Response to Shaira (but also the whole Eva, Luis, Umer, George, Aara thread) - Josh Morganstein

Hi all, I really liked your summaries of many of Taiwo’s main points in the first two chapters.  

Taiwo indeed does us the great service of pointing out the historical and current global linkages which shape supposedly “sovereign” decisions. In addition to obvious historical global flows of wealth based upon exploitation (slavery and exploitation), Taiwo touches upon the ways in which current profit incentives reinforce similar trends: “Apparently ‘internal’ Nigerian or Saudi decisions about producing petroleum actually succeed or fail based on which cars are on the road in China or the United States; how much cocoa to produce in the Ivory Coast depends on how much chelate is being eaten in Belgium or France…” (19). Notably, it would be remiss of me not to mention the immense environmental impact of the oil extraction, or how major US chocolate manufacturers were sued for perpetuating child slavery in cocoa production in the Ivory Coast (admittedly, the Supreme Court blocked the lawsuit because the abuses occurred outside the US, but from a moral and causal perspective, its clear to at least me that the chocolate companies bear at least some responsibility). I wholeheartedly agree with Taiwo’s argument for building a more just world system, and (perhaps to the surprise of many) I actually do fully support climate reparations/some sort of payment by more developed countries to mitigate the damage that climate change will disproportionately wreck on developing nations. 

However, there are three concerns/worries I have with the reading (that I'm hoping can be put at ease, so please refute these). First, there seems to be a distrust of all forces Western that pervades Taiwo’s book. Europe and America are viewed solely as colonial actors. Ideology is the enemy of nuance, and there are certain places where I think Taiwo gets caught up too much in ideology. For example, after talking about the Spanish mines and extraction of Silver in Potosí, he notes that Potosí also hosts one of the world’s largest lithium deposits, and remarks: “Taiwo’s focus negates internal agency. Colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade shaped the world, but so did purely domestic creations and systems that are completely divorced from international incentives” (22). Such a view is so incredibly simplistic. The reality is that plenty of domestic actors will clamor to exploit lithium because of the jobs it creates, and also that the benefits from green tech will disproportionately benefit developing countries (as climate change is set to disproportionately hurt developing countries). Sure, there still is a point to be made about the exploitation of foreign resources by more powerful countries. But Taiwo’s implied view that the entire global system is built upon exploitation and therefore current immediate wealth flows are indicative of some sort of malicious plot to keep the global south poor and enrich the West simply does align with empirical reality. His view too easily lends itself to supporting recent efforts by leaders (who cite exploitation) to nationalize resources to the detriment of their own population (as AMLO just did with lithium in Sonora). Perhaps Taiwo means not to encourage such behavior, but I would not be surprised if he would happily support such initiatives. The fact that I cannot tell from his writing is worrying at the very least. 

Second, where is the East? Taiwo’s supposedly global focus neglects the role played by China, Russia, and the Ottomans in shaping the practices that he talks about, or the current roles of the former two in the current system. In terms of magnitude, China and Russia are responsible for perpetuating far more exploitation in the current international system than the United States or Europe. *I have a feeling this claim will be disputed so it’s unfortunate I won’t be in class to back it up with more evidence, but for a truncated version I would just cite Uyghurs, Ukraine, & BRI (esp. coal projects + surveillance tech exports)* It’s not a competition, and I’m not absolving the US or Europe, I’m just making the point that I think Taiwo neglects the Eastern powers. 

Third, there are passages where I think Taiwo has just cherry-picked quotes or evidence to make his point. For example, Taiwo’s treatment of the Baldwin-Buckley debate felt ridiculously shallow and a misrepresentation of the merits of both individual’s cases. This criticism is admittedly weak, however (we all cherrypick to some degree).