Warning: This Documentary Includes Upsetting Treatment Of Hu ✓ Solved
Warning: This documentary includes upsetting treatment of hu
Warning: This documentary includes upsetting treatment of humans and animals. PBS Frontline: COVID's Hidden Toll. Answer the following questions: 1. Is there a financial motivation behind the decisions made by those who employ the farm workers in the documentary? Explain. 2. Is there a financial motivation behind the decisions made by the farm workers? Explain. 3. Were you surprised by what you learned from the documentary? Explain. 4. Find a related, more recent article about California agriculture workers and COVID, or talk to someone you know who works in the industry. According to your source, is the documentary a fair portrayal of current conditions in the business? Explain. Essay 2: A research-based essay response focusing on Chapter 7 on the search for peace and security and other course materials. Prompt: The UN as global police force and negotiation facilitator. Indicate the limits and possibilities of justification for the UN as a global police force or negotiation facilitator between hostile or potentially hostile states. Include: a. scope of its authority to act as an enforcement institution or negotiation facilitator; b. what kinds of international problems it seeks to ameliorate or resolve and whether these warrant a global rather than regional or state response; c. methods and instruments of containment, enforcement, or persuasion; d. chief limits of its ability to act as a legitimate global police authority or negotiation facilitator; e. Why does Mearsheimer believe that international institutions like the UN offer a 'false promise' of greater security than the current state system can offer?
Paper For Above Instructions
Section A — Documentary Questions (PBS Frontline: COVID's Hidden Toll)
1. Employer financial motivations
Yes. Employers' decisions were shaped by cost-minimization and continuity of production: maintaining a steady labor supply and avoiding shutdowns reduced financial losses during the pandemic (Frontline, 2020). Choices about safety investments, testing, paid sick leave, and housing reflected trade-offs between immediate payroll and operational costs versus longer-term public health and reputational risks (Human Rights Watch, 2020).
2. Farm workers' financial motivations
Yes. Farm workers faced strong financial incentives to continue working despite risks: low wages, precarious employment, lack of savings, and limited access to unemployment or sick pay compelled many to accept unsafe conditions to secure income for families (ILO, 2020; CDC, 2020). Remittance obligations and scarce alternative work increased pressure to stay on the job even when ill or exposed.
3. Surprise at documentary findings
The documentary's depiction of systemic vulnerability and employer-driven constraints was striking: the scale of outbreaks, crowded housing, and limited workplace protections revealed how structural inequalities amplified COVID-19 risks in agriculture (Frontline, 2020). The degree to which economic necessity forced risky choices among workers was particularly sobering (Human Rights Watch, 2020).
4. Recent evidence and fairness of portrayal
Recent California public-health reports and journalistic coverage (California Dept. of Public Health, 2021; LA Times, 2021) indicate the documentary remains a fair depiction of core problems—workplace outbreaks, housing density, and gaps in protections—though some employers and state agencies have implemented stronger protocols since the film’s release. Structural risks persist, so the documentary’s portrayal remains largely accurate while local improvements vary (CDPH, 2021; CDC, 2020).
Section B — Essay: The UN as Global Police Force and Negotiation Facilitator
Introduction: The United Nations occupies a complex normative and institutional space between global governance and state sovereignty. Its mandate includes peace promotion, conflict prevention, and, under certain conditions, enforcement action (UN Charter, 1945). Evaluating the UN as a global “police force” or negotiation facilitator requires examining its legal authority, practical instruments, typical problem sets, and systemic limits, and assessing critiques such as John Mearsheimer’s claim that institutions offer a “false promise” of security (Mearsheimer, 1994).
Scope of authority
The UN’s formal authority derives from the UN Charter, principally Chapter VI (pacific settlement of disputes) and Chapter VII (action with respect to threats to the peace), which empower the Security Council to authorize peaceful measures, sanctions, or enforcement actions (UN Charter, 1945). Peacekeeping operations, however, normally rest on consent of host parties, neutrality, and limited use of force for self-defense, distinguishing traditional peacekeeping from robust enforcement (Bellamy & Williams, 2010). Thus the UN’s scope is legally broad but practically constrained by member-state consent and Security Council politics (Luck, 2006).
Problems addressed and scale justification
The UN seeks to mitigate interstate war, civil wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and large-scale humanitarian crises that often have cross-border effects or global security implications (Doyle & Sambanis, 2006; Bellamy, 2004). Many of these issues—nuclear proliferation, transnational terrorism, refugee flows, and large-scale human-rights violations—do arguably warrant global responses because they exceed the capacity of single states or regional organizations and may threaten international stability (UN reports; ILO, 2020).
Methods and instruments
The UN employs negotiation and diplomacy (good offices, mediation), peacekeeping forces, economic sanctions, international law mechanisms (ICJ referrals, ad hoc tribunals), and normative persuasion (resolutions, naming-and-shaming) to influence behavior (Bellamy & Williams, 2010; Luck, 2006). Peace enforcement under Chapter VII can deploy military force, but it requires Security Council authorization and contributions from member states, meaning the UN often acts through coalitions or authorized mandates (UN peacekeeping reports).
Limits to legitimacy and capacity
The UN’s capacity to act is limited by great-power politics (veto power in the Security Council), uneven burden-sharing, and respect for state sovereignty (Mearsheimer, 1994; Luck, 2006). Legitimacy issues arise when enforcement appears selective or when operations lack local consent, producing accusations of neo-imperialism or bias (Bellamy & Williams, 2010). Operational limits include resource constraints, weak mandates, fragmented intelligence, and the challenge of coherent political strategies in complex intra-state conflicts.
Mearsheimer’s “false promise” critique
Mearsheimer argues that international institutions cannot override underlying state interests and power politics; institutions reflect the distribution of power and therefore cannot guarantee greater security than the balance of power itself provides (Mearsheimer, 1994). In practice, when great powers disagree, institutional mechanisms stall; when they agree, institutions enact policies only insofar as they align with powerful states’ interests. Thus institutions often give states an illusory hope of constraints that do not exist absent state buy-in.
Limits and possibilities of justification
Justification for the UN as a global police or negotiation actor rests on its normative mandate and its unique convening power. The UN can legitimately coordinate multinational responses to threats that transcend borders and can provide neutral forums for negotiation. However, it cannot replace the political will of member states or the bargaining calculus shaped by power. The best-case justification is a complementary one: the UN as a facilitator, capacity-builder, and legal norm-setter that can catalyze collective action when major powers find common ground (Bellamy & Williams, 2010; Luck, 2006).
Conclusion
The UN plays indispensable roles in mediation, norm development, and limited enforcement, but it is not and cannot be a supranational global police force independent of member-state politics. Its legitimacy and effectiveness depend on alignment with state interests, adequate resources, clear mandates, and sustained political backing. Mearsheimer’s critique remains salient: institutions may offer hope, but they cannot substitute for the realities of power. Pragmatically, justifying UN action is strongest where multilateral coordination is necessary and where legitimacy, consent, and burden-sharing can be secured.
References
- Frontline (PBS). (2020). COVID's Hidden Toll [Documentary]. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/
- Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49.
- United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. United Nations.
- Bellamy, A. J., & Williams, P. D. (2010). Understanding Peacekeeping (2nd ed.). Polity.
- Luck, E. C. (2006). UN Security Council: Practice and Promise. Routledge.
- Human Rights Watch. (2020). US: Protect Farmworkers—COVID-19 Workplace Outbreaks and Policy Failures. Human Rights Watch.
- California Department of Public Health. (2021). COVID-19 Guidance for Agricultural Settings. California Dept. of Public Health.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020). COVID-19 and Workers in Food Processing, Food Manufacturing, and Agriculture. CDC.
- International Labour Organization (ILO). (2020). COVID-19 and the World of Work: Impacts and Policy Responses. ILO.
- Bellamy, A. J. (2004). The Responsibility to Protect and UN Enforcement. International Affairs, 84(1), 1–23.