Wow. I can't believe that this is my last world politics blog, that there are no more wp classes, and that this semester is nearly over... it just doesn't feel like it's been a whole semester! I'm glad that I did uc because I've met so many cool people and made amazing friends - what would I do without you? While I didn't get to know everyone as well as I would have liked to - despite our differences at times - we do have another semester here and I hope that we can better understand each other as time goes on.
Though others apparently disagree, I liked the simulation and thought that it was an effective, accurate portrayal of reality. A lot of times in discussions, we become detached from how things truly are because despite our (very) diverse backgrounds, we all have something in common: we are all freshmen at American University; we all chose to come to this school and are all pursuing higher education. Even with our resident dissident voices, many times we are able to rationalize, see from each others' point of view and come to an agreement, even if it is not always a consensus. This underlying unity makes it difficult for us to remember the red tape that exists in reality, the reason that real international decisions take so much time to plan and still do not always actually work.
By representing many very different players in global development, our unifying chord was broken. True, we all still represented groups of human beings who wish to encourage development, however, this thread is not nearly as strong as that which we, in uc wp, actually share. Though I certainly would have liked to talk about issues besides anti-corruption and privatization, it was inevitable that we get stuck on only a few issues that many groups (or at least my group) considered much less significant than things like trade liberalization. I agree that given more time we could have furthered our discussion, but we knew that we had a time limit and did not budget our time well; this, again, is quite representative of international (and national) decision making. They take longer than planned yet do not finish what they set out to do. Such is politics.
Overall, I'm glad I took world politics. Yes, there was a focus on theory, but theory helps us to tie together more complicated concepts and relate events and perspectives. This is an introductory course and I think it did a good job of laying down a foundation so that if we choose to take (or need to for those IR majors) more SIS courses, we have a solid background in the basics of the subject. I think that we covered the material in a creative manner, with many different activities so that we could really learn and comprehend the subjects rather than just reading a book and being lectured at (to?). I love that we had the opportunity to have intense discussions, simulations and excursions to delve into that which is world politics.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
World Politics reflection/simulataion
The simulation was not that helpful. All it did was help me realize that when people get together in a large group and try to use Robert's rules of order; nothing will get done. When you have to vote to vote things get confusing and nothing gets done. Even less things get done when we have "environmentalists" crash the conference. In my opinion we didn't talk about the issues that were most important in helping a developing nation such as trade liberalization. Nations can and do get corrupt officials overthrown when the population grows tired of the corruption. An example of a country overthrowing a corrupt government was in Poland with the Polish group Solidarity overthrowing the government and taking its place. Other countries have established anti-corruption measures without the aid of third parties or other nations. Anti-corruption is a thing that is best done at the behest of the people of the particular country.
As an overview of the semester, I was disappointed with the UC class. This class talked mainly about IR theory while it was supposed to be a World Politics course. While I learned a lot about IR theory, I felt that this is not what a World Politics class should cover, at least for the entire semester. A more practical use World Politics course would have been more useful in gaining an appreciation for the subject. The abstract theories caused many of us to become dissatisfied with the course. Furthermore, it was not really necessary to buy any of the books for the class as the class discussions rarely centered around the use of the books and when they did, it was easy enough to make comments without ever actually reading the book. While I have made some good friends in the class, I would say the overall experience of the course was disappointing and not at all what I had originally expected or hoped to gain from the experience.
As an overview of the semester, I was disappointed with the UC class. This class talked mainly about IR theory while it was supposed to be a World Politics course. While I learned a lot about IR theory, I felt that this is not what a World Politics class should cover, at least for the entire semester. A more practical use World Politics course would have been more useful in gaining an appreciation for the subject. The abstract theories caused many of us to become dissatisfied with the course. Furthermore, it was not really necessary to buy any of the books for the class as the class discussions rarely centered around the use of the books and when they did, it was easy enough to make comments without ever actually reading the book. While I have made some good friends in the class, I would say the overall experience of the course was disappointing and not at all what I had originally expected or hoped to gain from the experience.
simulation reflection
In regards to the simulation, I would like to echo Rebecca's point and say that I was extremely dissapointed with the outcome. As a representative from Doctors Without Borders, I was left in awe by the unwavering reluctance for states to recognize internal corruption as a barrier to their development. How are NGOs like us supposed to help countries like uganda when government officials are selling the resources they get in order to boost their wallets? It is just not feasible. And to peg anti-corruption as a "domestic" issue is utterly ridiculous. I would be curious to know how a corrupt state plans to go about fixing said problem without the aid of international and third party help.
While Doctors without Borders would never refuse a call to aid, it is nearly impossible to help in these situations. This leads me to my next point, privitization. Certain delegations (most notably McDonald), noted that our efforts to privitize in states actually made things worse. The truth is, these so-called "failures" are happening in countries where the governments are so screwed up internally that we can not begin to make a dent (which brings us back to internal state corruption). I realize that there were other important issues that did not get brought up, but from the standpoint of DWB, the two aforementioned issues really are our primary concerns and it is no suprise we got as worked up as we did when they were taken off the list.
Despite endless frustration over the selfishness and apathy displayed at the conference, I did find it enjoyable to have some healthy debate. I just wish that it could have been taken more seriously and been more productive. It would have been nice to get to some other issues, but the amount of time really wasn't enough for the task at hand. Some groups seemed to play into their roles better than others. I felt to me like some people just didn't care and would do anything to call an issue to order. After a point people seemed to "give up", which was dissapointing to say the least. Well, I suppose debating isn't everyones favorite thing, and I think it still worked well. I just wish we had triple the time.
While Doctors without Borders would never refuse a call to aid, it is nearly impossible to help in these situations. This leads me to my next point, privitization. Certain delegations (most notably McDonald), noted that our efforts to privitize in states actually made things worse. The truth is, these so-called "failures" are happening in countries where the governments are so screwed up internally that we can not begin to make a dent (which brings us back to internal state corruption). I realize that there were other important issues that did not get brought up, but from the standpoint of DWB, the two aforementioned issues really are our primary concerns and it is no suprise we got as worked up as we did when they were taken off the list.
Despite endless frustration over the selfishness and apathy displayed at the conference, I did find it enjoyable to have some healthy debate. I just wish that it could have been taken more seriously and been more productive. It would have been nice to get to some other issues, but the amount of time really wasn't enough for the task at hand. Some groups seemed to play into their roles better than others. I felt to me like some people just didn't care and would do anything to call an issue to order. After a point people seemed to "give up", which was dissapointing to say the least. Well, I suppose debating isn't everyones favorite thing, and I think it still worked well. I just wish we had triple the time.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Anti-Corruption is Universal
I was very disappointed with the outcome of the simulation, first because each group spent so much time researching and developing a position and we didn't have enough time to complete the discussion and secondly, because of the general outcome decided by the six different parties, which I, coming from Doctors Without Borders, feel was missing an essential element.
There are two subject that I would like to touch on: the voting out of anti-corruption, because it is not too late to continue to push the subject, and the privatization issue which was debated concerning Doctors Without Borders.
To restate our goals, anti-corruption policies, privatization, trade liberalization, and foreign direct investment were our main points in that order of importance. I find it hard to believe that any government, especially the three of which were represented at the conference which have incredibly corrupt governments or histories, would choose to remove anti-corruption completely from the list. Deeming it a 'domestic' and 'personal' issue does not remove corruption from the state, nor distance it from the appeal for help, which is what we were developing in this conference. The fact is that corruption within a country leads to fairly in every other aspect. How will trade liberalization and foreign direct investment work if governments are corrupt and therefore cannot conduct the trade and products will not reach the people at lower prices as one of many possible outcomes. Countries such as Uganda and Ukraine where AIDS drugs are necessary have had problems distributed the drugs because of corruption in the government. All of this works to weaken the country, the population, which in the end determines the economic status of the country. One full of AIDS victims and other health risks, unsanitary water, electricity and other infrastructure problems, will not be able to overcome this solely by ignoring the corruption in its own country (trying to fix it on its own) and intending to continue relations with foreign states. Privatization and anti-corruption measures must work together as we tried to point out in class. As Titus mentioned, there is also corruption in the private sector, so privatizing is not always a solution, yet if the government is not corrupt, it is able to monitor that the private corporations within its state are doing their job correctly. Privatization, when working alongside a functioning government is able to greatly increase clean water, electricity, transportation, and most sections of infrastructure, as was mentioned in class.
As for the privatization remark about negative results found on the Doctors Without Borders website, I would like to say that of course, our outline of points would not work everywhere, yet a framework must be what is for the common good and can therefore help the largest amount of countries. The specific example that is listed on the Doctors Without Borders website is of Colombia, a country that has struggled for decades with incredibly resilient drug traders. Not only is Colombia a major producer of cocaine, but it also has had many changes in the government as well as corruption especially among police forces. As we mentioned, it is difficult to privatize without first eliminating corruption, yet it is still possible. I think it is unjust to jump on Doctors Without Borders as hypocritical with this one example of a country where privatization did not work, especially when there are examples such as the Dominican Republic where privatization is beginning to improve their electrical system which has been failing for many years.
The idea is a development conference, something to aid those places that need help in developing their countries. Most countries that are considered 'developing' are those that have withstood military dictatorships and corruption within the government as well as outside forces. Corruption is universal and is not something that can necessarily be fixed within a country. Many times it is something foreign that causes the corruption. To go back to Colombia as the example country, someone buys the cocaine. The corruption related to drugs, (as well as in Perú and Bolivia) is connected to an outside source that feeds that problem and the trade continues. It is a chain which doesn't end when the drug is resold; it is resold and transferred and sold again. Corruption is not something that exists solely within the country and is most definetely not something that the government can deal with on its own. Therefore, I am astonished that it was so quickly pushed off of the list. For all of the above reasons and others, Doctors Without Borders continued to push for anti-corruption measures to remain in the framework.
I enjoyed working on the simulation and researching the backgrounds on countries. I find the system of deciding these policies interesting, yet wish that we had more time, because I feel as though much of the research and information that we all have went to waste, in terms of talking in class. It is definetely the type of project where everyone must research the background behind the group in order to clearly represent, which at times was obvious.
There are two subject that I would like to touch on: the voting out of anti-corruption, because it is not too late to continue to push the subject, and the privatization issue which was debated concerning Doctors Without Borders.
To restate our goals, anti-corruption policies, privatization, trade liberalization, and foreign direct investment were our main points in that order of importance. I find it hard to believe that any government, especially the three of which were represented at the conference which have incredibly corrupt governments or histories, would choose to remove anti-corruption completely from the list. Deeming it a 'domestic' and 'personal' issue does not remove corruption from the state, nor distance it from the appeal for help, which is what we were developing in this conference. The fact is that corruption within a country leads to fairly in every other aspect. How will trade liberalization and foreign direct investment work if governments are corrupt and therefore cannot conduct the trade and products will not reach the people at lower prices as one of many possible outcomes. Countries such as Uganda and Ukraine where AIDS drugs are necessary have had problems distributed the drugs because of corruption in the government. All of this works to weaken the country, the population, which in the end determines the economic status of the country. One full of AIDS victims and other health risks, unsanitary water, electricity and other infrastructure problems, will not be able to overcome this solely by ignoring the corruption in its own country (trying to fix it on its own) and intending to continue relations with foreign states. Privatization and anti-corruption measures must work together as we tried to point out in class. As Titus mentioned, there is also corruption in the private sector, so privatizing is not always a solution, yet if the government is not corrupt, it is able to monitor that the private corporations within its state are doing their job correctly. Privatization, when working alongside a functioning government is able to greatly increase clean water, electricity, transportation, and most sections of infrastructure, as was mentioned in class.
As for the privatization remark about negative results found on the Doctors Without Borders website, I would like to say that of course, our outline of points would not work everywhere, yet a framework must be what is for the common good and can therefore help the largest amount of countries. The specific example that is listed on the Doctors Without Borders website is of Colombia, a country that has struggled for decades with incredibly resilient drug traders. Not only is Colombia a major producer of cocaine, but it also has had many changes in the government as well as corruption especially among police forces. As we mentioned, it is difficult to privatize without first eliminating corruption, yet it is still possible. I think it is unjust to jump on Doctors Without Borders as hypocritical with this one example of a country where privatization did not work, especially when there are examples such as the Dominican Republic where privatization is beginning to improve their electrical system which has been failing for many years.
The idea is a development conference, something to aid those places that need help in developing their countries. Most countries that are considered 'developing' are those that have withstood military dictatorships and corruption within the government as well as outside forces. Corruption is universal and is not something that can necessarily be fixed within a country. Many times it is something foreign that causes the corruption. To go back to Colombia as the example country, someone buys the cocaine. The corruption related to drugs, (as well as in Perú and Bolivia) is connected to an outside source that feeds that problem and the trade continues. It is a chain which doesn't end when the drug is resold; it is resold and transferred and sold again. Corruption is not something that exists solely within the country and is most definetely not something that the government can deal with on its own. Therefore, I am astonished that it was so quickly pushed off of the list. For all of the above reasons and others, Doctors Without Borders continued to push for anti-corruption measures to remain in the framework.
I enjoyed working on the simulation and researching the backgrounds on countries. I find the system of deciding these policies interesting, yet wish that we had more time, because I feel as though much of the research and information that we all have went to waste, in terms of talking in class. It is definetely the type of project where everyone must research the background behind the group in order to clearly represent, which at times was obvious.
Monday, December 3, 2007
reflection week fourteen
This week was consumed with the making of the video for the major simulation. Following our discussion of Ethical Realism, which made for an enjoyable train-ride-read, my main focus was upon wrapping up research and figuring our what we would do for our presentation. As McDonald's, our group's initial worry was that none of us particularly liked eating at the corporation that we were representing; however, we quickly realized that it was just that: a corporation, a world wide company. We need not particularly concern ourselves with our opinions of the food that they produced, simply that they produced food and stimulated business globally. We found that thinking in terms of a global corporation was easier said than done as some of the presented topics really only applied only to sovereign governments. We found this out after researching each topic, but it made narrowing down those which we found most important easier.
I think that so far, the simulations are going quite well. Each group's videos present the necessary information - their opinions on global economic policies for aiding in reducing poverty - while still having a less formal / more amusing aspect to them. I like the set up of this simulation better with each group having the opportunity to ask questions (including follow up, if appropriate, which I think is important to receiving a clear, comprehensive answer). I anxiously await the time in which we are able to deliberate flat out upon which policies are best and (hopefully!) come to an agreement upon those that are most important and should be enacted. My only fear though is that some groups will be unwilling to compromise/budge on certain aspects that we do not all agree upon; is this a consensus or a simple majority? Are certain groups required in the majority for certain policies to be added to the list? For example, monetary funding from the EU and through McDonald's restaurants being established are necessary in many cases to fund any of the other projects that the more impoverished countries wish to establish. Do they need our backing?
I think that so far, the simulations are going quite well. Each group's videos present the necessary information - their opinions on global economic policies for aiding in reducing poverty - while still having a less formal / more amusing aspect to them. I like the set up of this simulation better with each group having the opportunity to ask questions (including follow up, if appropriate, which I think is important to receiving a clear, comprehensive answer). I anxiously await the time in which we are able to deliberate flat out upon which policies are best and (hopefully!) come to an agreement upon those that are most important and should be enacted. My only fear though is that some groups will be unwilling to compromise/budge on certain aspects that we do not all agree upon; is this a consensus or a simple majority? Are certain groups required in the majority for certain policies to be added to the list? For example, monetary funding from the EU and through McDonald's restaurants being established are necessary in many cases to fund any of the other projects that the more impoverished countries wish to establish. Do they need our backing?
UC Common Events
Okay, so I realize that this is incredibly late, but I had completely forgotten to write about the UC Common Event until someone recently reminded me.
I was in the "Individual Freedom vs. Authority" UC group with Professor Flanagan. The first meeting, we introduced ourselves, playing name games, then launched into a discussion about several of the group members' unique interests; the focus was upon one guy's interest in film making and technique preferences. We were then assigned three readings, none of which were long on their own, but combined were a significant amount considering the only incentive was for that one hour discussion that we would have on Halloween.
The morning of Halloween, it was clear that many people had not done the readings; had the assignment been to watch a movie or do only one reading - or perhaps several that weren't quite so heavy as Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all at once - then surely more would have done it. I recognize that those Greek philosophers are the essence of the course, but bombarding us with all of them was overwhelming and many lacked motivation to put in the effort to understand the readings.
In our second meeting, we discussed the readings, focusing upon the one from Plato's Republic. We looked at perception and truth and how they rely upon experience and culture. One culture may laugh at the actions of another and value different skills than the other simply because they don't have the same rituals and values. This relates quite well to our discussion of Columbus and Cortes as they misunderstood and were ignorant of the Native American culture, thinking it not as good as their own. Even today, people make assumptions about other cultures based solely upon their own upbringings, leading to incorrect stereotypes. If we would approach unknown rituals and ideas with an open mind, seeking to learn about what they are and why people do them, then perhaps there would be just a little less fighting in the world...
Finally, I'd like to say that I'm upset that I wasn't able to go to the event today as I heard (from very reliable sources) that the food was good, the game was fun, and the slide show was cool; I had a required AU in Motion (AU's resident dance club!) meeting as our show is this coming weekend (Everyone should go! It's going to be awesome! Talk to me or Ashley if you want more information.) So, I was wondering if there is any way someone can put the slide show online? Perhaps on the UC website? That would be great :)
I was in the "Individual Freedom vs. Authority" UC group with Professor Flanagan. The first meeting, we introduced ourselves, playing name games, then launched into a discussion about several of the group members' unique interests; the focus was upon one guy's interest in film making and technique preferences. We were then assigned three readings, none of which were long on their own, but combined were a significant amount considering the only incentive was for that one hour discussion that we would have on Halloween.
The morning of Halloween, it was clear that many people had not done the readings; had the assignment been to watch a movie or do only one reading - or perhaps several that weren't quite so heavy as Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all at once - then surely more would have done it. I recognize that those Greek philosophers are the essence of the course, but bombarding us with all of them was overwhelming and many lacked motivation to put in the effort to understand the readings.
In our second meeting, we discussed the readings, focusing upon the one from Plato's Republic. We looked at perception and truth and how they rely upon experience and culture. One culture may laugh at the actions of another and value different skills than the other simply because they don't have the same rituals and values. This relates quite well to our discussion of Columbus and Cortes as they misunderstood and were ignorant of the Native American culture, thinking it not as good as their own. Even today, people make assumptions about other cultures based solely upon their own upbringings, leading to incorrect stereotypes. If we would approach unknown rituals and ideas with an open mind, seeking to learn about what they are and why people do them, then perhaps there would be just a little less fighting in the world...
Finally, I'd like to say that I'm upset that I wasn't able to go to the event today as I heard (from very reliable sources) that the food was good, the game was fun, and the slide show was cool; I had a required AU in Motion (AU's resident dance club!) meeting as our show is this coming weekend (Everyone should go! It's going to be awesome! Talk to me or Ashley if you want more information.) So, I was wondering if there is any way someone can put the slide show online? Perhaps on the UC website? That would be great :)
Sunday, December 2, 2007
post-thanksgiving reflection
Now that I have finally digested all of that thanksgiving food, it seems time to reflect on the past week of class. First of all, I really enjoyed reading the text Ethical Realism, as it was well-written and the information was presented in a way that was accesible and easy to understand (unlike Todorov, for example). It enjoyed reading about the works of past presidential administrations as compared to today. It really offered a stark view of what's gone awry with American foreign policy in the 21st century. I also felt that I had a leg up on the material being discussed because I had already read the national security briefing that was referred to in the text. As we discussed in class, the ideas of the Great Capitalist Peace may be just as idealist as any but to me they really make sens. I disagree with the views of Gunperi and others who say that states need enemies in order to move forward with their policy. Call me a crazy liberal, but I like to belive that at some fundamental level all states want to do is get along and not have to worry about security from one another. After all, if you take away that threat, imagine all the other areas that money could go to (just look at the US federal budget and military spending...that's a lot of cash right there). All in all the book was quite interesting and I made my holiday traveling much more pleasurable.
Also, the simulation so far has been a good experience. I enjoyed the filming process and getting the chance to use imovie (I'm pretty much a pro now, after four hours of editing). It was interesting to watch the other groups' films and I thought the question and answer peroids were effective. I just can't wait until we are able to "let loose" and take some shots on the other groups. Needless to say I'm looking forward to tuesday's class and really getting down into this simulation. It's like a good old fashion debate and it's been a while since I've done that.
Also, the simulation so far has been a good experience. I enjoyed the filming process and getting the chance to use imovie (I'm pretty much a pro now, after four hours of editing). It was interesting to watch the other groups' films and I thought the question and answer peroids were effective. I just can't wait until we are able to "let loose" and take some shots on the other groups. Needless to say I'm looking forward to tuesday's class and really getting down into this simulation. It's like a good old fashion debate and it's been a while since I've done that.
Reflection simulation 2
In class we discussed ethical realism and did our simulations based off the Washington Consensus. The book Ethical Realism was very interesting and well written. In the end, the book is right for most policies of the United States. However, it is wrong when it comes to a capitalist peace. In an ideal world, a capitalist peace would work, but we do not live in an ideal world so therefore the capitalist peace would never work.
For the simulations, they were fairly interesting to see what the groups did with each of their movies. Everyone got their point across, even though most of the videos ended up being a little cheesy. Some of the questions asked were to detailed as it would have required a much larger knowledge base of the country or organization than the project called for. This made it hard for the groups to answer these questions. In looking at the simulation, I think that it would be a good idea, in the future, to allow people to choose a couple different options for the simulation - instead of just a video. This would make the class more interesting and keep people from becoming placated by the movies.
For the simulations, they were fairly interesting to see what the groups did with each of their movies. Everyone got their point across, even though most of the videos ended up being a little cheesy. Some of the questions asked were to detailed as it would have required a much larger knowledge base of the country or organization than the project called for. This made it hard for the groups to answer these questions. In looking at the simulation, I think that it would be a good idea, in the future, to allow people to choose a couple different options for the simulation - instead of just a video. This would make the class more interesting and keep people from becoming placated by the movies.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Peace Conference
In World Politics, most of my week was consumed by the simulation. I am very interested in representing Doctors Without Borders because it is a program that I believe very much in in my real life. I have often considered participating with an organization such as Doctors Without Borders and have focused my last year on humanitarian work and would like to continue with that throughout my life. It is very interesting to look at the economic connections with humanitarian work, something that I have thought about before, but never actually researched. For this reason, I find it enjoyable to read about Uganda, Ukraine, and Dominican Republic and to understand as much as possible about the differences and similarities within the economics of each state. I do not want to talk too much about the possible outcomes of the simulation or what our position as Doctors Without Borders is without finishing the debate on Tuesday. I thought that the questions asked of groups were interesting, but to push my point, I want to state once again that my group is a NGO, therefore we exist to help the people and therefore we should know what some of the major and most important areas are within the humanitarian aspect. It is a given that we will disagree in many areas as Rachel talked about in her blog, yet this is a real model of how many conferences work where often an agreement is not met.
I would like to mention briefly something that I brought up in class on Tuesday about the Palestinian-Israeli meeting that took place in Maryland this past week. I think it is interesting that Ethical Realism describes in detail the method of creating peace in Israel and the exact limits for each side. Although limits and rules can be given, it has never worked... the U.S. does not always work in the middle and cannot always create a solution. The Maryland conference created an opportunity after a seven-year break in peace talks for the gathering of Israel, Palestinian, US, and many other Arab state leaders to discuss the near future of Israel. Leaders agreed to talk in December, yet the unrealistic limits set in Ethical Realism were not met, nor will they ever be met. Syria has already proclaimed the meeting a defeat for the Palestinians and Hamas stated its disapproval for any peace efforts. Peace can only be achieved with an end to Palestinian occupation. From this, we see that the ideas of Ethical Realism cannot fit into the real world; states do not agree and it is not so easy to block out a group of terrorists who will die for their cause. It is nice that leaders left the conference with the hope of an agreement, yet the many different perspectives show the difficulty in creating agreement between ALL states of the Middle East who are involved in Israel.
I would like to mention briefly something that I brought up in class on Tuesday about the Palestinian-Israeli meeting that took place in Maryland this past week. I think it is interesting that Ethical Realism describes in detail the method of creating peace in Israel and the exact limits for each side. Although limits and rules can be given, it has never worked... the U.S. does not always work in the middle and cannot always create a solution. The Maryland conference created an opportunity after a seven-year break in peace talks for the gathering of Israel, Palestinian, US, and many other Arab state leaders to discuss the near future of Israel. Leaders agreed to talk in December, yet the unrealistic limits set in Ethical Realism were not met, nor will they ever be met. Syria has already proclaimed the meeting a defeat for the Palestinians and Hamas stated its disapproval for any peace efforts. Peace can only be achieved with an end to Palestinian occupation. From this, we see that the ideas of Ethical Realism cannot fit into the real world; states do not agree and it is not so easy to block out a group of terrorists who will die for their cause. It is nice that leaders left the conference with the hope of an agreement, yet the many different perspectives show the difficulty in creating agreement between ALL states of the Middle East who are involved in Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)