In a park in Ankara, brides pose as wedding pictures are taken. I am struck not by how different a scene this appears, but how normal it appears. During my quick stroll through the park I saw three different brides having pictures taken, all in flowing white dresses, some sleeveless, and often with low backs. They were all beautiful dresses that would look entirely natural in an American wedding environment. Turkey is officially 98% Muslim, obviously, the actual level of practicing Muslims is likely much lower, but could it be that despite a host of rather radical religious, cultural, and historical differences that when a young Turkish woman imagines her ideal wedding she imagines something quite similar to that of a young American woman?

Western brands are very popular in Ankara, and a trip to the city center can yield a variety of fake La Coste, Nike, Adidas, and other apparel. I was approached at my language institute by a young Kazakhistani woman inquiring about whether I had any American music on my cell phone to give to her, and had a Jordanian teenager ask my advice regarding who the best rap artists are in the States. As an American, I know what’s cool… I guess… Clearly faulty logic somewhere in there… Regardless, the commonalities that globalization creates are incredible.

Globalization, the growing interconnectedness of individuals across the globe, has long been simultaneously praised and condemned. Praised for decreasing conflict, increasing international trade, and creating personal connections between those in the developed world and developing world possible: see kiva.org. Condemned for destroying local culture, creating a new wave of capitalist imperialism, and placing otherwise content locals into sweatshops for long hours and little pay. Many believe the story of globalization is one of opportunity, and many others the story of exploitation.

A classic political science argument on globalization is that no two countries both with McDonalds will ever go to war. While this particular example has been proven wrong, and was subsequently adapted to be more specific, the McDonalds are of course merely a symbol for globalization, and the actual argument is that no two countries that are fully integrated into the global economy would ever go to war because the economic repercussions would simply be too great. Of course, economics does not tell the entire story of globalization, if only there was a symbol of globalization that was not economic but rather a social symbol… but what?

I present to you, the Holderith Theory of Conflict and Globalization. No two states in which at least 20% of the population is married in strapless dresses will ever go to war.

A seemingly bold theory, but really not… To begin my theory is safe from the past due to the relatively recent emergence of strapless dresses, and I have already accounted for the future because none of the countries on the West’s To Do list have a significant quantity of marriages involving strapless dresses (sources pending). That’s right go ahead, attack Iran… Before NATO/UN/Coalition/Israeli/US forces even reach Tehran I will have begun my first lecture tour.

I jest, with this example. However, consider the realities of globalization, the reasons why globalization destroys local cultures is the same reason why globalization prevents war. Because women in Ankara want a wedding that would be immediately recognizable across the West is undoubtedly linked to the reason why Turkey’s integration into the European Union is possible. Turkey is poised to play a greater role in world politics then ever before and maybe, just maybe, it is because women in Turkey, Western Europe, the United States, close their eyes and picture one of the most important days of their lives with striking similarities…

Turkey and Armenia are set to normalize relations today by signing a treaty that would reopen the border between the two countries which has been closed the entire duration of the Armenia’s post-Soviet existence. The treaty seeks to “develop good neighborly relations in mutual respect and progress peace, security and stability in the entire region,” who could be against that right?

Indeed, this is quite clearly a step forward for regional security. With relations normalized cooperation may begin in promoting peace in the caucuses, namely with Azerbaijan and the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. However, despite the clear gains available to Turkey and Armenia in promoting security and economic prosperity one cannot help but be troubled by the underlying moral dilemma inherent in this agreement.

Aremenian president Serzh Sarkisian claims that this move in no way takes the pressure off of Turkey to admit to what Armenia and much of the world has labeled the Armenian Genocide. Looking at this move though it is difficult to agree with Sarkisian. In allowing relations to normalize without Turkey admitting or apologizing Armenia is losing the bulk of the leverage that they currently have over Turkey. International pressure for Turkey to admit to genocide will surely plummet and Turkey will lose all incentive to do so. With normalized relations and a decline in international pressure how can this be perceived as anything but a removal of pressure on Turkey?

Of course, in the short term physical needs, increased security and economic prosperity may take precedent over moral abstract needs. As Turkey and Armenia place the pen to paper they both understand what is at stake, the Armenians are sacrificing an abstract desire for justice in exchange for real benefits. As protests rock the Armenian Diaspora it is clear they understand this as well.

In the end though, it is clear this is the right move for Armenia. Pragmatism must win out. Not only does it bring gain for Armenia and the region but it also represents progress on a troubled issue which I believe has no other resolution. Turkish nationalism is both highly visible and embedded within the Turkish Republic. Speaking out against the state, “acting in a manner disrespectful of the flag,” or speaking ill of Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, are all serious offenses. It is difficult to comprehend any movement by Turkey on this issue when such pride exists in the Turkish republic. Accommodating Armenian demands for recognition of the atrocities of the declining Ottoman Empire would quite clearly be political suicide for Turkish elected officials, and so is currently unforeseeable in Turkey today.

Normalizing relations with Turkey is the right move. It is certainly far from a perfect solution, but it is the best option available in the foreseeable future.

The latest results from Iran’s recent presidential election featured Mir Hossein Moussavi, the primary opposition candidate, in a disappointing and suspicious loss to incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, considered by many Iranians to be at fault for the years of economic instability during his presidency, enjoys staunch support from rural communities and is to some an enemy of the wealthy and “champion of the poor.” In contrast, Moussavi is believed to be a more moderate candidate, advocating greater cooperation internationally and engagement with the United States. While Moussavi was predicted to win by the vast majority of Iranian media, his loss is suspicious due to large number of what are being referred to as irregularities.

Even before polls had closed Moussavi condemned the election as unfair. Within hours, the United States and Canada both expressed “concern” over the potentially unfair nature of the elections. From the amount of skepticism both inside and outside the state of Iran regarding the elections it’s fairly clear that something at least marginally democratically improper occurred.

Thinking critically, the important outcome of the election is not a presidential candidate, but the progress of Iranian democratic values, the traditional precursor to democratic institutions.  After election results were announced Iranians gathered in Tehran and chanted “Death to the Dictatorship,” and Mousavi supporters conducted sit-ins. While most gatherings were peaceful, some turned violent involving clashes with the police and burning buses. With Iranians who publicly denounce the government often disappearing, this is an intriguing turn of events.

All governments rule through a combination of legitimacy and coercion. No state exists solely through either legitimacy or coercion, but rather through a combination of the two. Generally, the more coercion required to maintain state control the more unstable that state becomes. (An example of this could be the Soviet Union’s control over the Warsaw Pact, as legitimacy of the Communist ideology eroded it became increasingly necessary to execute coercive control over the Warsaw pact countries, In 1991 Gorbachev refused to use the necessary force to retain Soviet control and the Warsaw Pact disbanded.)

Iranian elections began, with relatively little at stake, as a means to create a more legitimate form of government. (It remains unclear how much power the elected executive branch truly has, and all candidates must be cleared by the Supreme Council before being allowed to run) This week’s election may symbolize a turning point in Iranian politics. The population is becoming so upset over the potential irrelevance of their vote that in order to restore order and stability the government will have two options for future elections; choose to conduct fairer and freer elections (a turn towards more legitimate rule), or choose to continue elections with predetermined results, a turn towards greater coercive rule. Although one is clearly favorable, either outcome could prove positive in the long-run. Less legitimacy domestically generally translates to less legitimacy internationally, and the Iranian regime appearing illegitimate would be useful for creating international support to slow or stop a proliferating Iran. In contrast, a free and democratic Iran would surely translate positively for US-Iranian relations.

The evolution of the Iranian political system to a point where an inherent assumption exists that the will of the majority creates legitimacy is far more encouraging than the election of a moderate on what is a very limited political spectrum.

I conclude with a statement one voter made to the Tehran Times following the election:

Despite all the country’s problems over the years, we see that the culture of democracy is beginning to take root in Iran, and the people are becoming confident that they can control their destiny by casting ballots. And the people are happy. These are good signs that augur well for the future.

( Source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=196629 )

Last Thursday Russian troops clashed with troops attempting to reassert Georgian authority in South Ossetia. The response from the West, until today, has been weak and essentially non-binding. Several threats of removing Russia from the G-8, economic group have been levied, but nothing of a more serious nature.

International Relations theory states that conflict is most likely to occur when shifts in the systemic balance of power occur. Russia has had a very difficult time adapting to its role in a unipolar world, and nowhere is this more visible then in its relations with its’ neighbors. During the Cold War, Ukraine, Georgia, and Poland were for all intensive purposes, the sovereign territory of Russia under the Soviet Union. Russia has stated repeatedly that they perceive Ukraine and Georgia to be within their “sphere of influence,” and that the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into Ukraine or Georgia would be unacceptable. Ukraine and Poland both joined NATO, and Georgia had applied, but was turned away due to intense pressure from Russia.

Read More >>