PLEASE VOTE: 15% THRESHOLD NOT REACHED

URGENT NOTICE

Dear Caucus Members:

The Treasurer has reported that we have not reached the threshold of 15% of members voting in our election for officers. We will now have to embark on a second round of balloting.  If you have already voted, there is no need to. However, if you have not, please do so by June 15^th.  The ballot is  available at

http://gscis.blogspot.com/2015/04/bios-of-candidates-and-ballot.html. You can check all of only selected boxes as you see fit. Send completed ballot to Seifuden Adem  adems@binghamton.edu.

jbw

Remarks of Distinguished Scholar Honoree, New Orleans 2015

See also remarks on Mearsheimer:http://gscis.blogspot.com/2015/04/summary-of-jim-mittelmans-remarks-at.html

ISA 2015-AWARD

 Remarks by Bahgat Korany , Feb. 20^th , 2015

I want to thank you all for coming to this lunch honoring me. In addition to Caucus members who voted for me, my thanks go to the chair, Jacqueline, who surprised me with this news when I didn't even know that I was a candidate for this award. Very special thanks also to Tim Shaw who presented me so elegantly , ignoring all my vices he knew too well since our student days at Sussex University back in the 1960s.

Since we had to change to a bigger room without a microphone, I will be brief. I will emphasize three points:

I-In relation to the Global South, what does IR theory offer? What do hard data/content analysis of basic IR textbooks/handbooks tell us?

II-If we feel that the Global South has been marginalized and ignored, what can be done: Forget IR theory or fight back?

III-If  we fight back , how to win such a basic fight?

I-             IR theory and the Global South:What do hard data tell us?

These data come from two sets. The first group is based on 2001- Kim Nassal’s analysis of 14 widely-used textbooks, with many in their 4^th or even 6^th edition. They are then replicated by my content analysis data of two recent influential Handbooks by major publishers: Oxford Handbook of International relations (edited by Ch. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal) (2008), and Handbook of International Relations (edited by: W. Carlsnaes, Th. Risse & B. Simmons) (2013, 2^nd edition). As we know , Handbooks are both influential syntheses of knowledge in the field and also visible signposts mapping the field's future, even directing it.

These two Handbooks are composed of 77 chapters, totaling 1649 pages, by 91 authors of the heavy weights in the field. Their research is impressive  as it is based on 7762 references.

Indeed , this number of references is truly impressive , at least quantitatively . Qualitatively, however ,these references tell a different story. Scratching beyond the surface shows that the field has not evolved beyond Hoffman’s characterization of IR almost 40 years ago as an "American Social Science”. Both textbooks and handbooks data show that IR suffers from the same epistemological, conceptual and methodological patterns . Here are some examples .

1-    Many authors still talk in the 1^st person: essentially Americans talking to Americans, e.g. “our” foreign policy. If we take names off, there is no difficulty for any reader to know where authors come from and who their primary audience are .

2-    IR is represented as a discipline which only Americans - or Anglo-Saxons- contribute to. The discipline is shown as revolving around the U.S. , whereas  the world outside there is beyond the water's edge - as in Hoffman's 1977-article,i.e. ‘a relative zone of darkness’. When  sometimes references are made to this ‘relative zone of darkness’ , they include  factual errors.

3-    Despite the huge number of sources used, they are usually unilingual, mostly U.S. sources. If "foreigners" are cited, they are usually those who published in U.S. Journals or collaborated with U.S. institutions. IR  speaks English  , and principally with  an American accent.

4-    The discipline is not only American-centric, but tends to be worse: it verges on being incestuous. For instance, as even Katzenstein lamented , authors dealing with similar topics but publishing in different U.S. Journals, e.g. Journal of Conflict Resolution vs International Security - rarely quote each other. Thus U.S. academic tribes and cartels and their mutual neglect/narrow debate are bought in this supposedly-universal field. Any potential breadth of vision is sacrificed.

No wonder that the cold war was described as the period of the “long peace”, when the longest war in the post-1945 period , the Iran-Iraq 1980-1988, was taking place. Moreover, IR was busy splitting hairs between Neo-Realism/Neo-Liberalism and their different branches when the Berlin Wall was falling and the USSR was collapsing.

II-What is to be done ?

If IR theory is that high realm of  irrelevance and neglect for the Global South, even failing in its mission as a universal discipline  (becoming  that “ higher bullshit”  as Rosenberg put it unkindly in 2007 ), what to  do about it? As Lenin put it in a different context: what is to be done? At least two options deserve discussion:

A-   Forget about IR theory, as it is beyond saving. After all, even major IR theory contributions from the Global South (from Acharya to Bilgin, Braveboy-Wagner, Tickner or Shaw) are marginalized or even altogether ignored.

But I feel this could be the easy way-out . It is also a self-defeating one. Indeed  it is harmful both for the Global South and even the IR field itself. The field has to be claimed back to emphasize its original universal mission. It cannot be left to continue as parochial ,incestuous and even anachronistic . We have a role, and indeed, a responsibility to carry out a re-orientation in this respect.

B-   Fight back to recover ownership of the discipline for all, not only for our own sake but for the sake of the discipline and to make it as universal as it is supposed to be. My example here is Robert Cox, my former professor, and quite a few colleagues working in the field of critical theory.

III-Operationally, what are the steps ?

A- If we are not an ISA formal section such as FPA, we should be or coordinate/combine force with other sections such as Global Development . We should collect section fees and publish our newsletter.

B- In addition to  institutionalizing our networking, we should enlarge our membership especially  through younger scholars; explore ways of offering grants to bring more people from the Global South to the ISA ,perhaps contact some fund-providing institutions  , outside and within the Global South ,e.g. within the Gulf region , or in collaboration with its  different programs at Sciences Po. in Paris , or LSE in London..

C)Add to publications  that deal with our issues, such as Third World Quarterly , add also to different series with major publishers , e.g.Palgrave-Macmillan ; Routledge…; making up for topics that are still marginalized by mainstream and dominant IRT: impact of issues such as Development , Post-colonial identity , religion….. The objective is to make IR less of another dismal science and analyze world order from below, bottom up.

D)We can win for we have two important resources

i- Human/intellectual capital

ii-  We are working on the ground  , constantly engaged in field-work

(sustained field experience is what saved Development  Studies and some aspects of Comparative Politics from liabilities that iarebringing  the misery to the state of IR).

So let us fight back and recover ownership of our discipline, for the sake of a universal discipline as well as our own sake. It is a strategy of  win-win.

                                                                                    Bahgat Korany
Next blog post:URGENT: PLEASE VOTE, 15% THRESHOLD NOT REACHED

URGENT NOTICE RE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

   Dear Members:

You will have received a notice from ISA requesting that you vote for an amendment to the constitution that would substantially increase the number of members needed to approve a new section. The GSCIS executive met in both Toronto and New Orleans to discuss the issue of moving to a section. The move will allow us to support more panels at meetings, among other benefits. This year, after further consultation, we decided that we wanted to maintain the caucus for networking purposes IN ADDITION to asking for a section – similar to the women’s caucus/FTGS arrangement. We are still discussing this and will update you via the blog. In the meantime, the call for a constitutional amendment has caught us off guard. We ask you to please vote DOWN the constitutional amendment as this would make it more difficult for us to form a section.

Atlanta Conference 2016/Brazil Publishing Opportunity

Dear Members:

This is a reminder that the deadline for submission of paper and panel proposals to the Atlanta conference is coming up - June 1st! Please submit your proposals online at isanet.org soon. The theme of the conference is: Exploring Peace. For more see: http://www.isanet.org/Conferences/Atlanta-2016/Call.

The theme fits in very nicely with the caucus' consistent focus on security, foreign policy, regional and development issues affecting the south, so we look forward to receiving a variety of interesting proposals.

We've been giving you a little break from the bombardment of emails but will soon provide you with the results of the recent election of officers and also ask you to nominate a distinguished scholar honoree, among other things. In addition we have not stopped working! We are currently trying to assess potential hosts for workshops  and for our next conference which we know everyone is eagerly looking forward to! For now, we all need to focus on having good representation at ISA-Atlanta.

Thank you for your consistent support,
jbw
 ________________________________________________
Publishing Opportunity

Call for Proposals – Special Issues 2016

The Editors of Contexto Internacional: journal of global connections invite proposals for Special Issues for the year 2016. Editors welcome proposals that promote and encourage the development of International Relations (IR), with a particular scope in the dynamics and challenges experienced within and around the Global South. Submissions that contribute to an understanding of the plurality of perspectives present in the field of IR and that advance our understanding of the connections between situated knowledges and global affairs are therefore preferred. Up to two special issues will be published in 2016.

Contexto Internacional is one of the leading journals in international relations within Brazil. Submissions in English, French, Portuguese and Spanish are accepted. Contexto is published in English three times a year.

Proposals will be reviewed in the language of submission. If the review process results in a decision to publish, it is the responsibility of the author alone to translate the article into English. All contributions are submitted to double blind peer review and are rigorously evaluated by experts.

Normally, a special issue includes 5-7 research articles speaking to a common theme / set of questions. The articles are selected through an open call for contributions. The articles should follow the standard guidelines for submissions and will be subjected to the same blind peer review process as normal articles. In collaboration with the Contexto editorial team, the Guest Editor(s) will formulate the call for papers and select the articles to be peer reviewed, oversee the review process, and be involved in finalizing the editorial. The total length of the proposal should not exceed 4000 words.

Proposal for special issues must include: 1. Title of Special Issue, 2.Name, affiliation, contact details, and short bio of Guest Editor(s),3. Brief statement about the issue theme, 4. A rationale justifying the proposal, 5. Titles, abstracts, and five keywords of any article the Guest Editor would like to include and 6. Names, affiliation, and contact details of each contributor.
Proposals for special issues are to be submitted by May 15, 2015.
Acceptance decisions will be announced in June 2015.
Proposals and correspondence should be directed to Carolina Moulin,
Editor: contextointernacional@puc-rio.br
For more information about Contexto Internacional, consult the journal’s webpage: http://contextointernacional.iri.puc-rio.br
Individual research articles as well as review essays can be submitted on a continuous basis. See our instructions for authors at: http://contextointernacional.iri.puc-rio.br
Carolina Moulin, IRI/PUC-Rio (Editor)
Alina Sajed, McMaster University (Associate Editor)
Anna Leander, Copenhagen Business School and IRI/PUC-Rio (Associate Editor)
Roberto Yamato, IRI/PUC-Rio (Associate Editor)

Solidarity with Nepal

We would like to extend our sympathies to our Nepalese members who have experienced a terrible earthquake. Sadly, the death toll has risen to almost 8,000 at this time. We encourage all our members to donate to the country's reconstruction. The Nepalese are a resilient people and we have no doubt that they will overcome this tragedy.


GSCIS executive

Passing of Lee Kuan Yew: Useful links

As you all know, GSCIS members were pleased to have been hosted by SMU, Singapore for our Second GSCIS Conference in January this year. Not least among the pleasures of having held our conference in Singapore was the opportunity we had to observe the great progress in development made by this small country. Efficiency and rationality are the hallmarks of Singapore's model which is much studied and observed, both by other Asian states as well as by global south countries around the world. Much of the work in building Singapore has been attributed to Singapore's :founding father" Lee Kuan Yew who passed away on Mach 23. As we did with Nelson Mandela, we recommend some links for your perusal:


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/world/asia/lee-kuan-yew-of-singapore-prasied-by-world-leaders.html?_r=0

http://www.rememberingleekuanyew.sg/mr-lee-singapore/ (official link)

 

And EXCOM representative Alan Chong's review of his foreign policy:  http://www.eurasiareview.com/25032015-lee-kuan-yew-and-singapores-foreign-policy-a-productive-iconoclasm-analysis/

Note: Alan Chong is one of the contributors to our forthcoming book, Diplomatic Strategies of Leading Nations in the Global South (Palgrave Macmillan).



Best,

jbw

Summary of Jim Mittelman's remarks at 2015 Luncheon New Orleans; Comments by our Distinguished Scholar Honoree Bahgat Korany on Mearsheimer

Next link: On the Passing of Lee Kuan Yew, Useful Links
 http://gscis.blogspot.com/2015/04/passing-of-lee-kuan-yew-useful-links.html
____________________________________________________________________

  Prof. Bahgat Korany On Mearsheimer:

Debating   Mearsheimer:    The   Tragedy   of   IR   Theory

The ISA roundtable on Wednesday Feb.18 was one of the first academic activities on the first day of ISA’s 56th Annual convention . The room was packed.. Not only were the roundtable participants some of the heavyweights of IRT but also the topic was crucial and timely: "Advancing Global IR"

One of those heavyweight speakers was John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago , whose Tragedy of the Great Powers is well-quoted in the field and rightly so .Indeed, Mearsheimer's concept of offensive realism adds to Waltz's structural realism and enriches the whole realism perspective.

The essence of Mearsheimer's talk was to affirm that only the Anglo-Saxons are building a worthwhile theory of IR , to the extent that even when he is in China these are the contributions that are mentioned.

Too categorical and not at all nuanced, the performance of such a well-established scholar of a supposedly-universal field was in the end disappointing  I even felt worried about the state of IR if it is so amputated. Mearsheimer is an intellectual leader in a leading institution, and some of his students are bound to take this amputated view of IRT as the truth and could go on spreading it in major schools in the U.S. and beyond.

Rather surprised and even shocked by this narrow approach, I dared to ask him if he feels that IRT is lagging behind such fields of equally " Anglo-Saxon" political analysis as Democratic Transition Studies or Development scholarship.Contrary to Mearsheimer's epistemology, these are fields that shunned arm-chair theorizing, went for field work in non-Anglo-Saxon areas and opened up. Instead of answering the question, Mearsheimer was condescending and went on repeating that present Anglo-Saxon IR contributions  are the ones that count .I felt he was really an unsuitable choice for the roundtable's theme on advancing global IR, and left in disappointment .I felt cheated as the roundtable's title turned out to be certainly a misnomer.

Apparently after my departure other members of the audience took him to task, and tried to pin him down , checking his knowledge about what others are doing in IRT outside his limited U.S. area. He became less categorical , but I wonder if he became so convinced as to go and read other contributions that enrich IRT , even by Anglo-Saxons , say in Historical Sociology or Comparative Politics . With Mearsheimer , we are not facing the tragedy of the great powers but the tragedy of an influential  brand of IRT---parochial and anachronistic.The ISA roundtable on Wednesday Feb.18 was one of the 1st academic activities on the 1st day of ISA 56th Annual Convention . The room was packed . Not only were the roundtable participants  some of the heavyweights of IRT but also the topic was crucial and timely : "Advancing Global IR"

One of those heavyweight speakers was John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago , whose Tragedy of the Great Powers is well-quoted in the field and rightly so .Indeed ,Mearsheimer's concept of offensive realism adds to Waltz's structural realism and enriches the whole realism perspective.

The essence of Mearsheimer's talk was to affirm that only the Anglo-Saxons are building a worthwhile theory of IR , to the extent that even when he is in China these are the contributions that are mentioned.

Too categorical and not at all nuanced, the performance of such a well-established scholar of a supposedly-universal field was in the end disappointing  I even felt worried abut the state of IR if it is so amputated. Mearsheimer is  an intellectual leader in a leading institution , and some of his students are bound to take this amputated view of IRT as the truth and could go on spreading it in major schools in the U.S. and beyond.

Rather surprised and even shocked by this narrow approach, I dared to ask him if he feels that IRT is lagging behind such fields of equally " Anglo-Saxon" political analysis as Democratic Transition Studies or Development scholarship .Contrary to Mearsheimer's epistemology , these are fields that shunned arm-chair theorizing , went for field work in non-Anglo-Saxon areas and opened up . Instead of answering the question , Mearsheimer was condescending and went on repeating that present Anglo-Saxon IR contributions  are the ones to count .I felt he was really an unsuitable choice for the roundtable's theme on advancing global IR , and left in disappointment .I felt cheated as the roundtable's title turned out to be  certainly a misnomer.

Apparently after my departure other members of the audience took him to task , and tried to pin him down , checking his knowledge about what others are doing in IRT outside his limited U.S. area.He became less categorical , but I wonder if he became so convinced as to go and read other contributions that enrich IRT , even by Anglo-Saxons , say in Historical Sociology or Comparative Politics . With Mearsheimer , we are not facing the tragedy of the great powers but the tragedy of an influential  brand of IRT---parochial and anachronistic.

(Comments welcome on this blog entry: JBW)

________________________________________________________________

  

GLOBAL SOUTH CAUCUS: PAST AND FUTURE

Summary of Remarks Delivered at March 2015 Global South Caucus Luncheon

by Jim Mittelman

            Hearty congratulations to Baghat Korany on his well-deserved award as the Global South Caucus 2015 distinguished scholar. I want, too, to extend my gratitude to the Caucus for honoring me for my academic contributions and support for its work.  This affirmation of scholarship on the global South triggers introspection and reflection.

            Soon after returning from Makerere University in Uganda, I joined the International Studies Association (ISA). I attended my first annual ISA convention 40 years ago. The association struck me as a very white, old-boys network mainly oriented to the concerns of scholars in what we now call the global North.

            In the decades that followed, the ISA has made great strides. It is less intimidating to newcomers.  There is encouragement for young scholars and academics of all ages from overseas. The ISA is becoming more pluralistic, increasingly inviting for researchers who study Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean as well as North-South. This move toward tolerant diversity has required teamwork and leadership. In the case of the Global South Caucus, Jacquie Braveboy-Wagner campaigned with athletic-like stamina, grit, and determination to provide a home for colleagues whose interests center on the southern hemisphere and to expand intellectual space. Now, thanks to her and others— Nanette Stevenson, Lisa Richey, and Tim Shaw, to name a few—the Caucus is helping to build a more inclusive ISA.

To add diversity, the aims of the Global South Caucus chime with those of kindred groups in the ISA: among them, the Women’s Caucus and some of the association’s committees and sections. 

            But more is to be done. What then is the Global South Caucus’s agenda? Let me hazard suggestions.

            In the next three to five years, establish forums on how transformations in global order flow from both top down and bottom up. For the global South, the latter are particularly important. Critically-minded scholars are attuned to this vector. Many have their ear to the ground, listening to stakeholders closest to the fault lines in the world order, learning from their ways of thinking. Scholarship on the global South can pick up on indigenous knowledge. It has the potential, sometimes though not always realized, to pose distinctive research questions and produce methods that resonate locally and beyond. These bear the promise of alternatives to the queries and problems inscribed in paradigms that derive and travel from the West. Eventually, there may be spinoffs—concrete results for policymaking, such as improvements in the caliber of governance, following from the ways in which our universities educate the next generations, including future rulers.

            More specifically, I propose two priorities for consideration by the Global South Caucus membership: (1) redouble challenges to Eurocentrism in international studies; and (2) as a knowledge producer, foster cross-paradigm dialogue. Concrete proposals would flesh out these issues and the products would appear as special issues of journals and panels at ISA conventions. Other subject areas would be added to my recommended themes.

            In sum, the ISA has opened intellectually to more diverse constituencies, and the Global South Caucus can play a major role in encouraging it to move further in the direction of pluralism. The Caucus is well positioned to be in the forefront of this undertaking. Ultimately, it will be a matter of choice and resolve.   
 ______________________________________________________________
 Next link: On the Passing of Lee Kuan Yew, Useful Links
 http://gscis.blogspot.com/2015/04/passing-of-lee-kuan-yew-useful-links.html