Friday night, a few friends and I (including Supriya, as she also briefly writes about this topic) went to see the movie, The Kingdom, which was, by the way, most excellent; I recommend that you all see it. Anyways, after a civilian shooting and bombing in an American housing compound in Saudi Arabia, an FBI team goes in to catch and prosecute the terrorists who performed such violent acts.
What I found most interesting about this movie was how it related back to our discussion on Tuesday. Though this may be stretching it slightly, I saw the Americans, the minority, as "aliens" in Saudi Arabia, while the Saudis dealt with them as they would. The three options that we gave in class as to how to react to aliens landing on the white house lawn were (1) assimilation, (2) kill or be killed, and (3) diplomacy.
Initially, the Americans tried to live in peace on Saudi soil - there was a diplomatic agreement that they would be safe. After the bombing, it turned into a "kill or be killed" situation in which both cultures viewed the other as the enemy, while in actuality, only a select few were a part of the terrorist group who should be condemned. The FBI entering the country did not help this situation as, at least initially, the Saudi government was incredibly hostile and not willing to negotiate with them in any way.
Yet, isn't that how we said that we would act if aliens appeared in Washington? We discussed that we would make sure they could not cause harm (it seems that we're a bunch of realists then, always concerned with security and such) before making sure to keep them out of the public eye for fear of chaos and panic. The Saudis, in the movie, provided the FBI agents with a secure location to stay in and kept them within the compound and out of the public eye. It is as if the agents were in fact aliens.
To pop out of the movie discussion, I would just like to say that despite what others may say, I thought that the snake discussion that we had Tuesday provided a good way to get everyone talking. However, it did not allow for rebuttal and those speaking at the end of the chain were often forced to speak on a comment to which they had no specific responese.
On the other hand, I thought that Friday's discussion went quite well. Though there were several instances in which people felt the need to "go back" in the discussion rather than just connecting their previous point to whatever was currently on topic (if such a thing is not possible, then the point is not very versitile and probably not completely necessary), overall, I thought that we connected ideas and deepened the discussion quite well. Can't wait to see how discussions this week proceed!
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Reflection time
So, this week the big event was the state department trip. In the end, it wasn't much of a tour and more of a debriefing. That was a disappointment as I was expecting at least a brief tour of the rooms and perhaps one of the rooms where they host important events.
Next, in class we talked about citizenship and its requirements. We talked about it in regards to an alien race and even just human aliens. It was an interesting discussion in the fact that we seemed to agree that if the aliens were human we could do pretty much whatever we want as we are the world's only superpower and no other single nation can stand against us for to long. However, we disagreed on what would happen if it were an alien race. Several of us thought that the world would unite and either fight the aliens or try and make peace with them. The others thought that it would divide the world even more and the nation that allied with the aliens would try and take over the rest of the world.
A hegemony, the United States, has little to fear from other nations but it does have reason to fear an alien race. Whether or not the appearance of aliens would divide or unite the world is yet to be seen and we only have sci-fi movies to see possible results.
Next, in class we talked about citizenship and its requirements. We talked about it in regards to an alien race and even just human aliens. It was an interesting discussion in the fact that we seemed to agree that if the aliens were human we could do pretty much whatever we want as we are the world's only superpower and no other single nation can stand against us for to long. However, we disagreed on what would happen if it were an alien race. Several of us thought that the world would unite and either fight the aliens or try and make peace with them. The others thought that it would divide the world even more and the nation that allied with the aliens would try and take over the rest of the world.
A hegemony, the United States, has little to fear from other nations but it does have reason to fear an alien race. Whether or not the appearance of aliens would divide or unite the world is yet to be seen and we only have sci-fi movies to see possible results.
Could space alien's pass the citizenship test? Would we even let them take it?The answer is, who cares?
Let's start out with the positives: My favorite part about this past week was undoubtedly the trip to the state department. The man who spoke to us (Greg I believe was him name), was very welcoming and had a lot of interesting stories to share. I think that working for the state department would definately be a fun experience, especially as someone who likes to travel and explore new cultures and parts of the world. It seemed like a place where you could make a difference in the IR field despite all the governmental red-tape.
Ok, so now for the not-so-good. Personally, I thought both conversations we had in class this week were way overdone and dragged out far to long. The hypothetical question about aliens landing on the white house lawn was good to get the conversation flowing about how countries would react, but I don't think it merited a whole class period. Also, I don't think the snake game is an effective way of facilitating debate and discussion. Although some may argue that it forces or allows everyone the chance to speak, I think debates are best when there can be dialouge and when people share their opinions because they want to, not because they are dictated to do so by a ball (a NYY ball to boot). I was ready to move on after one pass through the snake.
Friday's conversation about citizenship was interesting at first but I was burning to talk about the issue unfolding in Myanmar. For me, the discussion turned into a question of US domestic and immigration policy, not really about international politics and IR. I think it would have been much better to talk about military juntas who cut of phone and internet acces when monk's protest than wether or not MLK Jr should be included on a citizenship test. To me, it was a moot point after the first half hour. I feel like this is a growing trend in class and I really hope it gets turned around. I'm all for discussion but I think we can get more than one topic discussed in class. Often times we don't even debrief about how the topic at hand pertains to what we're learning. I guess I am just becoming restless with the class discussions. I am looking forward to the debate simulation, as perhaps that will birng about a change of pace. At this point a lecture would be more welcome to me than another far-fetched hypothetical.
Ok, so now for the not-so-good. Personally, I thought both conversations we had in class this week were way overdone and dragged out far to long. The hypothetical question about aliens landing on the white house lawn was good to get the conversation flowing about how countries would react, but I don't think it merited a whole class period. Also, I don't think the snake game is an effective way of facilitating debate and discussion. Although some may argue that it forces or allows everyone the chance to speak, I think debates are best when there can be dialouge and when people share their opinions because they want to, not because they are dictated to do so by a ball (a NYY ball to boot). I was ready to move on after one pass through the snake.
Friday's conversation about citizenship was interesting at first but I was burning to talk about the issue unfolding in Myanmar. For me, the discussion turned into a question of US domestic and immigration policy, not really about international politics and IR. I think it would have been much better to talk about military juntas who cut of phone and internet acces when monk's protest than wether or not MLK Jr should be included on a citizenship test. To me, it was a moot point after the first half hour. I feel like this is a growing trend in class and I really hope it gets turned around. I'm all for discussion but I think we can get more than one topic discussed in class. Often times we don't even debrief about how the topic at hand pertains to what we're learning. I guess I am just becoming restless with the class discussions. I am looking forward to the debate simulation, as perhaps that will birng about a change of pace. At this point a lecture would be more welcome to me than another far-fetched hypothetical.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
State Department and Citizenship
To begin my reflection for this past week, I would like to begin with our trip to the State Department. I am very grateful that we were able to visit because, truthfully, I was not sure what the State Department's function is, and I did not know which countries are considered Southern and Central Asia! I thought that the two men who spoke with us gave very interesting perspectives and were very passionate about their jobs. Although it might not be for all of us, the trip definetely opened up another option for me as something that I have thought of for a career, but wasn't sure how to get there. I believe that the most important part of international relations, the subject that each of us is studying, is to LIVE ABROAD and in doing that, learn another language and actually live in another culture, because that is what truly can change your perspective about your country and the rest of the world.
As for the discussion from Friday, I have a few questions. If people believe that everyone should take a test including English writing upon entering the United States, is this only for citizenship or also for permanent residents?? Because of the demographics of the country in which we live, it is actually not necessary to speak English. I work in a restaurant where half of the staff speaks only Spanish, and although at times it is difficult to communicate to the non-Spanish speakers, they have their own community of Latinos and English seems to not be a necessity. My question would be, why is English necessary if we do not have a national language in the United States?? And is it truly something that we should be testing immigrants on?
As for the citizenship test, I believe that if Americans cannot answer the questions on the test, it is our education system that is failing. It is our responsibility to be learning and to know that which we require new immigrants to know. At work last night, a cook from El Salvador began talking to me, asking me where I live and what I study. He said that his son lives in El Salvador and wanted to study international relations, but because of corruption in the state and other problems, it is not a good career there. He began describing the laws to me and then said "Los Estados Unidos no es asi. Tu puedes hacer lo que quieres y lo que dice la ley es la ley y no hay cuestiones.' (The United States is not like this. You can do what you want and what the law says is THE LAW and there are no questions.) Most people come to the US because of our system, whether it is because of democracy or not, in order to live a more free life from theirs at home. They already know these ideals about America.
As for the discussion from Friday, I have a few questions. If people believe that everyone should take a test including English writing upon entering the United States, is this only for citizenship or also for permanent residents?? Because of the demographics of the country in which we live, it is actually not necessary to speak English. I work in a restaurant where half of the staff speaks only Spanish, and although at times it is difficult to communicate to the non-Spanish speakers, they have their own community of Latinos and English seems to not be a necessity. My question would be, why is English necessary if we do not have a national language in the United States?? And is it truly something that we should be testing immigrants on?
As for the citizenship test, I believe that if Americans cannot answer the questions on the test, it is our education system that is failing. It is our responsibility to be learning and to know that which we require new immigrants to know. At work last night, a cook from El Salvador began talking to me, asking me where I live and what I study. He said that his son lives in El Salvador and wanted to study international relations, but because of corruption in the state and other problems, it is not a good career there. He began describing the laws to me and then said "Los Estados Unidos no es asi. Tu puedes hacer lo que quieres y lo que dice la ley es la ley y no hay cuestiones.' (The United States is not like this. You can do what you want and what the law says is THE LAW and there are no questions.) Most people come to the US because of our system, whether it is because of democracy or not, in order to live a more free life from theirs at home. They already know these ideals about America.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
terrorists ≠ freedom fighters
Terrorism is, as defined by our society today, a strategy that explicitly targets innocent civilians. Freedom Fighting, on the other hand, is a strategy that targets those oppressing civilians and forbidding freedoms. By definition, these are two very different things. Now, some may try to convince you that depending upon whose perspective you look through, who is considered the target shifts. While this may on some occasions be true, overall, the two are quite different. In both situations civilians are killed, but in this case, it is not the ends that matter, but rather the means - and the intentions.
Say Al-Qaeda hijacked a plane and flew it into the World Trade Center (oh wait...); this obviously constitutes an act of terrorism as it was unprovoked and unpredicted (can we for the sake of the argument hold all comments disputing this for the time being?). The U.S. is on the opposite side of the world and is certainly not oppressing the freedoms of those people associated with Al-Qaeda. A Freedom Fighter's attack is not a random act of violence, but a reasoned yet passionate response to injustice or tyrrany. Even considering this situation from Al-Qaeda's point of view - the U.S. may have upset them with their opinions, but as far as action, there is no rational explanation.
Since terrorist are in no way freedom fighters, there are no obscure implications. the two are different and thus should be treated as such.
Say Al-Qaeda hijacked a plane and flew it into the World Trade Center (oh wait...); this obviously constitutes an act of terrorism as it was unprovoked and unpredicted (can we for the sake of the argument hold all comments disputing this for the time being?). The U.S. is on the opposite side of the world and is certainly not oppressing the freedoms of those people associated with Al-Qaeda. A Freedom Fighter's attack is not a random act of violence, but a reasoned yet passionate response to injustice or tyrrany. Even considering this situation from Al-Qaeda's point of view - the U.S. may have upset them with their opinions, but as far as action, there is no rational explanation.
Since terrorist are in no way freedom fighters, there are no obscure implications. the two are different and thus should be treated as such.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Terrorist vs. Savior
The statement that 'one person's terrorist is another person's freedom-fighter' definetely is true and has remained this way for thousands of years. It based off of a very basic concept of perspective, not only religion, politics, and culture.There are minor examples of this to be noted every day. For example, the recent visit of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was seen by many as something to be protested. His blatant statements against the United States and Israel specifically have caused turmoil among those who do not support Iran (especially in a fight against the U.S.), before the visit to the United States. Perhaps to some people here, Ahmadinejad is considered a prophet, someone who spreads a holy word, and preaches the destruction of more than one capitalist state.
I believe that one of the most important examples today is the conflict in Israel/Palestine. I have lived in Israel for 6 months and have friends that are Jewish Israeli, Arab Israeli, and Palestinian. Although the history is far too complicated to recount, the two sides of this conflict, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (and other Arab powers that do not believe that Israel should exist) take viewpoints that are almost impossible to change. Although my friends from Palestine are not suicide bombers, they believe very strongly that the Israeli Defense Force is a terrorist organization because of attacks against the Palestinian people. Israel itself is proud of its army, the only method of protecting the small state surrounded by Arab countries. Israelis, specifically the Israeli government, believe that the Palestinians are terrorists (and some are by international definition) and therefore there is a need for high security in Israel, protection against Palestinian and other Arab attacks.
The same theory holds true for Al Queda and the United States. Suicide bombers like those who attacked the world trade center are known terrorists. Yet, to some Muslim extremists, they are the saviors and it is the highest honor to be a martyr, although they may take it farther than is intended.
As far as policy goes, there definetely is the necessity of observing this concept. It connects to our discussions of the past few weeks about understanding other cultures. There is a fine line though, I believe, and we can only go so far in learning and 'understanding' people like suicide bombers who try to attack our country.
I believe that one of the most important examples today is the conflict in Israel/Palestine. I have lived in Israel for 6 months and have friends that are Jewish Israeli, Arab Israeli, and Palestinian. Although the history is far too complicated to recount, the two sides of this conflict, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (and other Arab powers that do not believe that Israel should exist) take viewpoints that are almost impossible to change. Although my friends from Palestine are not suicide bombers, they believe very strongly that the Israeli Defense Force is a terrorist organization because of attacks against the Palestinian people. Israel itself is proud of its army, the only method of protecting the small state surrounded by Arab countries. Israelis, specifically the Israeli government, believe that the Palestinians are terrorists (and some are by international definition) and therefore there is a need for high security in Israel, protection against Palestinian and other Arab attacks.
The same theory holds true for Al Queda and the United States. Suicide bombers like those who attacked the world trade center are known terrorists. Yet, to some Muslim extremists, they are the saviors and it is the highest honor to be a martyr, although they may take it farther than is intended.
As far as policy goes, there definetely is the necessity of observing this concept. It connects to our discussions of the past few weeks about understanding other cultures. There is a fine line though, I believe, and we can only go so far in learning and 'understanding' people like suicide bombers who try to attack our country.
Terrorist or freedom fighter?
The claim a terrorist is another person's freedom fighter is unfounded and ignorant. Freedom fighters fight for democracy and justice whereas a terrorist fights for fear, greed, power etc. "there exist precise and settled criteria that are readily available to distinguish one from the other" . Not only that but the Geneva conventions of 1949 and the UN both describe what a freedom fighter is and what a terrorist is. First and foremost anyone who wishes to be a freedom fighter CAN NOT attack a civilian population or individual civilians. With these clear set definitions, more can be found from the same websites and countless others, a terrorist is not another countries freedom fighter if that group goes against international law.
In this case there must be a clear policy directed toward the terrorists and it must be implemented. Any group that commits “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience" [Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)] is defined as a terrorist and action should and must be taken.. A terrorist is clearly an enemy of the free world and must be dealt with as such. Policies of harboring terrorists is a stance that the United States can never take as terrorism undermines the goals and liberties of democracy. When it comes to freedom fighters, they should be allowed to exist and continue in there struggle and possibly even with the aid of the United States. Freedom fighters generally fight for the good of the people against the evil of the state, usually some form of communism, facism, dictatorship etc. These are governments that are generally agreed are a bad thing and so it would be in the best interest of the United States to ally with the freedom fighters.
As a summation I would say that a freedom fighter can be but is not always another person's terrorist. Furthermore, action taken against terrorists should be swift and fierce and action taken against freedom fighters should be to help them in their struggle against tyranny.
In this case there must be a clear policy directed toward the terrorists and it must be implemented. Any group that commits “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience" [Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)] is defined as a terrorist and action should and must be taken.
As a summation I would say that a freedom fighter can be but is not always another person's terrorist. Furthermore, action taken against terrorists should be swift and fierce and action taken against freedom fighters should be to help them in their struggle against tyranny.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Wealth and Liberalism
I think we had some good discussions this week. I enjoyed the topic of liberalism, mostly because I feel like I can identify with it more than with realism. In my opinion, people are capable of being rational and I find it hard to believe that people want to go to war and conquer more territory. Maybe it's cliche but I think everyone really just wants to "get along". We can all agree that when people cooperate and work together the overall outcome is better (remember the Prisoner's Dilema?). I liked reading the article which highlighted the three types of liberalism. I agree that democracy is the best form of government we've been able to develop and that citizens of a free nation will not attack other free nations. Any logical person would not vote for a war that would endanger their lives and the lives of loved ones unless they felt genuinely threatend.
We also spent a good amount of class time this week focused on the necessity of wealth to a state. While I think it is good to consider, I don't think we needed to spend so much time on the issue. I am not saying that wealth is not an important issue, I just think that each country has it's own needs and there is no "right answer" for everyone. Both the United States and Denmark are wealthy and prosperous, however they have drastically different social and economic policies. I guess I would say that wealth tends to ensure power (or at least a say in what goes on), but that it's not the only way to gain respect and security. Ultimately it is the conduct of the individual state. I also think that it is possible for a state to have "enough". Enough money to provide services to it's citizens and protect itself in times of trouble. Although there is definately competition in the world I do think human's are internally driven by money in the sense that once they have some they need more.
We also spent a good amount of class time this week focused on the necessity of wealth to a state. While I think it is good to consider, I don't think we needed to spend so much time on the issue. I am not saying that wealth is not an important issue, I just think that each country has it's own needs and there is no "right answer" for everyone. Both the United States and Denmark are wealthy and prosperous, however they have drastically different social and economic policies. I guess I would say that wealth tends to ensure power (or at least a say in what goes on), but that it's not the only way to gain respect and security. Ultimately it is the conduct of the individual state. I also think that it is possible for a state to have "enough". Enough money to provide services to it's citizens and protect itself in times of trouble. Although there is definately competition in the world I do think human's are internally driven by money in the sense that once they have some they need more.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
reflection week four
From wealth to power to peace, our discussions this past week have produced intriguing discussions. We've seen that changing sides is okay (as most people wrote blogs about how pursuing wealth is bad and proceeded to contradict themselves during friday's discussion.) as it makes discussion far more interesting - as does arguing for something completely absurd; genocide, for example.
In a normal classroom situation, anyone seriously/honestly arguing pro-genocide would be ostracized - as I believe it should be. However, UC World Politics is, as we know, by no means a 'normal' class. So, bear with me momentarily as I step into the hypothetical realm - I in no way think that genocide is right or good, however, I would like to pursue for blogging's sake that opinion.
Several interesting arguments arose. We, as a society, have been told since birth that killing is bad - espcecially discriminating against and killing a specific group of people. What if we were taught 'survival of the fittest'? If one group is harming others, is bringing the rest of the world down, why not get rid of them? James discussed details of such on his blog.
If we could have prevented the Holocaust by killing Hitler and the Nazis before their political power spiraled, should we? To answer no is absurd as preventing such a horrendous act would clearly be a good choice; to answer yes supports the genocide of a political group. I feel that we don't often think of both sides of the situation. Which is the worse evil - killing the violent few in order to save the masses or allowing the few to exterminate the many?
In a normal classroom situation, anyone seriously/honestly arguing pro-genocide would be ostracized - as I believe it should be. However, UC World Politics is, as we know, by no means a 'normal' class. So, bear with me momentarily as I step into the hypothetical realm - I in no way think that genocide is right or good, however, I would like to pursue for blogging's sake that opinion.
Several interesting arguments arose. We, as a society, have been told since birth that killing is bad - espcecially discriminating against and killing a specific group of people. What if we were taught 'survival of the fittest'? If one group is harming others, is bringing the rest of the world down, why not get rid of them? James discussed details of such on his blog.
If we could have prevented the Holocaust by killing Hitler and the Nazis before their political power spiraled, should we? To answer no is absurd as preventing such a horrendous act would clearly be a good choice; to answer yes supports the genocide of a political group. I feel that we don't often think of both sides of the situation. Which is the worse evil - killing the violent few in order to save the masses or allowing the few to exterminate the many?
power, wealth, and right v. wrong
This week in class we discussed many things. One of the topics was wealth and power. It had to deal with states and their desire to gain wealth and security. Wealth does not always mean security and security does not always mean good things. With wealth comes corruption and internal strife. Security has the desire for more, which leads to war to try and get more wealth to make a country stronger. In todays world, the most powerful economic entities are not necessarily countries. Out of the top 100 most wealthy economic entities 51 out of 49 are companies such as Exxon mobile, General Motors, and Wal-mart.
Wealth does not always mean a country has that wealth and power and so the need for security will change to meet the need of the entity. However, in these cases corruption is more likely to appear and so therefore more attention must be paid to these entities.
Lastly, in class we talked about genocide. More specifically, it was as time changes so does cultural rights and wrongs. Where once one thing was thought wrong it is now thought to be right. For example, many of Galileo's theories were thought to be wrong but in the modern age they have been proven right. Yes, this is an example of how science changes over time but cultural ideals of right and wrong change in the same manner.
Wealth does not always mean a country has that wealth and power and so the need for security will change to meet the need of the entity. However, in these cases corruption is more likely to appear and so therefore more attention must be paid to these entities.
Lastly, in class we talked about genocide. More specifically, it was as time changes so does cultural rights and wrongs. Where once one thing was thought wrong it is now thought to be right. For example, many of Galileo's theories were thought to be wrong but in the modern age they have been proven right.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Genocide Can Be Just?
I would like to reflect on the last week and specifically, the end of our conversation on Friday about genocide. Although it is possible to reason from the side of perpetrators, it is difficult to believe that anyone could actually argue for genocide and I was quite startled that the topic even came up. It is easy for us, who have never seen or been part of something so horrible, to say that genocide is necessary because of overpopulation or whatever other reason. Genocide is not something to joke about and if it were turned on us, a genocide occured in the United States, I don't believe that we would be talking about it in this way. Overpopulation is not an excuse to murder an ethnic, racial, or religious group.
I feel very strongly in this way, yet I am also someone who believes that genocide is part of the world and will continue to occur, especially as world interests, interdependence, and economic differences become more crucial in how people and countries interact. The ideology of one group will always rule over that of another sometimes for reasons unknown even to them.
I think that we dwelt on the subject of power, money, and security a little too much this week. It is a subject that needs to be discussed, but eventually the discussion becomes very opinion oriented and steers away from how the world actually works. It is important to pick out as specific examples as possible in our discussions, because there really are different sides and different actions that could suppor many positions, but without a fact, they are invalid.
I feel very strongly in this way, yet I am also someone who believes that genocide is part of the world and will continue to occur, especially as world interests, interdependence, and economic differences become more crucial in how people and countries interact. The ideology of one group will always rule over that of another sometimes for reasons unknown even to them.
I think that we dwelt on the subject of power, money, and security a little too much this week. It is a subject that needs to be discussed, but eventually the discussion becomes very opinion oriented and steers away from how the world actually works. It is important to pick out as specific examples as possible in our discussions, because there really are different sides and different actions that could suppor many positions, but without a fact, they are invalid.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Money and Corruption
In repsonse to Nate's comment, and to expand upon my previous post, here are a few thoughts and statistics about how I see money and material wealth helping to "internally corrupt" a state:
- The average superbowl ad in 2007 cost $2.6 millon dollars. This is so society can learn about beer, cars, and junk food. http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/03/news/funny/superbowl_ads/index.htm
- The average salary in baseball is $2,944,556. With players making upwards of $10 million a year, its no wonder there is a strong sense of competition...steroids, perhaps? http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/salaries/avgsalaries
- Wealth is constantly intertwined with political corruption. With lobbyists and rich donors contributing to campaigns, there is no way to avoid biased and corruption. Our government is increasingly inefficient due to all the external influences. When you're constituents=money for you, how can you be expected to remain honest?
- Automobile companies are constantly using wealth to their advantage. I mean, they could produce more fuel efficient cars, but then they would lose money (and so would their oil tycoon friends). It also helps when they pay of politicians to stop them from increasing EPA standards.
- In hollywood, money and advertising aim to dictate everything about how we live our lives. Is American Idol anything more than a corporate stunt to get us to spend money on CDs and clothing? You be the judge. Likewise, with radio these days being run almost entirley by Clear Channel, their only goal is to make money for themselves.
- With corporate executives raking in astronomical sums, that doesn't really create a fair, honest, work environment (see Enron).
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of money acting in this fashion. As you can see, wealth continues to control and corrupt the state internally. While it may lead to peace in a larger sense (citizens are content and won't want to start a war), it creates a division within.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
wealth v. security
In class we were discussing wealth and security. Does the pursuit of wealth lead to peace/ will pursuing wealth make a nation more peaceful? The answer to both questions is no. The pursuit of wealth will lead only to conflict and war. Adam Smith coined the phrase "mercantile system" by which nations tried to increase their wealth through colonies. These colonies increased warfare and conflict to a point never before seen in history. This shows that when a country is in search of wealth it will increase, not decrease the chance of peace.
In the United States we can see that a rush for gold increases hatred as well. During the gold rush, there was large anti-chinese sentiment. This is because large numbers of Chinese were coming to the U.S. in search of U.S. gold. The United States citizens did not like this and so made sure that the chinese were not treated well in America.
These are a mere two instances of how the pursuit of wealth leads to hate and increased conflict. There are many more instances of wealth leading to hate and conflict. An example of that would be the blood or conflict diamonds.
For blood diamonds it was the pursuit of these riches that created war and slaughter. These diamonds have made it impossible for there to be peace anywhere that they happen to be. This is due to the fact that the diamonds are controlled by rebels who dislike the government and vice versa.
This shows that the pursuit of wealth leads to nations being split, increased warfare in and out of a country and large migrations that dislocate the native population in many cases.
The pursuit of wealth has never lead to a more peaceful nation and it never will. If anything the pursuit of wealth increases the ego of that nation to make it more willing to fight. Throughout history, and to the present day wealth and money have fostered war, envy, and hate. Never once has it inspired peace, love etc. The pursuit of wealth is dangerous and should not be taken lightly.
In the United States we can see that a rush for gold increases hatred as well. During the gold rush, there was large anti-chinese sentiment. This is because large numbers of Chinese were coming to the U.S. in search of U.S. gold. The United States citizens did not like this and so made sure that the chinese were not treated well in America.
These are a mere two instances of how the pursuit of wealth leads to hate and increased conflict. There are many more instances of wealth leading to hate and conflict. An example of that would be the blood or conflict diamonds.
For blood diamonds it was the pursuit of these riches that created war and slaughter. These diamonds have made it impossible for there to be peace anywhere that they happen to be. This is due to the fact that the diamonds are controlled by rebels who dislike the government and vice versa.
This shows that the pursuit of wealth leads to nations being split, increased warfare in and out of a country and large migrations that dislocate the native population in many cases.
The pursuit of wealth has never lead to a more peaceful nation and it never will. If anything the pursuit of wealth increases the ego of that nation to make it more willing to fight. Throughout history, and to the present day wealth and money have fostered war, envy, and hate. Never once has it inspired peace, love etc. The pursuit of wealth is dangerous and should not be taken lightly.
Wealth is not the answer
Every state wants to pursue and improve their wealth. As we talked about in class, with wealth generally comes power and respect in the international community. With that said however, the acquisition of wealth cannot be seen as synonymous with domestic peace. It all comes down to the means by which wealth is acquired and also how the individual state allocates and distributes its resources.
In many circumstances, the pursuit of wealth leads to war.
Around the 16th century, the economic philosophy of mercantilism emergedm(http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/Mercantilism.html ). This meant more exports, fewer imports, and higher taxes. As nations raced to gather up resources, the result was often clashing between states. A good example of this is the spice trade of the late 17th century. The Dutch were determined to claim a monopoly on the spice industry, for this would surely lead to wealth and prosperity. What resulted was a great battle in the Banda islands that killed about 6,000 people. http://www.pilotguides.com/destination_guide/asia/indonesia/spice_wars.php
Also, pursuit of oil and other resources leads to fighting abroad. Take the United States for example. Our government goes to great lengths to ensure that we have the oil we need to go about our life. It is a well known fact that when we purchase oil we help fund the very enemies we aim to defeat. Add in the environmental crisis that comes from burning fossils fuels and well, somehow, this just doesn’t seem like a good system.
I also think that wealth corrupts internally. Once a country becomes wealthy it’s entire culture is overtaken by wealth. Just look at American politics and popular culture. It’s all about the high-life.
In my opinion, the state should focus on maintaining sound relationships with its citizens and with the world community. This kind of respect comes by way of power and good-will. Mere economic prowess will not ensure good international relations. A good example of this is China. Although few dispute the fact that the Chinese are well on their way to becoming the world’s leaders in technology and industry, there is a great amount of contention regarding the Chinese government. They may be acquiring wealth but they are doing so at the cost of their citizens. According to a 2001 CNN report (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/three.gorges/), the highly criticized Three Gorges Dam that is being erected along the Yangtze River is estimated to displace about 1.2 Million people and have catastrophic ecological complications. Sure, it may provide more energy to allow the country to grow in the international market, but this is not creating peace. The 2008 Olympics, while surely a sign of wealth and power, have also been met with controversy.
So, rather than focus on simply gaining wealth, states should put their priorities into education, civil liberties, international respect, and humanitarian aid. I think these are all things that truly lead to peace. Only when the citizens of a state, along with the world community can respect the actions of a nation can peace be achieved.
In many circumstances, the pursuit of wealth leads to war.
Around the 16th century, the economic philosophy of mercantilism emergedm(http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/Mercantilism.html ). This meant more exports, fewer imports, and higher taxes. As nations raced to gather up resources, the result was often clashing between states. A good example of this is the spice trade of the late 17th century. The Dutch were determined to claim a monopoly on the spice industry, for this would surely lead to wealth and prosperity. What resulted was a great battle in the Banda islands that killed about 6,000 people. http://www.pilotguides.com/destination_guide/asia/indonesia/spice_wars.php
Also, pursuit of oil and other resources leads to fighting abroad. Take the United States for example. Our government goes to great lengths to ensure that we have the oil we need to go about our life. It is a well known fact that when we purchase oil we help fund the very enemies we aim to defeat. Add in the environmental crisis that comes from burning fossils fuels and well, somehow, this just doesn’t seem like a good system.
I also think that wealth corrupts internally. Once a country becomes wealthy it’s entire culture is overtaken by wealth. Just look at American politics and popular culture. It’s all about the high-life.
In my opinion, the state should focus on maintaining sound relationships with its citizens and with the world community. This kind of respect comes by way of power and good-will. Mere economic prowess will not ensure good international relations. A good example of this is China. Although few dispute the fact that the Chinese are well on their way to becoming the world’s leaders in technology and industry, there is a great amount of contention regarding the Chinese government. They may be acquiring wealth but they are doing so at the cost of their citizens. According to a 2001 CNN report (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/three.gorges/), the highly criticized Three Gorges Dam that is being erected along the Yangtze River is estimated to displace about 1.2 Million people and have catastrophic ecological complications. Sure, it may provide more energy to allow the country to grow in the international market, but this is not creating peace. The 2008 Olympics, while surely a sign of wealth and power, have also been met with controversy.
So, rather than focus on simply gaining wealth, states should put their priorities into education, civil liberties, international respect, and humanitarian aid. I think these are all things that truly lead to peace. Only when the citizens of a state, along with the world community can respect the actions of a nation can peace be achieved.
WEALTH = PEACE??
I would like to begin by stating that pursuing wealth does not, of course, make you peaceful. There are numerous examples to disprove this theory. For one, let's look at ourselves, the United States. The idea that money can buy peace is one that is misunderstood in most of the world. The U.S. pursues wealth and has pursued wealth in order to be at the economic level that we are. We also give money, sometimes large amounts, to countries that have not acquired wealth and to countries that are not peaceful(for whatever reason), in the hopes of creating peace through money. This is a false hope though, because eventually, the country needs more resources and structure and the fighting continues.
Peace is not a product of wealth. The United States, with an incredibly high GDP, is still funding a war in Iraq as well as 'lending a hand' in many other countries. Any country, no matter whether it is wealthy or not, will pursue ANYTHING for its own good rather than maintain a peaceful status with other sovereignties. As the United States has grown in power and wealth, it has more problems keeping peace because we fear what will happen to the 'superpower.' Attacks such as September 11, show that are goal is not to pursue peace, but to maintain our own high status in the world, and that has nothing to do with peace. I do not think that there is any correlation between the pursuit of wealth and whether you are more peaceful.
Oil is an essential export from many Arab countries, a place where the United States focuses much attention. Because of this, we are involved in the business of these countries, and need to maintain relations to ensure that we receive oil. As long as we can purchase oil, we will invade other countries and do anything possible to 'control' the trade and ensure that we will not lose.
In order to be at all peaceful, you must be a country somewhere in the middle of the economic scale, or be dependent on another country. This is not always true, but countries that do not have economic resources, tend to be out of the worldly picture and wars. Any country that is independent and gaining wealth is not out to create peace, they are out to benefit for their country and that country alone.
Peace is not a product of wealth. The United States, with an incredibly high GDP, is still funding a war in Iraq as well as 'lending a hand' in many other countries. Any country, no matter whether it is wealthy or not, will pursue ANYTHING for its own good rather than maintain a peaceful status with other sovereignties. As the United States has grown in power and wealth, it has more problems keeping peace because we fear what will happen to the 'superpower.' Attacks such as September 11, show that are goal is not to pursue peace, but to maintain our own high status in the world, and that has nothing to do with peace. I do not think that there is any correlation between the pursuit of wealth and whether you are more peaceful.
Oil is an essential export from many Arab countries, a place where the United States focuses much attention. Because of this, we are involved in the business of these countries, and need to maintain relations to ensure that we receive oil. As long as we can purchase oil, we will invade other countries and do anything possible to 'control' the trade and ensure that we will not lose.
In order to be at all peaceful, you must be a country somewhere in the middle of the economic scale, or be dependent on another country. This is not always true, but countries that do not have economic resources, tend to be out of the worldly picture and wars. Any country that is independent and gaining wealth is not out to create peace, they are out to benefit for their country and that country alone.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
wealth vs. peace
While the pursuit of wealth may sometimes lead to violence (as seen in my fellow bloggers' examples), in the end, a society pursuing wealth will be the most peaceful.
Theoretically, in an age where international trade is a common staple of most country's economies, wealth must lead to peace. In order to maximize wealth, a state must produce that which it is efficient in producing - what it has a comparative advantage in producing - and trade for other things that it needs. Only in this way can they make the largest profit/benefit/wealth. If a country is at war with another, they are unlikely to be trading goods freely (though black market trading may still exist as it's illegal any ways, why stop when there's war?) as they generally do not want to help one another and thus both markets, had trading previously existed, will suffer. If a country constantly looks out for their wealth, then they will avoid war at all costs (a short term loss) in order to preserve the trade amongst their economies (a long term gain).
In class, we discussed the cost of the war in Iraq. It is now definitely over $1 trillion. Such a number is nearly incomprehensible. All this spent on war. Were we not engaged in war, some of the money could go to a variety of other places including more comprehensive national health care, better public education, unprecedented medical research. And yet, the spending that could be funded into all of these things would not near the full cost of the war leaving more money in the U.S.'s pocket. Clearly the U.S. does not pursue wealth as it is squandering it at such an alarming rate. If it truly wanted wealth, we would not be spending so much on war and thus would live on a much more peaceful world.
One may then ask - if the U.S. doesn't pursue wealth then who does? In my (humble) opinion, no country truly pursues wealth. Rather, they pursue security as land is essential for a nation to be sovereign and thus it must be protected. Pursuing security in no way makes a country more peaceful (rather the opposite, it seems, is true) as wars emerge from countries "defending" themselves.
While it may not exclusively or primarily pursue wealth, it is clearly on of the U.S.'s top interests as it has the highest gdp of any individual state worldwide. So perhaps then, we may presume that following the pursuit of security, which leads to war, the U.S. at least, is in pursuit of wealth. Internally, what is this pursuit doing to our country? Are we engaged in civil war? No. There is peace. Among the countries with the highest GDPs, there is no war among them. The government is stable enough to actively pursue wealth, not only for it, but for its people, and at the same time remains peaceful, excluding the few cases in which security (such as in the war in Iraq) presides over the search for wealth as it is, for all countries the #1 desire.
Peace occurs because of agreements made by those looking out for their best interests and/or the interests of their countries. So long as wealth is an interest of a country, which in most cases, it certainly is, peace is a byproduct of that pursuit.
Theoretically, in an age where international trade is a common staple of most country's economies, wealth must lead to peace. In order to maximize wealth, a state must produce that which it is efficient in producing - what it has a comparative advantage in producing - and trade for other things that it needs. Only in this way can they make the largest profit/benefit/wealth. If a country is at war with another, they are unlikely to be trading goods freely (though black market trading may still exist as it's illegal any ways, why stop when there's war?) as they generally do not want to help one another and thus both markets, had trading previously existed, will suffer. If a country constantly looks out for their wealth, then they will avoid war at all costs (a short term loss) in order to preserve the trade amongst their economies (a long term gain).
In class, we discussed the cost of the war in Iraq. It is now definitely over $1 trillion. Such a number is nearly incomprehensible. All this spent on war. Were we not engaged in war, some of the money could go to a variety of other places including more comprehensive national health care, better public education, unprecedented medical research. And yet, the spending that could be funded into all of these things would not near the full cost of the war leaving more money in the U.S.'s pocket. Clearly the U.S. does not pursue wealth as it is squandering it at such an alarming rate. If it truly wanted wealth, we would not be spending so much on war and thus would live on a much more peaceful world.
One may then ask - if the U.S. doesn't pursue wealth then who does? In my (humble) opinion, no country truly pursues wealth. Rather, they pursue security as land is essential for a nation to be sovereign and thus it must be protected. Pursuing security in no way makes a country more peaceful (rather the opposite, it seems, is true) as wars emerge from countries "defending" themselves.
While it may not exclusively or primarily pursue wealth, it is clearly on of the U.S.'s top interests as it has the highest gdp of any individual state worldwide. So perhaps then, we may presume that following the pursuit of security, which leads to war, the U.S. at least, is in pursuit of wealth. Internally, what is this pursuit doing to our country? Are we engaged in civil war? No. There is peace. Among the countries with the highest GDPs, there is no war among them. The government is stable enough to actively pursue wealth, not only for it, but for its people, and at the same time remains peaceful, excluding the few cases in which security (such as in the war in Iraq) presides over the search for wealth as it is, for all countries the #1 desire.
Peace occurs because of agreements made by those looking out for their best interests and/or the interests of their countries. So long as wealth is an interest of a country, which in most cases, it certainly is, peace is a byproduct of that pursuit.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
reflection week three
This week, we began by debating the principles proposed by Machiavelli in The Prince. By splitting into groups who 'agreed' and 'didn't agree' with Machiavelli's perspectives then arguing for the opposite side, we had to consider an alternate point of view. I think that this is a necessary practice for those who wish to improve their debating skills. However, due to the distance between the opposing sides, it was hard to hear the other side's point and thus difficult to construct a proper rebuttal. While many good points were raised, we did not fully explore them (though time was certainly a reason for this) because each team was, in my opinion, not really arguing with each other. Instead, they would hear certain words and assume that the other side was talking about one thing and thus argue against that rather than what was actually being said. The structure of point/rebuttal, new point/rebuttal was a good one for our first debate as it constrained us and prevented violent outbrakes from intense arguing that often occurs when rebuttals are allowed to continue back and forth. Yet, in the future, I'd like to see a more passionate debate in which we can really explore one point/topic through back and forth rebuttals.
Wednesday's breakfast & a movie should, I think, become a more regular occurance. (Though I can't wait for our excursions to begin!) I'd never seen Blood Diamond before and I really enjoyed it. As it's a movie about recent political events, Blood Diamond prompted discussions regarding illegal trading, civil wars, and child soldiers. This was especially beneficial as we went to the 'club fair' after the movie and were inspired to join many human rights clubs and really get involved.
Wednesday's breakfast & a movie should, I think, become a more regular occurance. (Though I can't wait for our excursions to begin!) I'd never seen Blood Diamond before and I really enjoyed it. As it's a movie about recent political events, Blood Diamond prompted discussions regarding illegal trading, civil wars, and child soldiers. This was especially beneficial as we went to the 'club fair' after the movie and were inspired to join many human rights clubs and really get involved.
some thoughts on the past week
First of all let me say that I think tuesday's class was a productive use of time. Although some may complain that it was pointless and unproductive to "flip-flop" the arguing sides, I disagree. During my high school years I participated in a mock government program. Frequently I was forced to present and defend ideas that I didn't agree with. Sometimes the issues were quite controversial. My point is, it shouldn't matter what you think to begin with. If any of you have seen the movie Thank You for Smoking, you know that the main character claims that you can win any agrument if you want to. I think by examining Machiavelli by these means we were all able to gain a better understanding of the philosophy and text.
In regards to the film, Blood Diamond, I think it was the perfect choice of movie. It was shocking to realize that something that is associated with royalty, love, and wealth (in this case, a diamond) could cause so many internal problems. I guess it is a good example of how countries will use their resources to maintain power within the world. What I found particularly interesting was how the diamond companies purposely keep a number of them off the market to keep prices high. It all seems like a big mess, one that will take a long time to fix. As was mentioned in the movie, one simple article or film isn't going to change what the world thinks, or if it does, the world won't suddenly take up arms against diamond violence.
Finally, I would like to say that I did actually learn a good deal about fair use. I think I now understand enough to make presentations that will be within the law. I also know how to defend myself and justify my actions should the case arise. Although I still do not entirely agree with all the rules (I think it's perfectly fine to insert a song into a movie, no one is directly losing money) I can appreciate why some people take copyright so seriously. Perhaps if I was on the other end of the equation I would feel differently about the rules.
In regards to the film, Blood Diamond, I think it was the perfect choice of movie. It was shocking to realize that something that is associated with royalty, love, and wealth (in this case, a diamond) could cause so many internal problems. I guess it is a good example of how countries will use their resources to maintain power within the world. What I found particularly interesting was how the diamond companies purposely keep a number of them off the market to keep prices high. It all seems like a big mess, one that will take a long time to fix. As was mentioned in the movie, one simple article or film isn't going to change what the world thinks, or if it does, the world won't suddenly take up arms against diamond violence.
Finally, I would like to say that I did actually learn a good deal about fair use. I think I now understand enough to make presentations that will be within the law. I also know how to defend myself and justify my actions should the case arise. Although I still do not entirely agree with all the rules (I think it's perfectly fine to insert a song into a movie, no one is directly losing money) I can appreciate why some people take copyright so seriously. Perhaps if I was on the other end of the equation I would feel differently about the rules.
reflection
So this week we talked about Machiavelli, watched Blood Diamond, and learned about fair use rights when making videos. The class discussion of Machiavelli was not a very good debate for either side. Both sides had weak rebuttals and not the best arguments either. Furthermore, about 1/3 of the argument wasn't even centered around what Machiavelli was arguing but whether or not his argument was valid because it was anecdotal.
The movie, Blood Diamond, was an interesting movie and showed how countries interact with one another. Whether that interaction is conflict diamonds, torture, war etc. It also shows how hard it is to bring down smuggling and rebel groups that use child soldiers. It is a hard life for them and not a good one.
In the use of fair rights I learned that it is ambiguous and mostly left up to interpretation. For example, you can only use a video segment, length doesn't matter, so long as it backs up a point. The use of music, after the 1920s is illegal, unless it backs up a point or sets a mood that is talked about. So basically what I learned from that is it is fair use so long as it helps back up the point that you are trying to make. Otherwise it is illegal and you can be sued for the use of the music, video clip etc.
The movie, Blood Diamond, was an interesting movie and showed how countries interact with one another. Whether that interaction is conflict diamonds, torture, war etc. It also shows how hard it is to bring down smuggling and rebel groups that use child soldiers. It is a hard life for them and not a good one.
In the use of fair rights I learned that it is ambiguous and mostly left up to interpretation. For example, you can only use a video segment, length doesn't matter, so long as it backs up a point. The use of music, after the 1920s is illegal, unless it backs up a point or sets a mood that is talked about. So basically what I learned from that is it is fair use so long as it helps back up the point that you are trying to make. Otherwise it is illegal and you can be sued for the use of the music, video clip etc.
I am very happy that everyone watched Blood Diamond last Sunday because I think, although it is gruesome, it is a very important topic and relates deeply to World Politics. I have seen this movie at least three times, yet this time, I took the time to look up some facts. In Sierra Leone, the diamond industry spurns civil wars, allowing the RUF, Revoluntionary United Front, to invade parts of Sierra Leone. The RUF, with their leader Sankoh, wanted to overthrow the government in order to achieve social democracy, free education and healthcare, and equal profit from diamond mining. This group is now known for its ten years of incredible violence and torture against the people of Sierra Leone, including amputations, rape, and murder, killing an estimate of 200,000 people(1). Sankoh controlled the diamond trade, smuggling diamonds into Liberia and exporting them from there. Like we saw in the movie, the RUF captured children from their villages and trained them to shoot their own family members, along with providing them with cocaine and marijuana. Girls were captured to act as prostitutes for the soldiers. In 200, Sankoh and his troops held 500 UN peacekeepers hostage and in 2001, eventually he was captured and the atrocities of the RUF stopped(1).
In some parts of the world, the diamond industry has helped the economy of the country, which is great, and therefore a wonderful way to support, but in many countries, civil wars are still claiming the lives of thousands of people. I hope that anyone who has seen the movie will research where a diamond comes from before they buy it, or for that matter, almost anything. It is so easy to avoid funding something horrible like this.
Much of government today is controlled by rebels, and it always has been this way. This is an important part in International Relations, because no matter how much we talk about international law and policy, there are always 'rebel' groups who are not following the same set of laws. This and an economic 'advance' like diamonds led to civil war in Sierra Leone.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
This is America (not the next doomed empire)
After reading Layne's essay about US grand strategy, I can say he does come across a little paranoid about the future of America.
It is Layne's belief that the United States can not long sustain being the world's superpower. Citing examples from Louis XIV to Nazi Germany, he brings up the point that "When a state wins too much, it loses". He goes on to explain that states with great power will only increase the motivation of other states to succed. It is a view that everyone wants to survive and be in power. Thus, when one country picks up the pace, others will follow in their footsteps in an effort to maintain balance.
I do not know that I agree with this view. I think Layne is just being paranoid about the potential threats facing the United States. His idea of "securing" our country is to cut off aid to other countries, eliminate economic interdependence and use our strategic geographic location to "isolate" ourselves from the rest of the world. In a sense, it a very realist view of how to best run the international community. Rather than use our resources to help other countries in economic, military and humanitarian crises we should just take care of ourselves first. While I agree that we have a number of domestic issues that need to be adressed and shouldn't act as the "world police" I do think we owe it to help maintain a favorable international climate. We shouldn't just hole up in our nice cozy North American den and delegate the rest of our tasks. Sure, playing defense is probably a good way to make sure your state survives, but I don't think it fosters a good world to be in. Maybe I am just too liberal to see things Layne's way. I just can't help sitting around while other's suffer.
As Layne mentions, the international economy favors peace. Obviously then we should do all we can to maintain it. The presented theory of extended deterrence would work, assuming the country of reference is already well respected. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the US. If we can regain our international morality (come on, 2008!) we can employ these tactics. To a liberal such as myself the idea of occupying a country or invading just to show your muscle does not seem like a good idea on the surface. However, Layne does bring up a good point when he says that by showing you're serious about your military you can quench many potential attackers.
In regards to offshore balancing, I am a bit torn. On the one hand, I think the world is moving away from one superpower to several nations (China, Germany) dictating the norms. With that said, I don't think that should prevent America from maintaining its status. We just need to learn how to cooperate with other nations and not allow another WWII/Cold War situation to arise.
Ok, so maybe that was kind of a lot of rambling. I guess the point is that I don't see America's immediate future to be in jeopardy. I think we need to work on our respect in the world but we need to aknowledge that other nations are going to rise to our status. Sure, IR is an ever-changing world but I don't think we need a drastic overhaul of our policies.
It is Layne's belief that the United States can not long sustain being the world's superpower. Citing examples from Louis XIV to Nazi Germany, he brings up the point that "When a state wins too much, it loses". He goes on to explain that states with great power will only increase the motivation of other states to succed. It is a view that everyone wants to survive and be in power. Thus, when one country picks up the pace, others will follow in their footsteps in an effort to maintain balance.
I do not know that I agree with this view. I think Layne is just being paranoid about the potential threats facing the United States. His idea of "securing" our country is to cut off aid to other countries, eliminate economic interdependence and use our strategic geographic location to "isolate" ourselves from the rest of the world. In a sense, it a very realist view of how to best run the international community. Rather than use our resources to help other countries in economic, military and humanitarian crises we should just take care of ourselves first. While I agree that we have a number of domestic issues that need to be adressed and shouldn't act as the "world police" I do think we owe it to help maintain a favorable international climate. We shouldn't just hole up in our nice cozy North American den and delegate the rest of our tasks. Sure, playing defense is probably a good way to make sure your state survives, but I don't think it fosters a good world to be in. Maybe I am just too liberal to see things Layne's way. I just can't help sitting around while other's suffer.
As Layne mentions, the international economy favors peace. Obviously then we should do all we can to maintain it. The presented theory of extended deterrence would work, assuming the country of reference is already well respected. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the US. If we can regain our international morality (come on, 2008!) we can employ these tactics. To a liberal such as myself the idea of occupying a country or invading just to show your muscle does not seem like a good idea on the surface. However, Layne does bring up a good point when he says that by showing you're serious about your military you can quench many potential attackers.
In regards to offshore balancing, I am a bit torn. On the one hand, I think the world is moving away from one superpower to several nations (China, Germany) dictating the norms. With that said, I don't think that should prevent America from maintaining its status. We just need to learn how to cooperate with other nations and not allow another WWII/Cold War situation to arise.
Ok, so maybe that was kind of a lot of rambling. I guess the point is that I don't see America's immediate future to be in jeopardy. I think we need to work on our respect in the world but we need to aknowledge that other nations are going to rise to our status. Sure, IR is an ever-changing world but I don't think we need a drastic overhaul of our policies.
U.S. as a Superpower vs. Reality
During the last few weeks in the Leadership Gateway course, we have had an ongoing discussion of superpowers in today's world, including the involvement and the right of the United States to call ourselves a superpower. The article by Christopher Layne clears up this argument for me, describing in detail the reasons that the United States has been considered a superpower, and theories of strategy and economic interdependence, which create international relations.
I definetely do not see any paranoia in Layne's theories and present predictions for the world, specifically the United States in the universal sphere. Neither do I believe that he is necessarily prudent, rather quite realistic, but I will definetely argue for the prudent side over paranoid. Prudent is defined as someone who is careful, sensible, and marked by good judment. They are wise in handling practical matters, exercising good judgement, and common sense (1). Layne's view is that the United States has achieved hegemony, but that will only last so long especially if we continue using the same strategies, and when another country or multiple countries, rise to power, there will be nothing that we can do. He says "when a state wins too much, it loses (2)!" This has been true with any world powers until this day, speaking in a global sense, where those nations that have risen to the status of 'superpower,' at some point can no longer relate to the rest of the world because of continuously changing strategies in interdependency and many other factors. There is nothing paranoid in thinking that the U.S. will not remain a superpower forever; this is in fact the truth, that power will eventually rest in the hands of another country.
In the political and economic world, with interdependency between countries, there is no doubt that the United States is a vital leader. Who knows what could happen if the United States loses power as a 'superpower.' We have remained for some time in this position, and therefore, the connections have grown and it is normal to always think of the U.S. related to almost everything in some capacity. Yet we have begun to over-use the power as Layne speaks of, and this is why eventually, we will not remain in this position.
I like how the author writes the beginning of his paper and how he emphasizes the reliance of countries on the U.S. because this also is true. It is interesting how he writes of the time when power will switch to another country and the possible outcomes of this; war and an incredible change in the economy because of a dependence at this time on the present superpower, the United States. He states very practically the existent truths, yet also realizes the possibilities of the next few decades and how drastically world relations could change.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prudent
https://blackboard.american.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_40193_1
I definetely do not see any paranoia in Layne's theories and present predictions for the world, specifically the United States in the universal sphere. Neither do I believe that he is necessarily prudent, rather quite realistic, but I will definetely argue for the prudent side over paranoid. Prudent is defined as someone who is careful, sensible, and marked by good judment. They are wise in handling practical matters, exercising good judgement, and common sense (1). Layne's view is that the United States has achieved hegemony, but that will only last so long especially if we continue using the same strategies, and when another country or multiple countries, rise to power, there will be nothing that we can do. He says "when a state wins too much, it loses (2)!" This has been true with any world powers until this day, speaking in a global sense, where those nations that have risen to the status of 'superpower,' at some point can no longer relate to the rest of the world because of continuously changing strategies in interdependency and many other factors. There is nothing paranoid in thinking that the U.S. will not remain a superpower forever; this is in fact the truth, that power will eventually rest in the hands of another country.
In the political and economic world, with interdependency between countries, there is no doubt that the United States is a vital leader. Who knows what could happen if the United States loses power as a 'superpower.' We have remained for some time in this position, and therefore, the connections have grown and it is normal to always think of the U.S. related to almost everything in some capacity. Yet we have begun to over-use the power as Layne speaks of, and this is why eventually, we will not remain in this position.
I like how the author writes the beginning of his paper and how he emphasizes the reliance of countries on the U.S. because this also is true. It is interesting how he writes of the time when power will switch to another country and the possible outcomes of this; war and an incredible change in the economy because of a dependence at this time on the present superpower, the United States. He states very practically the existent truths, yet also realizes the possibilities of the next few decades and how drastically world relations could change.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prudent
https://blackboard.american.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_40193_1
Monday, September 10, 2007
reflection week two
Analogies, as I'm sure we've all realized at this point, are incredibly helpful in simplifying otherwise incredibly complex concepts. This seemed to be "analogy week" between blog groups becoming countries and partitioning off "land" through tables and chairs and symbolizing world politics with children in a fourth grade classroom. While such representations cannot completely explain elaborate theories as there are so many intricate threads woven together in the delicate, tangled web of world politics, they can certainly aid in understanding. Personally, I found each exercise, at least initially, quite informative.
On Tuesday, I thought that by dividing up into separate countries with varying resources, it was easier to think and consider their perspectives. When all of the nations with few resources were able to join together, the model failed as such simple unity, I feel, would be difficult to actually achieve - especially in nations with unstable governments. This would require more compromise than occurred between the roommates and neighbors representing each nation. Representing is a key word as many people began to take the model much too literally, criticizing it's every fault. Models are not meant to encompass every last detail of the real world situation. While it is important to recognize a model's downfalls and shortcomings so that perhaps a more accurate model or analogy can be made, denouncing ideas yet providing no alternate suggestions is, in my (humble) opinion, uncalled for.
Said argument applies also to Friday's class in which we put the world into a fourth grade classroom, gave them (it) an assignment and stepped back to speculate the results. Most argued that Johnny and the skater boys would often - if not always - get their way simply because of their more populous group. This then relates to the U.S. since many feel that due to it's resources, economy, size, and government, the U.S. gets its way. In the classroom, the teacher has the ultimate authority; if conflict or absurd amounts of 'unfairness' arise, (s)he can step in before any true unruliness begins. Such authority does not exist in the world, nor should it. There is no way (as discussed in my -and many others'- previous blog) that all nationstates could agree upon one person, group, or country to create a hegemony (ender series anyone?) and have so much authority as they cannot even all agree upon environmental standards. Thus compromises must be made. True they are not always fair- honestly nothing is ever fair to everyone- but agreements can ease tension and allow countries to work together to solve international affairs.
On Tuesday, I thought that by dividing up into separate countries with varying resources, it was easier to think and consider their perspectives. When all of the nations with few resources were able to join together, the model failed as such simple unity, I feel, would be difficult to actually achieve - especially in nations with unstable governments. This would require more compromise than occurred between the roommates and neighbors representing each nation. Representing is a key word as many people began to take the model much too literally, criticizing it's every fault. Models are not meant to encompass every last detail of the real world situation. While it is important to recognize a model's downfalls and shortcomings so that perhaps a more accurate model or analogy can be made, denouncing ideas yet providing no alternate suggestions is, in my (humble) opinion, uncalled for.
Said argument applies also to Friday's class in which we put the world into a fourth grade classroom, gave them (it) an assignment and stepped back to speculate the results. Most argued that Johnny and the skater boys would often - if not always - get their way simply because of their more populous group. This then relates to the U.S. since many feel that due to it's resources, economy, size, and government, the U.S. gets its way. In the classroom, the teacher has the ultimate authority; if conflict or absurd amounts of 'unfairness' arise, (s)he can step in before any true unruliness begins. Such authority does not exist in the world, nor should it. There is no way (as discussed in my -and many others'- previous blog) that all nationstates could agree upon one person, group, or country to create a hegemony (ender series anyone?) and have so much authority as they cannot even all agree upon environmental standards. Thus compromises must be made. True they are not always fair- honestly nothing is ever fair to everyone- but agreements can ease tension and allow countries to work together to solve international affairs.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Reflection 2
We have now started to look at the theories of world politics. Can the sovereign world agree on anything? Can sovereign nations work together to accomplish a goal? With the global world now interconnecting every country an effort must be made to connect the nations together. The economy has made it so that one nation can no longer be isolated or they will fall. The economic prosperity of the world can be made or broken by one nation. It is imperative for nations to work together to overcome obstacles. We have observed this in class. When several "lesser" groups bind together they make a state, and alliance, that can threaten a larger state. In these cases the larger states must work with the smaller states to prevent war. With the world economy being regulated by the WTO, justice being regulated by the UN and world courts such as the ICC it is becoming a world in which states must work together to achieve an acceptable end.
http://www.wto.org/
http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en
http://www.un.org/english/
Furthermore, I am going to expand on the discussion we had with our classroom theory. The world is a lot like the classroom. We have some states that if left to their own they will do nothing. However, the more powerful states/children will try and take charge and make a following/alliances and work to consolidate power around themselves. We can see this in our world with weak nation-states going nowhere or going downhill. Also, the more powerful states try and be the "world police."
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0412-09.htm
http://www.wto.org/
http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en
http://www.un.org/english/
Furthermore, I am going to expand on the discussion we had with our classroom theory. The world is a lot like the classroom. We have some states that if left to their own they will do nothing. However, the more powerful states/children will try and take charge and make a following/alliances and work to consolidate power around themselves. We can see this in our world with weak nation-states going nowhere or going downhill. Also, the more powerful states try and be the "world police."
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0412-09.htm
UC, week two
I can now safely say that UC is by far my favorite class this semester. It seems that everything we bring up in class is relative and applicable to the world around me. Although we are dealing a fair amount with IR theory, it is useful information. I take that to heart as I sit in other classes which seem to force-feed me trivial facts I will probably never need to recall. Both Tuesday and Friday classes were great experiences for me. I am particulary suprised at the fact that we (the class) can take a simple topic such as chairs or a fourth-grade classroom and expand it to World Politics. Obviously something as complex as international relations cannot be wholly explained by these in-class simulations but they do a pretty good job.
I would just like to add a few thoughts to Friday's class. It was no surprising that everyone had a lot to say, so I figured I'd just save some for the blog. First of all, it is true that a class of nine-year-olds are like nations in the sense that they care about their power and image in the world (or the classroom). It also perplexes me why kids fight over who gets to be the line leader. As you all probably remember, cutting the line is a serious offense. There was talk in class about how children have an embedded sense of justice. If you view cutting the line as someone cheating the system, it is no wonder kids become irritated. Likewise, countries want to be at the head and don't want anyone to get in their way. Now it's true that some kids will form friendships and work together towards a common goal such as reading a book. Fourth graders also help illustrate trade tendencies. How many times have you negotiated a juice-box or cookie swap at the lunchtable? Everyone in the classroom will work together to get what they want by trading away what they don't need or have an excess of. Of course there is always the kid who just wants to eat alone and the girl who goes around giving out cookies she baked the night before. I think in many ways the lunchtime metaphor can add a new dimension to Ian's classroom view.
It will be interesting where these conversations end up in the next few weeks. I look forward to focusing our classroom efforts on the various -isms of IR theory. I would also like to echo Rachel's post and say that I would like to spend some more time discussing the texts that we read. I think class simulations are great but let's not get so engrossed in hypotheticals that we don't have time to analyze "real" documents. Anyways, I am readily awaiting another great week.
I would just like to add a few thoughts to Friday's class. It was no surprising that everyone had a lot to say, so I figured I'd just save some for the blog. First of all, it is true that a class of nine-year-olds are like nations in the sense that they care about their power and image in the world (or the classroom). It also perplexes me why kids fight over who gets to be the line leader. As you all probably remember, cutting the line is a serious offense. There was talk in class about how children have an embedded sense of justice. If you view cutting the line as someone cheating the system, it is no wonder kids become irritated. Likewise, countries want to be at the head and don't want anyone to get in their way. Now it's true that some kids will form friendships and work together towards a common goal such as reading a book. Fourth graders also help illustrate trade tendencies. How many times have you negotiated a juice-box or cookie swap at the lunchtable? Everyone in the classroom will work together to get what they want by trading away what they don't need or have an excess of. Of course there is always the kid who just wants to eat alone and the girl who goes around giving out cookies she baked the night before. I think in many ways the lunchtime metaphor can add a new dimension to Ian's classroom view.
It will be interesting where these conversations end up in the next few weeks. I look forward to focusing our classroom efforts on the various -isms of IR theory. I would also like to echo Rachel's post and say that I would like to spend some more time discussing the texts that we read. I think class simulations are great but let's not get so engrossed in hypotheticals that we don't have time to analyze "real" documents. Anyways, I am readily awaiting another great week.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Sovereignty Reflection
To reflect on this week, I would like to begin with Tuesday's class and the simulation of sovereign states. I thought that this example was taken way too far and became incredibly unrealistic, perhaps not the goal, although I enjoyed the beginning as a way to demonstrate some relations between sovereign states. I believe that these simulations and analogies in class are meant to structure learning around the specific subject, and therefore, when they are taken to a level where events JUST DO NOT OCCUR, I'm not sure that it helps us at all. There are many complexities in the world and international politics that cannot be explained, and sometimes should not be argued over, because there is no analogy that fits.
I enjoyed Friday's discussion, although again, I thought that we took the analogy too far. A classroom of children can perhaps mirror sovereign states, but only to some extent and I felt that examples involving the fourth grade class were being used inappropriately to prove every point.
To add on something to this week's discussion, I read an interesting article this week that was published by the Hoover Institution. It discussed the growing difference between the United States and Europe, and how we deal with power. The United States tends to be more forceful and worried, whereas Europe has strayed away from the militaristic side in the last 60 years or so. I think this is interesting because our conversation had to do with how countries deal with each other, and I think that it shows that we do not all do it in the same way.
I enjoyed Friday's discussion, although again, I thought that we took the analogy too far. A classroom of children can perhaps mirror sovereign states, but only to some extent and I felt that examples involving the fourth grade class were being used inappropriately to prove every point.
To add on something to this week's discussion, I read an interesting article this week that was published by the Hoover Institution. It discussed the growing difference between the United States and Europe, and how we deal with power. The United States tends to be more forceful and worried, whereas Europe has strayed away from the militaristic side in the last 60 years or so. I think this is interesting because our conversation had to do with how countries deal with each other, and I think that it shows that we do not all do it in the same way.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
the global world
The question is it possible for sovereign states to reach global agreements is a loaded question. Ultimately I would say that sovereign states are able to reach global agreement when and only when it is in that states interest to agree.
The late 20th century was booming with globally recognized agreements. For example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into being in 1976, and in 1990 the Convention of the Rights of the Child were decided. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/appendix.html
There have been world summits and conferences about HIV/AIDS, Conference on Women, a world summit on Social Development (from the link above). There have been others and these are just examples. In these situations, the world got together and decided what it should do regarding the different topics.
In these cases a global agreement was reached. So therefore it is possible for a global agreement to be reached. There are of course exceptions to that rule such as torture to which the world can not agree.
On paper a global agreement can be reached between sovereign states. The UN has proven that point. http://www.un.org/aboutun/ Global agreements can be reached yet they will be fragile ones and can be easily broken at any time.
The late 20th century was booming with globally recognized agreements. For example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into being in 1976, and in 1990 the Convention of the Rights of the Child were decided. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/appendix.html
There have been world summits and conferences about HIV/AIDS, Conference on Women, a world summit on Social Development (from the link above). There have been others and these are just examples. In these situations, the world got together and decided what it should do regarding the different topics.
In these cases a global agreement was reached. So therefore it is possible for a global agreement to be reached. There are of course exceptions to that rule such as torture to which the world can not agree.
On paper a global agreement can be reached between sovereign states. The UN has proven that point. http://www.un.org/aboutun/ Global agreements can be reached yet they will be fragile ones and can be easily broken at any time.
Pessimist or Realist?
I believe that it is not currently possible for all sovereign states to reach agreements or set global standards. Sovereign states (all 194 of them - 192 included in the United Nations) range across the extremes on both the economic and political spectra. Each one considers their own individual needs above those of the entire world, making worldwide concession impossible. We should not, however, blame them for this as it is embedded within individual people as well. Self-preservation is a natural instinct and thus people as a whole will fight for those things relating directly to them before considering that their opponents are doing the same thing. As this knowledge becomes more well known, global agreements may become possible; people may realize that what may not directly benefit them will help others and thus improve society worldwide.
For the time being, it seems that nations worldwide cannot agree on the most basic of things. They cannot agree not to kill each other. Few people – and even fewer whole sovereign nations – want war. Yet the fighting continues. Poverty continues to be a desperate problem worldwide despite the surplus of money (and pretty much everything) that exists in countries like the United States. However, as we saw in class yesterday, countries who have more than they need are reluctant to give any of the extra up without some sort of incentive – such as a chance to hold the ball and thus speak/participate in the discussion. We, a class of only 24, who had no real money or property at stake would not share. We could not reach an agreement so that all nations could use the ball out of mistrust. How can almost 200 nations, each of whom have large bodies of constituents' views that they must consider, reach any sort of agreement?
For example (though widely used, it is in fact an excellent example), the Kyoto Protocol, written to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus help protect the planet from global warming (if you believe it exists), was approved by only 169 of the 192 countries in the United Nations. Of those who did not sign the protocol was the United States whose greenhouse gas emissions have risen in the past few years. Whether or not one believes that they contribute to global warming, it is clear that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the environment. But we, who produce almost a quarter of all the emissions, who have the money and resources to pursue cleaner energy methods continue in our harmful ways. We cannot make agreements, so how can we set standards?
Global standards ask countries not only to agree on a matter, but to act upon said agreement in order to achieve something. All sovereign countries could join the United Nations (though they haven't) and agree that diplomacy is the best way to solve a problem. However, when the destruction caused by oil use is examined and standards are set to lower oil use, not all countries will agree to said standard. For whatever reason, be it lack of funding, necessity in their economy, etc., there will always be (at least) a few countries that refuse to participate.
Until we can overcome our instinct to care only for our own country, we will not be able to agree with all those who are different than us. So long as this separation between countries exists such that agreements cannot be reached, standards will never be set.
For the time being, it seems that nations worldwide cannot agree on the most basic of things. They cannot agree not to kill each other. Few people – and even fewer whole sovereign nations – want war. Yet the fighting continues. Poverty continues to be a desperate problem worldwide despite the surplus of money (and pretty much everything) that exists in countries like the United States. However, as we saw in class yesterday, countries who have more than they need are reluctant to give any of the extra up without some sort of incentive – such as a chance to hold the ball and thus speak/participate in the discussion. We, a class of only 24, who had no real money or property at stake would not share. We could not reach an agreement so that all nations could use the ball out of mistrust. How can almost 200 nations, each of whom have large bodies of constituents' views that they must consider, reach any sort of agreement?
For example (though widely used, it is in fact an excellent example), the Kyoto Protocol, written to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus help protect the planet from global warming (if you believe it exists), was approved by only 169 of the 192 countries in the United Nations. Of those who did not sign the protocol was the United States whose greenhouse gas emissions have risen in the past few years. Whether or not one believes that they contribute to global warming, it is clear that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the environment. But we, who produce almost a quarter of all the emissions, who have the money and resources to pursue cleaner energy methods continue in our harmful ways. We cannot make agreements, so how can we set standards?
Global standards ask countries not only to agree on a matter, but to act upon said agreement in order to achieve something. All sovereign countries could join the United Nations (though they haven't) and agree that diplomacy is the best way to solve a problem. However, when the destruction caused by oil use is examined and standards are set to lower oil use, not all countries will agree to said standard. For whatever reason, be it lack of funding, necessity in their economy, etc., there will always be (at least) a few countries that refuse to participate.
Until we can overcome our instinct to care only for our own country, we will not be able to agree with all those who are different than us. So long as this separation between countries exists such that agreements cannot be reached, standards will never be set.
One Word: Self-Interest
"whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find ocassion for it."-Niccolo Machiavelli
This quote, when applied to the global community, sums up the reality of world politics. The idea that soveriegn nations can agree on global standars is, simply put, impossible Although we would all like to live in a utopian society where everyone has a great education and no one worries about crime or war, we must live realistically. Each country in this world has different resources, different cultures, and different social values. As we demonstrated in class on Tuesday, animosity between nations is a natural occurance. It didn't take very long at all before we had chaos in the room. This ordeal was precipiated by the different resoures and interests of the "states" in the room.
I find the Kyoto protocol to be a good modern day example of how nations view world issues. A good summary of the agrement can be found here: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~danov20d/site/history.htm. The idea was kicked around in 1992 but did not come into being until '97. This in itself demonstrates how tough it is to get countries to agree on world issues. In fact, certain major countries such as the United States and Australia have refused to ratify the document, sighting the fear of economic troubles. In a 2001 press release, President Bush stated that, "...I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy." So we refuse to join in the fight just because no one else is? That seems a bit selfish. If I may "pop" back into the classroom metaphor, that would be like me promising to give a chair to a poorer nation only to decide later that I'd really ought to just keep it. However, it is the reality of world politics. Every country wants to be powerful and does not want to jeopordize it's future to help others. Although the Kyoto Protocol has good intentions, it is in many ways a political disaster. With many countries exempted from the requirement and others withdrawing, it cannot be effective.
There are many other examples of the difficulties faced by individual states. Take for instance the situation in Iraq. The United States invaded a country, adamantly ignoring the advice and information of the UN. This kind of self-interest will never lead to unity. We can agree on international law and policies but as we saw with the Abu Ghraib situation, even these rules can be broken. As long as countries are competing in the global economy there will not be agreement. In North Korea people are starving, but the world community is too concerned with pressuring Kim Jong Il to help where it is really needed.
Hopefully there will come a time when individual interests can be put aside and we can all "get along". Until then, we will just have to try our best to navigate the great divide between those who have and those who have not.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Global Standards are NOT POSSIBLE
I believe that it is not possible for sovereign states to agree on global standards. Global standards could be economic or have to do more with international policy, recognition, and specific relations between countries, but either way, it is not possible. A sovereign state has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter relations with other states, therefore, can also recognize other states (1). Some global standards have already been determined, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Geneva Conventions, and UNESCO, but these do not always function as they were meant to do.
Because of self-interest, it is not possible to have, and to abide by global standards. The Palestinian Authority, the government that now rules the West Bank and Gaza, is not considered a sovereign state. Iran, which is a sovereign state, has threatened to destroy Israel, so that Palestinians, in their mind the rightful inhabitants, can return to the land. The United States is a strong supporter of Israel in its fight agains 'Islam' and nuclear weapons and without Israel, the U.S. would have no foothold in the middle-east, and for this, Iran also does not appreciate Israel. My point with this is that Iran is an ally of Palestine, something that is not sovereign, and Iran will align itself with any of the other 54 muslim countries before FOLLOWING global standards set by the United States or the United Nations, even though we are both part of the UN. On the same thought, we entered Iraq on the pretext of discovering nuclear weapons and (North Korea and Iran are known to be producing nuclear weapons) this was for our own interest, to not be attacked. At the same time, Israel has presumably produced enough Plutonium to create 200 nuclear weapons (2). There is no evidence that they have been tested, and the weapons are supposedly for defense only, yet can't any country argue that they have the same rights to develop weapons? Where is the gray line, and who can decide where the power lies? The United States is a superpower, and dramatically affects world politics daily and therefore, we often decide who should be condemned with this behavior. The United States violated international law by bombing Iraqi air defense sites, but " the United States is the biggest bully on the block, and in this case, the law is what bully says" (3). We are both sovereign states, but the U.S. has more power internationally and we have more resources than other countries, and therefore, we will do what is in out best interest even if it violates an agreement, as will any other country.
The sovereign states of the world are individually very different economically, politically, religiously, and in any other way possible, therefore, it is not possible to forge relations that will suit everyone's needs. Trying to create global standards between sovereign states would be like trying to instill socialism on a universal scale, which is not possible. Take a country like Cuba, where the per capita income is $3,900(4), about one-twelvth that of the U.S. or Haiti with a per capita income of $1,800. We will aid a country like Haiti economically, but never enough to raise the standard of living to the U.S. standard. On top of that, we do not have good relations with Cuba and animosity continues to grow as other countries align with Fidel Castro against the U.S.
In India, overpopulation is a large problem. From our view, we say to limit the number of children and maybe most states agree with us. From the Indian perspective, countries like Bolivia and The Netherlands are just as 'crowded,' and poverty is not caused by overpopulation, so the population will continue to grow. It is impossible to force on another country the values and so-called 'rights' of a country with a completely different economic standard. How could we possibly agree on anything when we do not speak the same languages, have the same historic backgrounds or believe in the same god? In fact, I believe that the only thing we do have in common is the want to better OURSELVES. Because of this, we cannot have global standards. It is the nature of civilizations and of people to want power and to keep that power in the effort of self-interest and never will we sacrifice this power to make sure that we are following rules determined by countries that may be our enemies.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states.
2.http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
3. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/nofly2.htm.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
Because of self-interest, it is not possible to have, and to abide by global standards. The Palestinian Authority, the government that now rules the West Bank and Gaza, is not considered a sovereign state. Iran, which is a sovereign state, has threatened to destroy Israel, so that Palestinians, in their mind the rightful inhabitants, can return to the land. The United States is a strong supporter of Israel in its fight agains 'Islam' and nuclear weapons and without Israel, the U.S. would have no foothold in the middle-east, and for this, Iran also does not appreciate Israel. My point with this is that Iran is an ally of Palestine, something that is not sovereign, and Iran will align itself with any of the other 54 muslim countries before FOLLOWING global standards set by the United States or the United Nations, even though we are both part of the UN. On the same thought, we entered Iraq on the pretext of discovering nuclear weapons and (North Korea and Iran are known to be producing nuclear weapons) this was for our own interest, to not be attacked. At the same time, Israel has presumably produced enough Plutonium to create 200 nuclear weapons (2). There is no evidence that they have been tested, and the weapons are supposedly for defense only, yet can't any country argue that they have the same rights to develop weapons? Where is the gray line, and who can decide where the power lies? The United States is a superpower, and dramatically affects world politics daily and therefore, we often decide who should be condemned with this behavior. The United States violated international law by bombing Iraqi air defense sites, but " the United States is the biggest bully on the block, and in this case, the law is what bully says" (3). We are both sovereign states, but the U.S. has more power internationally and we have more resources than other countries, and therefore, we will do what is in out best interest even if it violates an agreement, as will any other country.
The sovereign states of the world are individually very different economically, politically, religiously, and in any other way possible, therefore, it is not possible to forge relations that will suit everyone's needs. Trying to create global standards between sovereign states would be like trying to instill socialism on a universal scale, which is not possible. Take a country like Cuba, where the per capita income is $3,900(4), about one-twelvth that of the U.S. or Haiti with a per capita income of $1,800. We will aid a country like Haiti economically, but never enough to raise the standard of living to the U.S. standard. On top of that, we do not have good relations with Cuba and animosity continues to grow as other countries align with Fidel Castro against the U.S.
In India, overpopulation is a large problem. From our view, we say to limit the number of children and maybe most states agree with us. From the Indian perspective, countries like Bolivia and The Netherlands are just as 'crowded,' and poverty is not caused by overpopulation, so the population will continue to grow. It is impossible to force on another country the values and so-called 'rights' of a country with a completely different economic standard. How could we possibly agree on anything when we do not speak the same languages, have the same historic backgrounds or believe in the same god? In fact, I believe that the only thing we do have in common is the want to better OURSELVES. Because of this, we cannot have global standards. It is the nature of civilizations and of people to want power and to keep that power in the effort of self-interest and never will we sacrifice this power to make sure that we are following rules determined by countries that may be our enemies.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states.
2.http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
3. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/nofly2.htm.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
Sunday, September 2, 2007
week one a reflection
I have several points to make in this reflection.
To start the book How Soccer Explains the World was not what I thought it would be. This book was talking about the similarities between soccer and whatever the subject of the question was. With the title, I thought the author would be explaining how soccer could explain why something was. For example the book talked about oligarchies. I thought he would have soccer explain how oligarchs came to exist in the world. Instead, he just talked about how oligarchs and soccer complement each other. I was disappointed by this book.
My next point is the class itself. While I did not talk, it was an interesting discussion. I thought that the fact that several people who were talking said that they did not claim to be a professional in the subject matter were still trying to influence us in their opinion. To make a good argument do not say "I am not an expert." Just go with what your saying and make people believe what you are saying.
My last point is the blogs that we have written. One of my comments said that my blog, on apathy, and James's blog on intolerance were similar. Similar yes, but they are different enough that they could not be combined into one with a different title. The reason is in mine I'm saying that inaction is the main problem. People just sit idly by and say "oh someone else is going to do the right thing." But, because they all say that no one does anything. I think what James is saying is that hate (intolerance) makes people not do anything. The scapegoat is made to be hated and so people do nothing. I believe that is the difference between my post and James. Is that for mine people do nothing because they are to lazy and do not want to do what is right whereas in James's post he is saying that through hate people do nothing. So while the two posts are linked, they can not be blended into one post.
To start the book How Soccer Explains the World was not what I thought it would be. This book was talking about the similarities between soccer and whatever the subject of the question was. With the title, I thought the author would be explaining how soccer could explain why something was. For example the book talked about oligarchies. I thought he would have soccer explain how oligarchs came to exist in the world. Instead, he just talked about how oligarchs and soccer complement each other. I was disappointed by this book.
My next point is the class itself. While I did not talk, it was an interesting discussion. I thought that the fact that several people who were talking said that they did not claim to be a professional in the subject matter were still trying to influence us in their opinion. To make a good argument do not say "I am not an expert." Just go with what your saying and make people believe what you are saying.
My last point is the blogs that we have written. One of my comments said that my blog, on apathy, and James's blog on intolerance were similar. Similar yes, but they are different enough that they could not be combined into one with a different title. The reason is in mine I'm saying that inaction is the main problem. People just sit idly by and say "oh someone else is going to do the right thing." But, because they all say that no one does anything. I think what James is saying is that hate (intolerance) makes people not do anything. The scapegoat is made to be hated and so people do nothing. I believe that is the difference between my post and James. Is that for mine people do nothing because they are to lazy and do not want to do what is right whereas in James's post he is saying that through hate people do nothing. So while the two posts are linked, they can not be blended into one post.
reflection (dont you love the unique title?)
Where to begin? The discussion this week made me really appreciate our living together as we were able to continue it informally throughout the weekend. Even today at dinner, we had a conversation about how varied education is across the middle east and how it should not all grouped together under one generalization. This more relaxed atmosphere served me well. I am no expert on the middle east, much less the education systems there and thus was somewhat intimidated to jump in among those with first and second hand experiences.
I would not have expected such a passionate discussion (the participants tried not to make it into a debate, though it did lapse into one at some points) on only the second class! Since we've been living together the past few weeks, we've gotten to know each other on a social level, however this was our first real opportunity to see one another on an academic level. Intense topics, such as education in the middle east, lead to heated discussions- so much that we were not truly able to discuss How Soccer Explains the World. Perhaps we should have class longer/more often?
I would not have expected such a passionate discussion (the participants tried not to make it into a debate, though it did lapse into one at some points) on only the second class! Since we've been living together the past few weeks, we've gotten to know each other on a social level, however this was our first real opportunity to see one another on an academic level. Intense topics, such as education in the middle east, lead to heated discussions- so much that we were not truly able to discuss How Soccer Explains the World. Perhaps we should have class longer/more often?
Week 1, A World of Difference
In response to this week's class, I would like to show a few more examples that I have found recently to stress the point from my previous blog post(miscommunication between cultures). Here is a well-known photo of George Bush and Prince Abdullah of Saudia Arabia. They are holding hands in public, obviously not an American tradition as we would assume something different, yet if we were to travel to Saudi Arabia, this is a form of respect. Is this something that we can understand at all? Can we comprehend why two men are holding hands if they are not homosexual?
For a very simple example, think about the food that we have here in the U.S., food that seems ordinary such as chocolate chips, string cheese, baking powder, plain Hershey chocolate bars.... think about every-day use of these words plus others such as 'bake,' 'mailbox,' 'cell-phone plan,' and these are just some of them. Now think about language and how often we use these words and imagine you are in a place where these items do not exist! Doesn't the communication become somewhat difficult even with seemingly unimportant items, when you cannot describe how we get our mail, how we bake chocolate chip cookes, eat ice cream with chocolate sauce and whipped cream, do not all have pre-paid cell phone plans, and have internet in our houses and therefore know what UTube is? It is not easy to explain these basic differences and I am only listing examples from the American side.
As for the class, I was very surprised by the outcome of our first discussion. I thought that it went far deeper than I was expecting or than anyone else was expecting. I hope that we can express our opinions and facts, preferably opinions rooted in fact or theory, and that there will be no negative impact on our group outside of class. This week's debate as I think it should be deemed, sparked an interesting outcome of emotion, personal experience, and practical reasoning. We are all from unique parts of this country and others and therefore have our own history, assumptions, and culture to share with each other.
UC, Week One
With the first offical week of classes behind me, I can confidently say that the UC experience has been the most enjoyable classroom setting. Rather than sit static for 75 minutes and listen to a teacher lecture I am able to learn about my classmates and participate in healthy discussion. It is a nice change of pace to have a class that is based upon the views and interests of those enrolled. Without the barrier of standardized testing looming over the curriculum it can focus on the actual issues.
As we all know, one of the unique aspects of the UC program is that we all live together in the same hall (vive leonard 7!) and do most of the same activites and eat the same meals. In many aspects this could be a potential hazardous affair. I am beginning to realize that the way people act in the classroom setting is much different than the way you see them on a Friday night. In many ways having this close-knit community is good. As Lauren touches upon, http://loliticstml.blogspot.com/2007/09/reflection1.htmltouches it allows for classroom conversations to be expanded, clarified, and augmented as the day goes forth. However as Friday's class offered some heated but respectful exchanges, it is apparent that people are very opinionated. I find that this is a bit like if a married couple worked at the same company, in the same room, and for the same boss. Eventually people would become easily agitated with each other. Now, I'm certainly not implying that there is tension within the UC but I just think it is worth mentioning. There is ample time for discussion outside of class and I think that to a certain extent class time should not be dominated by one or two people having back-and-forth exchanges., We should be conscious not to turn this into a game of Big Brother or Survivor.
All in all, I am really enjoying the UC program. I am especially looking forwared to preparing some sweet videos ( a musical, perhaps?) and having some good structured debates and simulations. I can only imagine where our imaginative minds will take us.
As we all know, one of the unique aspects of the UC program is that we all live together in the same hall (vive leonard 7!) and do most of the same activites and eat the same meals. In many aspects this could be a potential hazardous affair. I am beginning to realize that the way people act in the classroom setting is much different than the way you see them on a Friday night. In many ways having this close-knit community is good. As Lauren touches upon, http://loliticstml.blogspot.com/2007/09/reflection1.htmltouches it allows for classroom conversations to be expanded, clarified, and augmented as the day goes forth. However as Friday's class offered some heated but respectful exchanges, it is apparent that people are very opinionated. I find that this is a bit like if a married couple worked at the same company, in the same room, and for the same boss. Eventually people would become easily agitated with each other. Now, I'm certainly not implying that there is tension within the UC but I just think it is worth mentioning. There is ample time for discussion outside of class and I think that to a certain extent class time should not be dominated by one or two people having back-and-forth exchanges., We should be conscious not to turn this into a game of Big Brother or Survivor.
All in all, I am really enjoying the UC program. I am especially looking forwared to preparing some sweet videos ( a musical, perhaps?) and having some good structured debates and simulations. I can only imagine where our imaginative minds will take us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)