International GovernanceIES predissertation fellowship 2002 awardee Ed Fogarty
discusses the relationship between international organizations
and NGOs.
NGOs are, in and of themselves, hard to characterize. One of the big questions for Fogarty is why NGOs dislike international organizations. "(NGOs) are a 'very varied left' of sorts, but tend to agree that international organizations represent neo-liberal economic policies that hurt the environment, the economically disadvantaged, etc.," said Fogarty. "Many are active in the Anti-Globalization movement." Fogarty's main research question is: do NGOs have an effect on, and a role in, international governance? Most cases Fogarty is looking at tend to involve situations where NGOs have had an effect, but the extent and nature of this effect varies widely. He was able to examine one case very closely. "The Institute’s Predis Grant allowed me to spend a week in Paris, where I was able to get several interviews with officials at the OECD. That week was crucial in helping me to formulate my dissertation and making sure I could actually write about this topic -- it was the first time I’d talked to people directly involved in these issues." The case Fogarty was studying involved an investment treaty that was supposed to end up in the WTO, but instead "fell apart" in 1998. The treaty was blasted by NGOs, who picketed the streets in front of the OECD. The staff of the OECD were involved in trying to develop the rules of this ill-fated treaty, and Fogarty was there to try and discern what had gone wrong. One might wonder what led American-born Fogarty into such research. He began taking international politics classes during his second year of college, and liked the field enough to spend the following year in Europe at the London School of Economics (LSE). "The student body was something like one-third British, one-third European, and one-third from all over the rest of the world," said Fogarty of LSE. "It was a very cosmopolitan setting. One day I was having a debate with an Iranian socialist woman, and found myself debating near-Reaganite policies in spite of my self-perceived liberal stance. I realized how many different ideas are out there; I became fascinated with how differently people see the world." When Fogarty returned to the US, he wrote his undergraduate thesis on whether or not NATO as a military alliance could help new members consolidate democracy (this was not too long after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and many of these associated countries were trying to get into NATO). He then began working at a foreign policy think-tank: the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. He spent three and a half years there as an editor, and had the privilege of reading about many different aspects of foreign relations. Fogarty then came to Berkeley as a doctoral student for the Political Science Department and, despite the heavy workload, also taught a class at Cal in fall of 2003 on US-Foreign policy. "I really wanted to take (teaching the class) on," said Fogarty. "I’d done this, done that, the other, but I’d never taught my own class. This type of class is something I will definitely teach someday, so it was a forward investment. I was gratified to be approached for the position by the Political Science Department. Even though the class wasn't directly related to my dissertation research, and in fact postponed things somewhat, it was very worthwhile." Fogarty is currently involved in co-editing a book along with Vinod Aggarwal and Beverly Crawford. The book is being funded by IES, and is on EU trade policies. The conceptual hook is the concept of interregionalism, which is the idea that in trade relations in the world, it is possible for two regions (such as East Asia and the EU) to build relationships region to region, not just country to country. The word "region" is used on a macro-level. Fogarty’s role as co-editor of this book has been to co-write the introduction and conclusion, along with Aggarwal, and to write a chapter on transatlantic relations between the EU and North America. Another big question on Fogarty’s mind is the future of the EU since the occurrence of constitutional negotiations deadlock. "There are many different visions coming from both academics and political leaders," said Fogarty. The EU has always been geared towards an ever-closer union, but may now be butting up against its limits. Ten new countries are being added this year. It almost looks from the outside as though, at the moment of its greatest achievement, the EU may be about to collapse." Fogarty is also concerned with the new transnational threats in the world, and whether or not these threats are becoming more important than the threats from individual countries and governments. "We don’t know very much about the nature of this type of threat, or how to respond to it," said Fogarty. "Our responses are trial and error. It’s not obvious that you can have perfect security. There is the danger of going too far in pursuit of a goal that isn't really attainable. Then there is the juxtaposition of the aggressiveness of US policy with the EU's new pre-emption policy -- a policy which I would describe as diplomatic and constructive." Most terrorism in Europe is nationalist in nature. Terrorism in Europe has historically been less about Europe’s global role, and more about local issues. Fogarty questions whether this will change with the possible emergence of the EU as a global actor, an idea that begs yet another question: what is the connection between local and global terrorism operations? "Will there be connections between the two?" Fogarty asks. "Is there such a thing as 'global' terrorism? It's tough to say." You can learn more about Ed Fogarty's academic interests and research by visiting his bio page. |
 |
|||
 |
|
 |
Vol. 4 Issue 1 Spring 2004 |
|
|
|
|
