mazor, Assistant Professor in Political Science and Philosophy and Mr Richard Kirsch, a graduate intern at POLIS.

For each topic under discussion, the panellists were posed an initial group question. In the milieu of civil war in Syria and the rise of the anti-government body ISIL, the question posed was: What real impact do you think Russian intervention will have in Syria and in containing ISIL? Quickly moving to a broader question of intervention, the discussion began by considering Russian motivations for intervention in Syria. Considering the bigger picture, Dr. Wade drew interesting parallels between Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and its interventions in Syria, concluding that Russia was ultimately worried about Central Asia and was committed to having a client state in Syria. Conversely, Mr. Kirsch argued that Russia was not interested in keeping Assad in power. Rather, Putin anticipated an upcoming deal between the Western powers involved in the region and thus saw intervention as a means to prevent Western monopolisation of the region. While the details of these motivations diverge, it is clear that both panellists took the position that intervention was strategic. On the question of morality, political philosopher Dr. Joe Mazor questioned why Russian intervention was given so much attention, when no one pays any heed to civilian causalities from American or British bombing campaigns. Speaking from an anthropological perspective, Dr. Graeber commented that ISIL and other “moderate rebels are like Al Qaeda”. While intervening powers may not care about the morality of intervention, Graeber argued, the local population is trying to set up democratic confederates and wants freedom from these authoritarian powers. The conclusions from this discussion were clear: all the involved parties were embroiled in the conflict for their own self interest- a rather bleak prospect.

In the consideration of the Greek Financial Crisis, there was a broader focus on the functionality of EU as a system and on who was culpable for the crisis in the first place. Opinions diverged yet the debate was grounded in evidence from varied stances. Dr. Graeber focused his discussion on the morality of holding a state liable for the actions of private individuals. He raised an interesting point that while austerity measures are tightening, there is an underlying irony in that German prosperity is based on debt cancellation. Why couldn’t we do the same for Greece? Dr. Mazor harped on the issue of liability too, this time questioning why a German taxpayer should bear any responsibility for the crisis. Dr. Wade again diverged in his opinion on liability and asked why the private banks were bailed out in the first place, asserting that they should have been held personally liable. Whilst opinions diverged as to who was to be held responsible, the basic assertion of this discussion was that there was falling confidence in the institution of the European Union and a lack in solidarity amongst its people.

The debate finally moved on to the question of the refugee crisis. Following Home Secretary Theresa May’s comment that “mass migration made a cohesive society impossible”, the debate focused on whether it was ever morally permissible for a state to cap the intake of migrants. Mr. Kirsch attempted to address this question by raising a noteworthy point about the definition of a “refugee”. Focusing not on whether it would ever be morally permissible to cap the intake of refugees, Kirsch demonstrated that refugees were only those that were politically persecuted and in fear of their life; this basic distinction has caused authorities to turn away many “migrants” at the border. Dr. Wade countered this point by emphasising that Britain and the EU 15 had no moral obligation to take in migrants and that many people from countries in crises took advantage of the system, coming to Europe for better opportunities. Dr. Mazor posited that the distinction between migrants and refugees was clear and necessary because suffering from political persecution was far worse than fleeing a natural disaster or the like. He went on to discuss that there were costs to accepting refugees and that perhaps a more effective strategy would be to take refugees directly from camps. Dr. Graeber posited that the ideal solution to this dilemma was the internationalistion of society and that movement away from the nation state. A link was drawn between the moral and pragmatic implications of mass migration, while certain sections of the population benefit, others lose out. It was concluded that, whilst this situation may not be ideal, political considerations are primarily domestic, not international and thus the nation state is prima facie the predominant form.

IMG_7978

Ending with contrasting perspectives, the panel concluded that these issues are faced with the unavoidable obstacle of the self-interested nation state, but the degree to which this still holds true can be questioned. While some contended that there was nothing wrong with this form, there will always be the idealist, or in this case Dr. Graeber, with hopes for a “global experiment”, in which the state system would be obsolete.

Author

Previous post

The Week in News: 12th October- 19th October

Next post

International Crises: A Compassionate Point of View