Theories IR 9.10

The transcription discusses how different individuals approach the study of international politics based on their backgrounds and perspectives. It emphasizes the importance of understanding various levels of analysis and theories to grasp the complexity of global issues. The speaker criticizes the lack of diversity in the scholars who have shaped international relations theories and highlights the influence of power dynamics, military-industrial complex, and neoliberalism in shaping global politics. The speaker encourages a critical approach to studying international relations to avoid limited understanding and acknowledges the evolving nature of theories over time. So what did we do this last week, what did we do last week, brainstorming, but at the same time we did a kind of introduction and overview of the theory and we did an introduction about the levels of analysis that are used and employed in the IEI study. Why this is important? The levels of analysis help us to systematize our understanding and explanation of the reality. We can, last week we talked about this, everybody may have different approaches to look from different perspectives to international politics, to Gaza, as we talked about, for example, in Gaza. So one problem is that when she looks at Gaza, she will look to a theological and gender perspective, for example, because her brain can surveil thinking and her awareness that is developed during her life, and any woman probably may just place some glasses on her and on me as well, and she can look through Gaza to a more feminist perspective or probably more social contact approach and try to see the local action. While, what was your name? Amen. He comes from a more military background, has a military background, has lectures, education, also probably his circle, his society, his societal background, where he grew up, nurtured his approach in looking through the correlation of powers, for example, systems, economic power, etc. I, my migrant background, refugee background, etc., and my Balkan background, they formed my, made me form my approach, because I grew up in a more European society, so to speak, but I'm also dealing with migration and I'm also dealing with gender issues, so I may approach Gaza from both perspectives, from looking to the societal perspective, the cycle of tragedy and probably more connected civil society actions, for example, activities, etc. So we have many, many different approaches. Have I drawn, actually, the sun? The sun of the country? I think I've drawn it, yes? So, this is, this is the nation of politics, and everybody is looking from a corner. So this is, as you are looking from here, I'm here, and everybody has a kind of center and point of looking there. Everybody has glasses, actually. And each family is a glass. So, some of you will like neorealism, some of you will like hegemonic approaches. So, that's why approaches and theories are very subjective. But why do we learn them? Because by learning the theories, we learn to move through the eyes of economics, through the eyes of the market, through the eyes of the hegemonic, neorealist, neoliberal approach, contrastivist approach, and feminist approach, green theory, critical security studies, hegemonic approaches. So, what happens at the end? When we learn the theories, the sun is gone. It's all gone. So, we start to see and to look at the international politics and to see the world aspect of it. And we start to see the system aspect, the system and the analytical level of analysis, the system. We start to read the correlation between system and state, the state level of analysis. We can read it as well because we can learn that there is neorealist, contrastivist approach and there are all domestic politics, foreign policy, contraction, etc. And we learn about the role of individuals. It's cool. Where is the human being in the international politics? And also we have here women, children, disabled people with disabilities, elderly people, whatever you say you want. So, now when we understand and try to explain and understand Banda through those levels of analysis, we are calling it the system of Aya, or understanding Aya. We will put it in an order. So, this is a kind of, there are some critics, possibly because it's cool, who are critical to traditional Aya schools. And I will tell you what is the difference between post-positivist and positivist. But post-positivist schools say, well, it has a kind of disciplinary effect on the discipline of Aya. So, why we have to categorize the discipline or approach so much, so we have to have more freedom? We don't have to have more freedom. What happens usually to create an Aya discipline? When you start to write your thesis, your professor says, what is your theoretical approach? What is your theory? Or what is your approach? That you are going to base your thesis on. You are not supposed to look through the eyes of everyone in the center. So, do this mistake. I didn't do it because I was doing my graduate study at the time. So, that's why I had to implement many different approaches. But, many students take the hat and the glove only of one approach and base the whole reality, explain the whole reality of the case that they are analyzing through those glasses. And only this happens. Which is a result of the end of limited understanding of the problem. So, how we can benefit from the theory? We can benefit just to know by the knowledge of their diverse approaches and perspectives. So, they can enlighten the different aspects that they are not aware of. However, we don't talk about this in this class. The representative of the Gramsci-Lenz-Kolbin-Meyer-Kopf, Robert Koch, says that every theory is a kind of thesis for paterna. So, every theory involves glasses. That's my English reading. And those glasses, this theory is constructed by somebody. I'm sure of it. Who is this somebody? During the last lecture, I told you. Who is this somebody, the heaven-born person, who wrote the most of the Aya theory, except Neopolonian and Chinese? It changed. It changed. I can show you the pictures of those men. And the scholars of Aya. And I will show you their photos. Those are the scholars of the Aya. Majority. The name. We will learn about them. All of them are what? Males. All of them are Argo-Saxons. Is there somebody from East or South? All of us from the global North. What about Abdul-Mutlu? Is he Turkish? Yes. So, Abdul-Mutlu is in the parliament right now. In the Senate in Transnistria. Where? In? Senate. In the parliament. Ah, in the parliament. I don't know him. I just know the name of him. He is the founder of the Aya theory. You know? Abdul-Mutlu. What is his first name? I don't know. He is the founder of the Aya theory. What is the Aya theory? He is the founder of the Aya theory. Who was he? He was the founder of the Aya theory. He is the founder of the Aya theory. He is the founder of the Aya theory. He is the founder of the Aya theory. There is no Aya. I don't think Aya theory was international economics or international business or something like that. Now, I was going to move to the second slide. It might sound wrong. But all those women are critical. Except there was Sunayi. She is in the physical studies from the University of Transnistria. Mary Calder is also... She has been a critical standpoint about the new world and new world approaches. I think she is Green Theorist. Is that what she is called? Green Theorist. Who is this? I don't know. Well, I don't know the name of her. She is the writer of the Bananas, Beaches and Military Dances. Find it. Then you will learn about her. If I tell it, it's going to be more difficult and I will just disappear for a few seconds. What she wrote? Bananas, Beaches and Military Dances. She was... This is a very enjoyable book. It is a book about the place of the woman in the name of India and the world. India and the world. Okay, so... But who wrote... Ah, you want to read? Okay. Who wrote the theories that we are going to learn in the next 14, 13 weeks? Those ones, for sure. And... So what I wanted to say is that... Almost all of the theories, except Neocolonialism... I didn't write here the Neocolonialist thinkers. But... And they are used in India. In Indianology. So... Most of the theories that we are going to learn, except Green and French theories... Are written by Anglo-Saxon personalities. Some of them know the Global South. The majority don't. And most of the cases that they base their approaches, and we will learn about this... Are cases from the Europe. And the US. And some of them grow up in the... Except Wolfenstein, Cox, who has a very critical stance. Von der Kleene is also very good. He's more left than the answer. Almost... A little liberal, but it's okay. Dobson, William Telly... One is kind of critical, especially in the context of anarchy. But... Merckheimer... Eisenhower... They're all positive. There were... Coulson. Coulson and Nye, liberals. They are the persons of the market. So they look through the eyes of the market. They will learn about this. So, that's why... If you want to understand how neoliberal order affects the lives of the local people... And if you want to understand why Trump designed Gaza and not Raleigh, for some reason... You have to learn... And we will learn about this neoliberal world thinking. And as I stated in the last speech... Those are the men who are saying that spending money for armaments and teaching military soldiers... Providing education and constructing a military army is a waste of money. Okay. If everybody needs the armaments and the militaries and all the countries abolish them, I'm fine. That's it. But they are not about this because today... The market... Armaments market and the military market leads politics. So there is a competition between those markets, between the industries, military industries. This competition leads to conflict. Because they have to sell arms. They have to sell. If they don't sell those companies, they cannot make profit. So there should be a conflict, a war. But they always want the minimal government involvement. And if you want to just make trade centers for the machinery... To decrease the sovereignty of the state. Then the private sector should be free. Free. Let's touch. Okay. Okay. So we will talk about all this. And... Okay. So... That is why, keep in mind, none of the theories and approaches that we are going to learn have a kind of explicit, true explanation of the international politics. And even more important is that all those theories are time-prone. They are linked with the time and the political conjecture, the economic conjecture and the international politics of different times. So they are limited in context, in states, because they grew up and they were produced in global norms, in the Anglo-Taxon world, by Anglo-Taxon lands, and inspired by Western renaissance culture, rather modernist. And some of them don't have critical chance, except Marxist social contractivity and the critical social contractivity. Critical fiducity is... But even they have suggestions. So all of those theories are just approaches and explanations about kind of way of understanding this world. Some of them are understanding. Those are understanding. Those are trying to explain the world. I will tell you why. Those, until Marxist, we can say they are trying to explain the reality in international politics. And the ancient Franco-School critical social contractivity, part of the social contractivity because they are divided into two layers of critical fiducity, which is co-enhanced, rather school-feminist belief theories. Those are trying to understand. But those are different things. Understanding, explaining. Today we will talk about the differences between explaining and understanding. In brief, we call those approaches explanatory approaches in our explanatory theories. And those, there is an understanding of it. So there are also limited, there are arguments. And explanations are limited with the time that when they were designed. Because you see here, neoliberalism, each theory actually develops often explanations of the reality of the politics of 18th. So the neoliberal approach and the pluralist approaches, for example, regime theory, they grow up at the time of the times. But neoliberalism grow up at the time of hard Cold War, when there was a hard conflict between the Soviet Union and the US. Idealism and realism are the same. Why realism came up? Because of the unsuccessful idealism to prevent the Second World War. So realism criticized idealism. Neoliberalism criticized realism. Neoliberalism criticized neorealism and reality. And Marxist-Neo-Marxist approaches they criticized neoliberalism. So each approach was built on the ground of the other. So this is also a kind of dependency between approaches. So that's why the concepts that we use in international relations are also biases. And there is a problem. For example, should we use today the concept of international politics or global politics? Very, very good question. So usually the students have a lot of trouble answering this. What's the difference between global politics and international politics? Just make it a little bit more difficult for my students. Do you think international politics can solve global problems? International politics is mostly about the institutions that dominate the legislation, the rules and regulations. But global politics is a kind of power that is all over the world. For example, global politics can help us to de-identify the people by their identities, by where they belong. It's not the same, I think. Both are the same. International politics is mostly about the institutions. They are just executing all the programs for the people that they are leaving around the world. Not all the people around the world, but the people who are the members of these institutions. But global politics is mostly about the traits and global connections between people of different traits. These are two different approaches. Global is more relative for the people. For the people than the states. Are there any global institutions? Global agreement on institutions? Is it global? But what is UN? UN is an international organization. How can UN be transformed into a global organization? Global. Yes, it does represent some countries. But beyond it, there is another difference between global and international. I don't know, but I was thinking that some problems, they cannot be solved between nations. Because some problems are across borders. Beyond the states. Beyond the states. And maybe also the states are a problem. Past nations. And the states are the problem. Sometimes they are. The states are the main problem in the world. Sometimes they are. And borders are also made only. So one problem needs to be solved globally and not internationally. For example, is it just a global agreement or international? Is this an agreement about the environment? I think it is global. It is international. Why is it international? Because more for the Eastern countries and it is not there. Ok. Because a lot of the Easterners, they did everything on their time. And by their approach, they are emphasizing that the Eastern countries shouldn't do these things for us. Ok. So it is more for the Eastern countries. What else? Any other ideas? You know, I just want to say that international implications are global. Because global, I suppose, has really changed the form of globalization in particular. Globalization. And while international means that, like, nations are sort of separate because that is the case. And the first problem is that you have all nations of the world. I just suppose that everyone is in the same context. While international is also international. Also means that, sorry, there is a ruling that there is no peace. They are not able to agree with each other. They are not able to agree with each other. Why? Let's go to this point. Why they don't agree with each other? For example, think about climate change. So there was categories. Industrialized countries, unindustrialized countries, developed countries, developing countries, blah blah blah. Why they needed those categories? Why they couldn't reach a kind of common agreement to decrease the carbon emissions by 25% by 2020? For example, China. Great economies and great industries want to develop their industry. And this is global scale. And those want to follow up the Kyoto Protocol and another climate change 3.1. And those want to reduce their emissions, CO2 emissions. And they can do this. Nobody says they can't do this. There is no authority that tells them that this has to be done. There is no division. So there is no division. Okay. Let's break this. Think about this. Okay? Nations. We bring the nations. Even the main book in international relations written by Schrodinger is politics and non-discrimination. And then, with the Wilson, I will talk about Wilson Institute. Let's open the first slide. They constructed this international discipline. International. What is nation? Why nation is important? After the breakdown of the empire, the era of empire, you have the growth and dispersion of nation states. The most important feature of the nation states. What is the most important feature? Why the nation states still have a say in the U.S.? Why? Even if the whole nation states are in U.N. terms, we will drop out of those issues. So they have both. Why they still have both? Even on the global issues. Global problems. They have both. Now, the main features of the nation states, let me remind you, there was a kind of, what was designed with the Fuchs agreement. One important Fuchs agreement that took place in Europe in 1648. The Fuchs agreement. And for years, we are talking in the national politics, there is an assumption that we are living in a world which is designed under the Westphalian Fuchs agreement, the design. And the Westphalian era in international politics, according to some people, is finished. But according to some, I am in this particular group, the Westphalian era is not finished, but we can talk about a new Westphalian era. But what is important, very much important about the Westphalian order, the Westphalian order, there is one very important feature of the Westphalian order, and it is that it emphasizes some of the articles of the U.N. Charter and NATO Charter. And even the states have the right to tell the terms. And the states have the right to tell the terms. A concept that I use very often. I use it during the lecture. And it is very important. If you remove this concept from international politics, you will reach anarchy, but if there comes an authority, you will reach global peace. A concept that is very, very, very important in international, and makes the politics international, not global. We are ready for international politics to turn into a global politics. Very basic concept. And this concept was challenged by the rise of the trade states, commercial states. Huh? Sovereignty. Yes. Sovereignty. Sovereignty. So the main feature that makes the difference between international and global is the concept of sovereignty. Because the concept of sovereignty provides independence and authority to the states to have their say in international politics. To keep their borders secure, you see, as a factor. To use military force. To use justice against the international community, but in fact, as well, against the society as well. Sovereignty gives the main authority, provides the main authority of control over the military and justice-related and financial means. So based on the sovereignty, the states also design their own national interest. If you remove the sovereignty, now nationalism is gone. So the unity remains in international civilization. And the main, main ideal of the Ottoman people is what? The ideal of humanity. The principle of humanity. Why? Because part of the challenge is that European countries have been fighting with each other for 13 years based on a religion. Catholic, Protestant, blah blah blah. Eastern and Western cultures. So by establishing the concept of sovereignty, they say, okay, let's not fight each other anymore. Let's make all things Islamic, peace, and just colonize the rest of the world. And this is when the colonization started. The colonization started right after the despotism. So Eastern Europe was established. Europe was the main center of international politics. It was not even possible to talk about international politics at that time. It is more accurate to talk about European politics at that time because Britain. We have Britain, the hegemon of the 19th century. Because we have Portugal. We have Netherlands. Because they were British powers. The Mediterranean powers. And that's why after the despotism, the European countries just enjoined the main principles of the nation state. And they acknowledged it. They wrote it down as an agreement. And this was globalized at the international level after the establishment of the, after the first world war, the second world war, when the new nation state comes to the light. And each nation state accepted this thing. And this is why today the UN doesn't break it down as well. The states in the UN system have never applied to break it down. Because the main principle there is sovereignty. Because they have sovereignty. They have a say. And there is no authority that is going to enforce something beyond their sovereignty. So this is why we are not living still in a global war. We are living in a climate. We are living in a world. But there is globalization. There is globalization. But globalization takes place with limits. Globalization is limited with the arranging of the states. Limited states. And even if we can go back to a very economic globalization, this is not the case. The states can still intervene on the transnational companies if the states have the right to promote the Qatar companies to come and to invest and just throw away the French companies because they don't like them. Or to put some limits, etc. Like they did to the Israeli companies in some countries. To stop trading with them. To end foreign direct investment. All of those are tied to the same terrain. But it has different types of terrains. It has economic terrains. And we will talk about economic terrains. Which was almost eliminated during the last ten years with the globalization and the predominance of foundation of international nations. So, is it possible to go to a life of truly about countries with full economic surveillance? Do you think there is a country which keeps its full economic surveillance? So it has, what we have seen, it has local companies. It promotes local companies, but puts limits to the transnational companies. It controls its money by, and it doesn't look to the world's drinks. It doesn't look to the British dollar or euro. But it defines its own economy. Who are those countries that define their own money according to their markets? North Korea, Cuba, Iran. To some extent, but it is dependent on the petrol. There is also dependency. In the big picture, the markets are dependent on it. Yes, US is probably to be a country that has its surveillance because it... But during the last years, what is the problem is that US started to lose its surveillance with the entrance of foreign direct investment and the capital and China challenges. China's challenges, US's challenges, for example, to the world GDP distribution, 30% is still produced by the US. So US is funding the UN, US is funding the World Trade Organization, US is funding IMF and World Bank is dependent on it. So many organizations are on it. Hello. So, as US surveillance... Does everybody need to have to watch this? When you look, you look to the dollar to design your economy. Our economy depends on the dollar. Yes. So, this is because what North Korea is doing actually, is just trying to recover the surveillance position, the economic surveillance position of the US and to make it, again, more accountable to the dollar. Exactly. But this is, those are exactly the tools of the economic surveillance of the US. So, what is done? Well, it helps actually. The global powers that have designs and have done the coordination between which we are living today, they are surveilling. For example, the economic surveillance in Europe. Europe is also very powerful. We can make a political program because the state is powerful. The state controls the infrastructure. The state interests control the natural resources, which is now very important. The water resources, for example. The French oil company, the next company, is going and exploiting the water of Latin America or Asia and Turkey, but it never exploitates the water of France. It keeps the water of France. So, there are problems now. Europe also started to be inert in economic surveillance. It's also very much challenged by the Chinese companies. So, it's very, very important in France. And the crisis, the growing economic crisis in Europe is actually challenging the economic surveillance in France. But economic surveillance, it was actually challenged by transnational companies. And now, while until the three or four years, the states were almost kind of dancing with the transnational companies and telling them, come here, my beloved. I'm giving you all the promotions, all the tax decreases, the tax promotions. Come here and invest the money. But then, after that, they say the same about economic surveillance. And that's why, since about five years, the nation states, the states are trying again to cover their economic surveillance and to have control over the transnational flow of financial flows and flow of taxes. And to benefit from it as well. Because the states are not commercial actors. They are commercial states. They are not the Nazi domination states, but the Stalinist states. That is why I'm saying that we can still talk about international politics, not global, not fully global. We can still talk about sovereignty, but it is changing. It's a kind of neo-Westphalian sovereignty that is under formation. Neo-Westphalian order that is shaped by the struggle of the states to keep their sovereignty, the Stalinist state sovereignty, the traditional one. They are at the same time trying to adapt themselves to the globalization pressure of the transnational actors and transnational capital, mobility, migration around the world now. That's 300 million people moving around the world now. Because usually the people follow the capital, except the forced migration. Forced migration is something else. It is more related to the growth of the military industry and the need for war and conflict. Otherwise, who is going to buy war? The NLO? The NLO, who is going to buy it? Who they are going to sell to people if there is no conflict? So, sovereignty. So, sovereignty is the main important point. And today we have a very crisis of sovereignty, economic sovereignty in the world. This is a very, very important crisis. That is why the world crisis, the world economic crisis, cannot be solved right now. This clash between the transnational capital and the state structure. Now, the second, the other sovereignty, the other important part of the sovereignty is... Just before that, military. So, what is this? The Westphalian order, the Westphalian regime, based on the nation-states of the United States of America and what the states of the United States of America used to say, never intervened in the domestic politics of the other states. We are not going to fight each other and we will respect all territorial, territorial sovereignty. So, this is the sovereignty. The states never intervened. Well, it was violated for years. This is another issue. But I am talking about the Westphalian regime. The Westphalian regime was... So, this is why the states agreed that they can use the Congress, use military tools and armaments to protect themselves, to protect their inner security and external security, to protect their international borders, to protect their sovereignty. So, again, you see, sovereignty legitimizes the state's use of violence. So, that is why international... The concept of international is very important today and the states will never throw it away. And the name of the discipline will keep being international relations, not global politics. International relations. And the third, justice. Who are the institutions? How does it work? Now, we have, again, two dimensions of the justice and sovereignty. So, the state is the divider. Those who it is, they should provide justice. Inside the borders, inside the national borders and the sovereign territory, but also outside. In their nation, within the nation, within the state. In the state. Within the state. So, what they did? The hegemon, the hegemon for establishing the contemporary world order, what they did? The hegemon. Therefore, the real problem is, of course, the principles. Who are the basis of that hegemon? The hegemon's goal, actually, that is going on today, that is the principle of justice. Transnational justice. International justice. So, people are looking for justice and the state should provide or have sovereignty, legal sovereignty as the main legal authority to provide and distribute justice. Among their society, but at the same time, at the international level, within the state. So, justice within the state is designed by who? Who are the folks that do not vote today and want to govern? International participation. Legal participation. Regardless. In the national tribunal. Court of justice. In the national court of justice. And European Court of Human Rights. But it's like more individual-based application. But still, do they raise any voice? Because they have inter-state, inter-national perspective. So, they are thinking through the process of surveillance. Surveillance is a virus. It's a virus that designs the relations, the work, and the identity of the state. So, is this something that is used for the state? No. This is the state's identity. The state cannot survive without surveillance. If you remove the surveillance as the main principle of international politics, what remains? What are you going to find out? Amity. If all the states will fight each other, all will try to swallow the others. And even with Amity, the order will fail. But look. Very important content in the national order. Order. Who is founded the order? Why? Why we need order? And what kind of order? What are the main dynamics of the order? And surveillance is the main, main, main glue, let's say. The glue that sticks the order in the national order, in international politics. Otherwise, after that, well, there are various approaches that say that we are going, even Alessandro Ranz, the representative of the social contract in the approach, he wrote an article, Why a World State is Inevitable. Actually, I jumped to the contract in the approach now. Why a World State is Inevitable. In this article, because it was written before 15 years ago, I think now, and he was writing that after 2025, the climate change and the growth in the atmosphere and religious discrimination and discrimination, xenophobia and social classes is going to force the states to invent a world state. And all the states, all the people actually in the world are going to ask for creating and designing another other. Who is the other? This and other, ultimately. This is very important. Who is the other? And the others in the international politics today, in the international order, are very personal. I mean, enemy states or Soviet Union, who is the other of the US, and US is the other of the Soviet Union. So, we have more shaky and subjective others. But, Alexander Graham said, in the near future, I think it was in Turkey, the Trumps and the others of the international politics will be the first, the responding states. So, when the enemy of the contemporary order, the hegemonic order, the enemy, the others of today's world becomes the responding states, as we talked about, then we will have transition to the global politics because a world power is going to grow up. And this world power is going to have a different kind of sovereignty, global sovereignty, not international sovereignty. Because it will be above the authority of the states. And the legitimacy for this sovereignty will be based on the climate change and ecological crisis, survival of humanity. Because the states will not be able to solve this problem. The states are, the native states, who are products of the natural world, the responding states, are reproducing religious hatred, ethnic hatred. Because otherwise, states will not have identity. Nation states. So, if you remove nation, it remains the same. But it doesn't have any identity. It's just technical construction, bureaucracy. So, the native states, according to Kant, are inventing and reinventing ethnic conflicts, religious differences, and gender differences, and class conflicts, reproducing the class conflicts, in order to strengthen its sovereignty and legitimacy, especially the legitimacy of nation. And when you push all of the final states away, and say, this is the other, we have to forget it, we have to move it away, then you can reach a global world and global politics. One single power or policy is going to try to take the world, it is going to take the sovereignty, to create a global sovereignty, and global control on the economic resources, military, justice. It is different from the hegemonic power. It is different. But who is this? Who is going to be the global state? World state, not state. They call it world state. There are different approaches about this. So, for instance, you can read that Kant, also, Kant wrote a book about this world state. Authority, which is, which is, um, introduces justice in a fair way, uses violence in a very limited way, under the control of the justice system, and introduces the economy in a fair way. According to the Marxist and Communist approaches, socialist approaches, this is still the state, the socialist state. It failed. It was a project, implemented, but it failed. But this is all debate, you know? Well, that's why we don't know where we are going. Pandemia, for example. It has changed so many things. I mean, who knows? One, a political crisis, and this year is really very different year. We have everywhere floods, and we have fires, all the governments, everywhere we have fires, and the most is, now we have snowing everywhere. It's snowing, and all the traffic was stopped, and people stayed on the road, and there is just 200 kilometers from here. So, the climate change is here. So, everybody was saying, when I was teaching this course in 2007, nobody was believing them. I was teaching recently, and I was like, ah, okay, here's what's going on. I was saying, this is a problem. There will be a water surveillance issue. Food surveillance is going to be a problem. And many, many countries are based on this, and we don't have turkey, and we have a lot of very, very harsh conflicts in relation with the water, because Turkey also is a country that has a crisis, water crisis. But there is food surveillance. Many countries in the global south have dependence on food, to the transnational companies and markets. So, this dependence, as the dependence in different countries increase, surveillance increases. So, the whole implementation of politics is a kind of balance between those, places in those. And in this class, we will talk about the concept of water. And the most important thing here, the question is who, always, and I will explain to you at the end of the syllabus, some questions and some concepts. Whenever you think, who? Because when you find the answer of who, you can find who is designing the ordnance. Because we all want ordnance. Why do we want ordnance? Because ordnance is equal to peace. But what is peace? And who? Stability. But you know, stability is not sufficient. Stability doesn't mean there is a peace. You can have stability, and stability is a very important concept for the memory. Just have stability. And because of this desire and love for stability, we don't have peace agreements in 20 years. After NATO, I don't remember any peace agreement signing. The last peace agreement was NATO, and it's not fair at all. I mean, the majority was placed in equal position with the minority. So, for 50% both men get the same right, with 10% certainty. And the whole Bosnia-Herzegovina country was designed according to the ethnic identity. And this is now done in Syria. The divide and rule. It's now, it's breaking down the notion of citizenship. And this is the most important problem of the Global South, because what the Global North did, they established this notion of citizenship. So there are a lot of Africans in France, but they feel French, and they are French citizens. Even there is a xenophobia, you know, there is a kind of... Still, there is a notion of citizenship that judges and controls the case. That's the right. Because when you establish the hegemonic identity of citizenship, it means that citizens and states hold not on the basis of the ethnic, religious, social background, but the state communicates with the society, and society holds the state on the basis of the human action. Not ethnic, by the way. So, that is why citizenship is very important. In fact, the architect, the first lecture he gave in the school, when he moved from the Ottoman to the late Turkish education, was on the citizenship, knowledge of citizenship. Why is he saying that? Because he learned from the French Revolution that the only way to go beyond the ethnicity, religion, social class, differentiation, and hatred is through establishment of citizenship. Because when the people feel like citizens of this country, they know that they have rights, but they have responsibilities. My kids studied in a French school, and from the age of five, from the mother's kindergarten, the only thing that existed on the wall of the classroom, nothing French, no French class, nothing. Citizenship, rights, and responsibilities. So, on the one hand, here they have their rights, and here they have their responsibilities. And what they were doing until now, now they are in college, they don't need anymore, they were fighting. They were placing the citizenship in front of each right. So, this means that I agree that this is my right, and this is my responsibility to not use violence against others, to not discriminate against others. And the responsibility really was... Yes, and if they discriminate other students based on their ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc., they are really punished in a very, very harsh way at the school. So, there is a punishment. So, they are, they can be sent, I don't know, I didn't have them with my kids, but they push them away from the school for one week, for one month, or they write it on their file. So, this system is a system, educational citizenship. And the notion of citizenship is binded with the notion of one nation. So, in France, people are there, but not in Germany. But because there is a citizenship. And it's not based on the background. French, Moroccan, for example. Moroccan. Moroccan is Moroccan, but... Who is francophone? You are francophone. I am francophone. I am francophone. Yes. But how, how on the... For example, the people, the French people coming from the colonies. From the colonies. In the foreign market? No, not in the U.S. Yes. No American, African-American? No. Like, they are being told that they are from the same country, but still... French. But maybe they are francophone. Francophone. Okay. So, you have more say, actually. I'm just talking about the animations. And in France, there are other problems. And all these people, it's not their opinion. It's not their opinion. So, but still, I want to just emphasize that citizenship here is an important notion because it makes connection with the state. The language of the citizenship of the state is very important. Right. The concept of right. You know, the state hates this concept, especially in the global south. And far, I think it's a problem. In Kazakhstan, I think we have this problem, that when people talk about their right, it's a problem. So, this is a very problematic concept for states who are not democratic and who also do not have this notion of citizenship. And you know which states have the strong notion of citizenship and have stronger sovereignty, political sovereignty, because of this? Not only. It's different for me. In the European Union, we don't have more political sovereignty, but the states who are established by the nation. So, the relationship between nation and state is very important. In European countries, I'm just giving you an example, in European countries, the national uprising, revolution, and the nations, the different bourgeoisie, industrial bourgeoisie, like in France, in Britain, industrial bourgeoisie, trade, commercial bourgeoisie, agricultural bourgeoisie, for example, they asked for parliament. They wanted the limitation of the rights of the king. They wanted the establishment of the state, nation state. So, they were the ones who pretended for democracy because, come on, we are paying so much taxes to the king, and he is living a kind of furious life, lusorious life, and we are doing the whole commercial trade. We are bringing capital slaves from the colonies, and we are accumulating a lot of capital, but we have to pay 30% taxes. Why? So, this is the point of the reform, when the nation establishes the state, and therefore the states feel responsible to the nation. So, the bureaucrat states like this. Nobody wants to become, until later, now there is transformation in the European states, but nobody wanted to become prime minister in France, in Netherlands, etc., because it doesn't have any privilege. It doesn't have. It's a trouble. It's like a servant position. You have to serve to the people. The state serves to the people, by policy systems. But in countries like all countries, and Middle East, and South, and East, the states were established, the elite established the states, and then created the nation. And how they created and designed the nation? They designed the history. They wrote the history. They wrote language. They invented language in Turkey. Turkish is a rather modern language. They invented heroes, or there were heroes and they acknowledged them. They invented things, flags. So, they constructed nations. So, because the states were the ones, the actors and the hegemons that constructed the nation, the relationship is vice versa. The state is over the nation. And the nation is thankful and adores the state. And obeys. So, here comes the culture of obeying. The culture of protecting the state. And seeing the state as a property. Property. So, that's why it is very hard in such societies to develop a notion of citizenship. Culture of loyalty. Culture of loyalty. But at the same time, this hegemonic definition, up-down definition, makes the life so difficult. Because it's up-down control. Hierarchical control. And what the society does, the society creates its local strategies to survive. So, that's why we have illegality. Because the law is not designed in a democratic way from bottom to the top, the justice. But it is enforced from top. And that's why the people try to avoid it. And have to avoid it. Because this law is designed by somebody for something. For the interest of those who designed it. And it doesn't represent, it's not democratically contracted, it doesn't represent the desire, the will, the expectation, the interest of the majority. So, that's why in the global South, minority rules. Must be minorities. Must operate as men. Rich people and families too. That's why. Minority rule. And even in some countries like Lebanon, the war, the health of countries is that the Christian minority that was supported by the colonies, colonization powers, in Lebanon, France for example, the Christian minority has political power. It's a very high level political culture because it's a very much integrated value. And that's why it's a rule maker then. It is a political authority for sure. And that's why there is a conflict. Because majority rules, minority rules. This is not normal. And that's why it is impossible to establish democracy. Democracy. And that's why we have the crisis and the consolidation of democracy and democratization in the process. Habermas says it's an unfinished project. Unfinished project. The small narrow democracy but consolidation, democracy, consolidation can reach the It's actually about the development and protection of the rights of minorities. Because we know it's a very awkward issue because in the global south and east minorities rule. So protection of the rights. The LBGT rights, the gender rights, the minority rights, all the rights. And democracy, freedom of the student rights for example. Etc. And here we have only parties, political parties, elections. And now even we went back to the standard democracy because we don't have freedom of expression anymore. And we demonstrate freedom of expression. We have parliament but no freedom of expression. Freedom of media, for example. So we have set back from the consolidation of democracy in most of the world and especially in the global south. But now you know what is the difference between international and global. We have global problems in the world. This is why I say international politics cannot solve global problems because global problems are problems that are related with the future of the earth. The climate. Climate change. Population change. The safety of Amazon for us. This is very important for the life of the earth, for the future of the earth. A global problem might be an invasion of the animals and other plants. It's a global problem. If there is such an invasion then we will have the whole state, believe me. Somebody will get this and everybody will be afraid and everybody will join the whole state that is going to become the divison of our society and everybody will get in trouble. But we have a very very important problem with the global water resource. All those flows now around us and everywhere means that we will have a water crisis, very very harsh water crisis in the south. When the water flows on the surface of the ground it means that it will not reach the underground of society. And if the water don't reach the equatorial system it means that the lake and the lake are going to dry in the summer. Because they are not fed by the cold water. They need to... I usually ask, I will talk about this in the memorial. I ask the students why the lake dries and give them some options. All of them choose global warming. Or they choose the agricultural producers take the water from the lake. It's not true. True. They just show us regions that are above the stage. No, this is not the problem. The problem is that somewhere there at the top of the mountain which has to be production connected with the source of water they construct an autonomous mine. Because there is lithium. There is very strategic war and settlement in natural resources. And when they open this lithium mine there they are breaking down the equatorial system in the ground. And the water cannot find the waves of the equatorial system. And then it drowns on the surface as a flood. And when the water cannot reach the equatorial system the waves of the equatorial system cannot reach the lake. And if the water don't reach the lake the lake starts to hot, to get more and more, to warm. And when the lake becomes warm and warm during the summer at the end of August and September half of the lake is evaporated. Because there is no cold water from the bottom to cool the temperature of the lake. So the nature has such a beautiful system and it has balance. When you break down this balance it has 30 lakes lost in a year. That's why it's actually not a place to buy anything. But everybody is buying land, forest and so on. And that's why we have so many fires this summer. Because the forest the trees cannot reach the water. The water goes to the 20 charts when it's done. And if they don't reach the water they start to dry from inside and because they are dry and there is 40 degrees hot and within the forest this 40 degrees becomes 45-50 degrees and the starts the formation of the methane gas. And this methane gas makes it very easy especially if it's a fine forest If it's a fine forest to blow and to burn in the fire. Barely even one piece of glass can affect this methane accumulation in the forest. But this is not explained. I don't know. There are so many specialties on this. But we will talk about all this in the Green Theory and I like talking about it. And now let's have a break of 15 minutes with Shash and then we start with the birth of the disease. But now you understand why it is called international why it is not possible to talk about global politics because it is possible to talk about global problems. It is not possible to talk about global politics because there are no global actors. You can talk about global politics only about global social problems. The global movement for example of the Viet Cong and the global politics because it's a global movement of the climate. Global feminist movement. You can talk about global politics of the global feminist movement. You can talk about global politics of the transnational companies. Coca-Cola has sex policy and it's the same problem. It's controlling. It's about the sex. We will talk about the concept of growth and we talked about the development and growth. There are many things. The global millennial growth can be criticized and we will talk about them while we talk about now all the things. Go away because I almost stopped talking. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...