final reflection

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.

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.

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?

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 :)

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.

reflection week twelve

I must say that I really liked the chatroom/discussion this week, though I am slightly biased as I generally like chats where you can see the ideas being spoken, then discussed on aim, then brought back into the class discussion. This method allows more ideas to be shared as there is no waiting to be called upon - you can say however much you want, whenever you want to. I tried to bring up ideas aloud as well as participating in the aim chat as I felt it was important to publicize some of the things that we came up with. While I could only see my group's chat, I still noticed certain trends that we brought in and others that people said and we took to discussing. Even with a smaller group - we started off with only 5 and by the end we were down to 4 - I feel like we definitely raised some good points. It was, at times, difficult to pay attention to both the aim chat and the actual discussion, but luckily our chat stayed fairly on topic as we would all pause typing every so often to listen to the conversation, typing furiously after hearing a particularly controversial opinion and providing our own takes on it. I'm anxious to hear/read how ideas actually traveled between groups!

I found the Museum of the American Indian to actually be quite interesting. While I agree with many others in that it was disappointingly (is that a word? it is now...) small and the organization did not optimize the space or artifacts that they had, there was a lot of really cool information present. Yes there were a lot of little kids running around, but it was the middle of the day in the middle of the week; who else do you think is going to be there? Older kids are in school & it is prime field trip taking time for smaller children. Yes they are loud and can be annoying, but think about what you were like at that age. That's just how little kids act. Honestly, I think it's awesome that their schools are making an effort to get them out into the city and exposing them to some of our country's history, even if it is biased. It's true that a lot of the information presented seemed skewed, as Lauren and James talk about in their blog, but that doesn't make it worthless. It may not be an accurate representation, but it is something, which is certainly better than nothing. The museum provided a basis, a starting point at looking into the lives of Native Americans though many included traditions that were obtained after the European invasion.

There was one corner on the fourth floor that I found particularly impressive, though it was definitely shoved in the corner and not at all obvious; had I not been visiting every single section of the museum, I probably would have missed it. It quoted a Native American, though I'm not sure who - I wish that I had taken a picture. It basically said that we should take everything that we are presented with a grain of salt. It said that a lot of Native American history is not completely true anymore. But it encouraged us to continue looking around the museum, to continue learning about the culture that is presented because underneath the skewed perspective is the true lifestyle of the Native Americans. To get some idea of how they lived teaches us about them and allows us a view into their time. It is nearly impossible to get a perfect idea now of how things were, but we should take advantage of what we are given and learn what we can from it.

Heritage

It is interesting that in the week when we were studying native cultures of the Americas, it was also Native American Heritage Week. I am very interesting in native cultures, specifically those of the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca, yet I feel like these are areas that we do not study like that of American Indians. Perhaps therefore, the visit to the museum was a good 'tribute' to this week. I visited the museum of the American Indian over parent's weekend and therefore did not think it was very beneficial to revisit two weeks later. I think the museum is rather disappointing in the way that it is set up with only two floors of exhibitions. I also feel that we learn about the American Indian all through elementary and middle school. (At least coming from New Hampshire). Where I come from, there are many memorials and museums of the Native Americans and I have been to a few pow-wows as well as these traditional exhibitions. Basically, I wish that we had been given another option for the Wednesday excursion, even a movie that talked about Native American cultures including those to the south of the U.S. since that is what we are also talking about. I was disappointed that for a required activity, there were at least six people who did not show up.

Something that I did find the most interesting in the museum was the different regalia, the art of making the dresses, and what the decorations can mean. It is really an art that has been dying out and the voices of some descendants of Native Americans voice this in the video at the museum.

I do believe that it is important to remember the heritage of the United States and to consider that these people still exist to this day. In the 2000 census, 2.48 million people identified themselves as American Indian and there are more than 300 tribes recognized by the U.S. federal government. More than half of our 50 states are named after Native American tribes! There is still a large presence of the native culture today, even though much of it has been repressed in reservations, which were originally designed to create a place for the displaced people.

Something that I like the most about Native American culture is their beliefs about animals.

"If all the beasts were gone, we would die from a great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beasts,happens to us all.All things are connected.Whatever befalls the earth,befalls the children of the earth."~Chief Seattle

http://www.geocities.com/klazyfox/nativeam-3.html

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570777/Native_Americans_of_North_America.html

reflection week eleven - problem solving

This Saturday, I had lunch with my high school French teacher and a couple of other people from the class. Anyways, she told us about her son, Dan, and how he's currently in New Orleans with the Teach for America program. The ideas behind this program are good - to provide quality education for children in poverty. Granted this program is (as the name subtly points out) only for children in America, but regardless, the standards that it wishes to abide by are in no way a reality. The schools are in shambles - money is sent to repair them but the school boards cant seem to get it to schools to make repairs. In early September, half of the electrical grid shut down at the school where Dan teaches and it has yet to be repaired. The classes from that section of the building are shoved in various other locations providing an unstable learning environment. The teachers have few supplies to work with and must purchase many out of pocket, which in an area such as New Orleans, is not a large salary. At the start of the year, they were expecting 600 children to come to school; only 200 showed up.

America may have a school system that can educate those in poverty, but if they cannot or do not go to school, then what help is it? If children must drop out of school as young as 13 or 14 to work and support their family, how can they have a good education? Besides having low attendance and buildings that are falling apart, the education that is provided in such areas of poverty is no where near that of the remainder of the country. According to the Teach for America mission statement, "Nine-year-olds growing up in low-income communities are already three grade levels behind their peers in high-income communities." This means that these nine year olds, who would in other places be at a third grade level, are learning at a kindergarten level. Nine year old kindergarteners. Even with programs sending more qualified teachers to improve the level at which the children are expected to learn, how can they do so without their basic needs taken care of - if they are hungry, tired, cold how can they learn? if they have no way of getting to school, have to work, or simply choose not to go because of societal pressures, how can they learn?

In class Friday, we argued over the value of education and how important it is for lifting people out of poverty, but I ask: if America, the so-called 'land of opportunity', cannot provide a decent education for those in poverty, how can we expect to spread this knowledge worldwide? Don't get me wrong- I think that at least achieving literacy in one's native language is incredibly important and we should definitely invest in providing that to all, but I'm curious as to how we can achieve these ambitious goals. I think that our class did a good job of arguing about which things, given limited resources, are the most important to repair, but the real - more important - question that we must face is how. How can we ensure that funding does not stop within the many levels of bureaucracy, that it actually goes to improving schools? So many non-profit organizations gather money to aid third world countries, but so many people remain in poverty, uneducated, unable to get to school due to a lack of infrastructure. Instead of talking about what needs to be fixed, lets choose a problem and discuss how to solve it.

Poverty in the world

I have a quick story that I just remembered about a moment when I encountered poverty and was quite affected by it. Last summer while I was in Peru, I took a bus ride from Cuzco to Lima, which is supposed to take 18 hours. Instead, the ride took 30 hours in a bus with no heat/air conditioning and no food. This was caused by professors across the nation who were on strike, and as a result, camping on the highways all night, burning trees and throwing boulders into the road. We ended up sleeping 6 hours on the side of the road and the next morning, yelling face-to-face with professors. It is amazing that this is how the 'intellectual' crowd deals with problems. There were many elderly and babies on the bus, but no option for help, food, etc.. Upon arrival at the destination around 3 AM, it was rainy and cold and the streets of Lima, a fairly dangerous city, were dark. An elderly woman who only spoke Quechua, the native language of Peru, was being taken care of by a younger woman and her small daughter. The woman, crying was very angry because the elderly woman could have died, she was sick, and no one took care of her... plus she had no blanket and we had to wait outside in the cold until the sun rose. Meanwhile, the young daughter needed to use the bathroom with cost 50 cents, about 20 American cents, yet the mother told her she did not have enough money. This is where you realize the dirt bottom and you feel incredibly guilty for no particular reason. The fact that people live like this is a disgusting feeling especially when you see it directly in front of you... and I knew that I would always be the white one who probably had no idea what they were talking about. My time in Peru has definetely changed my view on poverty.

Unlike most of the topics that we have discussed in class, poverty is something that most of us have background knowledge on. I felt like I could finally state an opinion on something that I was sure on; I am very secure with my opinion on poverty and really enjoy studying and discussing poverty.
I am happy that there were many voices raised, as in volume, during class. By the fact that there are so many opinions on this subject, it is obvious what a large part of our world poverty is.
When leaving class, I and a few other people continued the discussion about education. The argument that general education (in our simulation using the complete budget), is essential in ending poverty, I believe shows the view of an American, specifically a view of America and how perhaps HERE, education is the basis to pull out of poverty. We are speaking of world poverty, however, which means that the basic on which decisions should be made, is at a third world level, because poverty in the United States and poverty in Haiti have two incredibly different definitions. If we want to look specifically at ending poverty in the U.S., then yes, education would definetely raise the number of people living above the poverty line. However, consider much of the world that lives without an infrastructure, something that we take for granted here, and that allows us to skip to the education step. How would introducing education help these people who do not have clean water, a method to even get to hospitals, much less read and write their own language? This is why my group chose literacy over education because with literacy, the people can read and speak their native language. They speak this language, so learning to read and write only develops the ability to understand health pamphlets, methods of agriculture (which brings food), and methods of transport. Without roads, aqueducts, bridges, electricity, and irrigation, as were included in the infrastructure section, trade is reduced and there is very little interaction between people.
We must also remember that we are speaking of education as in education how we view it in the United States. Do we need to teach rural farmers of Peru about chemical reactions in chemistry class, or trigonometry? How is this at all relevant to their survival which is threatened by pollution, health risks, and almost no contact with large cities and trade? These people work every day, from sunset to sundown, perhaps in the fields, and they may not care about topics that seem important to us here. Their goal is survival; producing food and perhaps an occasional visit to the doctor or dentist, and if anything is left over, a child might go to the university. With literacy, native people will be able to understand how they can better their own lives. With the ability to read, many opportunities open up and the hope is that people will be inspired to pursue further education.

I also really enjoyed this week's trip to Bread for the City and feel that it was a necessary trip for a World Politics class. After all, we are learning about IR theories, economies, and poverty has played an incredible part in determining the strengths, weaknesses, finances, and responsibilities of states. As someone who would like to spend my life in international social work, I am especially interested in people who do this as a career, whether internationally or within the U.S.

reflection week ten

I liked that this week's discussions related to economics as I am taking macro, so I felt that both made a little more sense.
The fish bowl on Tuesday was ... strained; usually there are an abundance of people who wish to participate in discussions. Those such days would benefit from the separation into smaller groups. However, the reading was difficult to get right away and thus not very controversial. The difficulty discouraged those who are usually quiet from talking for fear of being wrong about their interpretation of the piece. Also, it was not a topic that anyone was versed in beforehand, meaning that those who did not do the reading could not participate at all. With the class already cut in half, these other restrictions on those who could intelligently discuss the topic decreased immensely. Yet I am definitely looking forward to trying the fish bowl again with a more controversial topic; I feel that it will then serve its purpose in allowing more (and different) people to participate.
The discussion did, however, give me a much more solid idea of the differences between embedded and disembedded liberalism than the reading did. Upon blogging and reading others' blogs, I really felt that I knew the basics of each system. Though I felt that many people avoided the question and chose not to take a stance on one side or the other; Obviously a mixture would be best, but the question proposed a hypothetical situation in which only one system could be present. Choosing one forced us to compare and contrast the two and to actually know what we are talking about...

The simulation on Friday was really good. It solidified the differences between each type of liberalism for me and it was fun (though pretty much anything involving candy -and keeping it at the end - is fun). I liked that each group had different requirements and depending on our starting resources, made us represent different countries from the start. Through our actions and our types of candy we established ourselves in the first round, each trading to reach a certain goal. In the second round, much of the trade stopped. I feel that this was because there were few incentives to continue trade; there were only a few new items introduced and those groups with the new types of candy were reluctant to trade them away because they would rather, understandably, keep them. I think that this could have been improved by giving out many new types of candy so that people would actually want to trade for other kinds. I understand though that this is not the most practical of things in our setup, but regardless, it is a suggestion. Overall, I thought that Friday was delicious as well as a great learning experience. Good job group 2 :)

Cross-Cultural Communication and Embedded Liberalism

I started out this week feeling very lost on the topic of embedded liberalism, and because of this, I was not able to say anything in class on Tuesday (as I was busily trying to look up more information online about embedded liberalism). After reading quite a bit online, I began to understand a few facts, but it was not until today's class, Friday, that I really understood the basics of embedded liberalism.
Although I am not a big fan of simulations, I thought that today's simulation designed by group two was very accurate and helpful in demonstrating some of the key parts of both the embedded and disembedded systems. My group began with probably the smallest amount of resources, yet because of larger institutions like the IMF, we were able to create agreements that would ensure us wealth, or at least an unchanging set of rules. When there are trade laws that require countries to retain a certain amount of resources, it also creates an even playing ground for every nation to know the value of the resources. (Of course, if the value changes, such as a new use for oil is discovered, as we discussed, the known value will also change.) Having an embedded market allows for that to be part of the social system, dealing with trade between countries and an almost constant power that controls the system, unlike disembedded liberalism.
We were able to see with disembedded liberalism how the value of items was very inconspicuous, which to me seems like it could lead to so-called corruption in the trade environment. There will be some countries that can never afford what the wealthier have and trade becomes dependent on who can find the best deal. Although in the classroom, much of the hoarding of resources was because of a like or dislike of a certain candy, in the disembedded system, the goal would be to have as many resources of different kinds, but since there are no rules, some countries can not even keep resources.
I am beginning to find this topic interesting, especially because I do not know much about trade between countries, yet would like to understand embedded liberalism in more detail. I like the rules that it outlines and see how it could work and function in the world.

In the second part of my reflection, I would like to talk about the UC Common Event that we had this past Wednesday. I ended up being in Cross-Cultural Communications, which for me, is an incredibly interesting subject, and something that I have considered studying. A few years ago, I began playing chamber music in a 'Playing for Peace' program that brought together students from around the world, especially those from conflict areas such as Israel/West Bank, Cyprus, Ireland, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan. Through this experience, I began to learn the importance of communicating in different cultures and about how there are so many differences between cultures that are unimaginable to us. I became obsessed with other cultures, learning about them, speaking with people from other countries, because I felt that I was learning more than I ever had, even just learning one word in Arabic. I have now lived in South America and in Israel, and I see even more the presence of problems creating by miscommunication. Not only can we not speak the same language, but we are also not willing to open up and view another culture for its own values, that may be completely different from ours. In our discussion on Wednesday, we talked about the idea that it is only possible to truly understand another culture by living in it, experiencing every day life, speaking the language, cooking, attending cultural events, and viewing in real life the parts of life that are essential to that particular culture.
This is just to reflect on the fact that I really enjoyed the common event. It really made me think and consider the reasons that I began to interest myself in other countries, in studying and living abroad, and in coming to AU. I hope to continue in the path of cross-cultural communication because, for me, individual cultures are the essence of the world, yet there needs to be some middle-ground so that miscommunication does not cause unnecessary wars.

peer review and insecurity

This week we had a different style of teaching given to us. We had our own classmates teach us some IR theory. It was an interesting way to teach the same sort of ideas that we have been learning this entire time with a different method attached to it. Overall, I thought that it was interesting to see IR theory taught in the way of commercials. Oddly enough, it worked very well. The commercials were able to play on peoples sense of insecurity and that the product they were selling, diet mountain dew for instance, would make that insecurity fall away. These commercials, just as the U.S. government, plays upon our fears and so when they give a solution, no matter how stupid, we give in and take it. The U.S. government exploited our fear and passed acts such as the Patriot Act. This overburdened fear led to our freedoms being taken away. These commercials that were played for us were able to give a representation of how that could happen. One of them played on our fear and then showed the army as one big happy, working, fearless group of people. Plus, in order for that to work the President needs all the authority the President can get. How can we have a nation that is safe if we do not have a well equipped, oiled army to protect us? The insecurity the government wants to instill on us is so that the President can gather all power around him and slowly move towards a dictatorship. The vast powers the President has gained is to protect the people of America, and allow him to do whatever he wants whether or not it violates US law or international law. The administration promotes fear so that they can use it to promote the laws and ideals that they want.

Insecurity

I found this week's discussion on insecurity very interesting because there are many ways in which to view perspectives on insecurity. This is part of the theme that we tried to introduce in class on Friday. In addition to the propoganda and commercials that we viewed, which show the media's plight to create insecurity in the customer (therefore resulting in more security when they purchase the product), the group also found some facts that show some other perspectives.

One of the points that I tried to emphasize is the fact that perception is often what causes insecurity. Many points in the Mueller article give examples of this, one of them being about Osama Bin Laden, no matter how far-fetched it seems. Mueller mentions that perhaps the hype over terrorism can create more damage than the terrorists themselves. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden have caused an extreme attack on the United States, but also consider the results of their actions and the fact that the U.S. has been searching for him for so many years. The amount of time, people, and money that this takes, in addition to security increases, has spent an incredible amount of resources.

Some other concepts to consider are how we consider ideas within our country such as homocide. Because of the media and how homocides/school shootings are shown throughout the country, it is easy to believe that the homocide rate has gone up recently and must be at a high now. The truth is that from 1992 to 2005, the number of homocides in U.S. schools actually decreased significantly(1). Something else that was mentioned in this week's article, was the fact that the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the U.S. (2). Therefore, why are we so worried about terrorism and not about drowning in a bathtub?! This is a perception of insecurity that we have.

Once we determined a theme for this week's class, it was easy to find examples. You begin to realize how often we generalize and look at society 'through glasses,' without actually looking at facts. Sometimes it is better this way, yet at other times it creates maniacal behavior and it would be better to understand the facts.


1. "Serious Violent Crimes in Schools." 28 Oct. 2007. http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/school-shootings.html

2. John Mueller (2005) Simplicity and Spook: Terrorism and the Dynamics of Threat Exaggeration International Studies Perspectives 6 (2), 208–234. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00203.x

reflection week 9

As this was parent's weekend, mine visited and brought me Halloween decorations and candy corn. Saturday night, a group of us were eating the candy corn and for some reason we related the way we ate the candy corn to the security of sovereign states as we discussed in world politics this week. Random? yes. Relevant? completely.
So after discussing the superiority of the pumpkin shaped candy corns - because they're richer in taste - we decided that if the candy corn were all sovereign states, the pumpkins would be the richest and thus (in this completely theoretical late-night situation) most powerful. However, their security was threatened and ultimately destroyed when I proceeded to eat all of the pumpkins leaving only the candy corns. While not nearly as rich, they became more powerful, more desirable when the pumpkins were gone and thus their security was also threatened.
I guess what I'm trying to say with this analogy is when the security/sovereignty/existence of a rich/powerful nation is threatened or overcome, the security of the weaker nations is then also threatened - they rely upon the other nation for protection. If the pumpkins were to focus only upon becoming richer and more powerful in hopes of being able to ward off potential enemies - which obviously cant happen as I will eat them no matter what - then they are not fulfilling their role on a "global" scale to the weaker candy corns. Anyways, I just found the whole incidence amusing and thought that I would share; as this is a reflection blog where we reflect on what has happened related to the class this week, I figured that this was a good place to do it.
I'd also like to add that I thought that both discussions this week were interesting; Tuesday we were able to relate current events to our weekly topic, which we should be able to do every week seeing as we're studying world politics and they are surrounding us, but I liked that we actually discussed specific, (very) recent events rather than just talking about theory. In the beginning, the class was split as to whether to focus upon domestic fires or international conflict in the middle east; as the class progressed, more people came to see that internal security is necessary before we can fulfill our role as 'global police.' The fires that many were saying should not be a priority because they were not a big deal decided to prove those people wrong. Though most are under control, there are still, after nearly a week, fires blazing in southern California. Meanwhile in northern Iraq, tensions are rising as the PKK, who sparked the initial conflict between Turkey and Iraq holds their position lodged, hidden in the mountains. It is good that the US did not brush off the threat of fire as they caused so much destruction; in the same time there is tension but no war between Iraq and Turkey- the peace held for this week as we dealt with internal affairs. Clearly we did not stop international diplomacy because as many in the class were quick to point out, we do not have to only choose one issue to deal with because one involves firefighters and the other, diplomats. True as this is, if we cared about budget, then we would have financial restrictions and may not be able to fund both projects at the same time. However, the U.S. likes to multi-task and we have already spent so many billions more in the middle east than was initially intended, does a few more really matter?

reflection week eight - rants on disarming, oblivious feminists, and necessary jargon

I thought that Friday's discussion, once it got going, went really well. It had a somewhat slow start; not only was it a little confusing at first, but sometimes you don't want to argue with the person before you. Though it was a good concept (as the other 'snake' was) since everyone had to participate in the discussion, I thought that once it was open so that anyone could speak after each person, we brought up much more substantive points. It is sometimes difficult to be forced to comment on something; the activity that I preferred was the one in which each person had to speak but they did so by raising their hand and responding to what was said before them - when they chose to participate. Regardless of the method, there were several ideas however that I completely disagree with and would like to take advantage of this blog to refute.

First, someone brought up the idea of disarming and taking a technological step backwards so that warfare would not have such large destructive potential. As nice as that would be, I think that it is completely impossible. If the U.S. were to get rid of their nuclear weapons, other countries would not follow along and also disarm; rather, we would have more attacks than ever before as we would be in a weakened state and would not be able to retaliate as effectively. Terrorists would take advantage of our ignorance and we would have hell to face. Once the technology exists, we cannot simply ignore or abandon it. Though we do not have to actively use nuclear weapons, we should be prepared to do so if necessary. Though this sounds incredibly realist, disarming would compromise our security and thus we should not consider it in the slightest.

Second, is the issue of females working in such a male dominated environment such as nuclear war possibilities. Though we didn't seem to have anyone advocating that females do not belong in such a position (thank goodness or I would have gone off on them as would, I believe, many of the other girls in the class), the unequal ratio was questioned. Someone stated that it is a difficult field for females to get involved in since it has always been so male dominated. I do not believe that this is true. Do you know why liberal arts schools like American have such a skewed ratio of girls to guys? It is because at technical schools the ratio is reversed. Many girls pursue careers in other fields rather than continuing in math and science as seen in this commercial. If they wanted to, females could pursue those careers. The problem is not really the lack of female presence in defense intelligence, but rather the lack of confidence in those who are there. The ratios do not need to be equal simply because they aren't going to be so long as females are not forced into math and science. The way each gender is treated in the work place should be equal. That however is not attained in the U.S., much less in other nations worldwide and thus is an issue for another day...

Finally, many argued that the jargon used was an unnecessary way to avoid thinking about the responsibility that comes with the destruction that these "nuclear strategic analysts'" jobs. They claimed that the jargon distracted from the seriousness of their jobs and the outcomes of their choices. I, however, believe that this distraction is necessary. The analysts are supposed to look at how to react to possible outcomes, namely the "worst case scenarios." Considering the results would make it impossible to create an effective strategy; they would think only of the death involved and not be able to fully consider the damage that was/could be done in the first place. In times of trouble, there is not time for planning; a decision must be made immediately. If there are already multiple scenarios mapped out with an action and a possible reaction, does it matter what kind of language is used to express the ideas? Someone mentioned that a metaphor is used to make things easier to understand, so they should be used in complicated matters such as nuclear weaponry. If that makes it easier then leave them be. Let the diplomats deal with avoiding war and nuclear weapon use. Let the thinkers ponder the possibilities and make plans now that could possibly save us in the future with whatever language they choose.

Israel and Nuclear Power

During last Friday's class, we discussed nuclear weapons with a definite emphasis on the United States as a main player; in fact, in almost every example, the United States was involved. I have a brief point that I was thinking about during class, which is that, we, as the United States, pick who we are interested in as potential risks, and that is all that really matters. North Korea, Iraq, and Iran are the nuclear threats....and they also happen to be enemies and rivals of the United States.

I am very interested in Israel, as many have probably noticed by now, but I couldn't help thinking about Israel during last class. In the 1950's Israel began planning a nuclear-production spot in the Negev Desert in Israel (1). There is an interesting video that reveals the details, announced by Vanunu in 1986. Israel does not actually announce that they have nuclear weapons and the production is secretive within Israel, literally in the middle of the desert. Today, the production is a 'public-secret' because the existence of nuclear weapons is acknowledged. Although the United States has toured the Dimona site, they were unable to understand exactly the production capacity and the goings-on... it is believed that Israel could have up to 200 nuclear weapons(1).

This being said, I think it is interesting that no one talks about nuclear weapons in Israel, except Iran, which feels threatened by them. I believe that nuclear weapons are a measure of boldness and a means of showing the status of a country. When people mentioned disarmament, I thought about a country like Israel, where if they were to disarm, would probably be immediately attacked, a repeat of many wars past. Countries need to have this threat, even if no one will use them. It is all a 'game' of appearance of strength and of connections. We are allies of Israel, therefore it does not matter whether it amasses nuclear weapons and keeps them 'in secret' for the possible use on enemies.
VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf39qkvwOhU

1. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

reflection week seven

Though controversial on several levels, I thought that this week's discussion went well.
Many people did not approve of our discussing "creepy ian," a boy that they did not know and thus were reluctant to marginalize. Out of those who had met him, it seemed, at least to me, that we did not mind categorizing him as "creepy" and separating him from our ian (larry! haha) so that others could be aware of the distinction. Yet was the categorization of "creepy" a difference or more of a stereotype (by the definitions given in my previous blog this week)? Even after the stories and meeting him, I still think that "creepy" is a stereotype. There is no (proven) biological/physical difference between people who are "creepy" and those who aren't; although certain personality characteristics are common threads through each of these characterizations, I belive that personalities are interpreted differently by everyone. Many may consider "creepy ian" to be creepy and thus justify stereotyping him as such but, since it is not something that all can agree upon, it is not a "real difference."

Another topic that I would like to address is that of aim conversations during world politics class. It seems that some do not like that others partake in this act; I, however, (as should be clear by my posting a conversation from this weeks class) think that they are a great way for more people to participate and get their ideas heard throughout the class. With so many opinionated people in our class, it is sometimes difficult to get our ideas heard; by conversing about them on aim as we have a discussion, people who get the opprotunity to speak can bring up points made in the aim conversation. I defintely would like to further the idea of one big class chat (which is what I was going for this past week - if you have aim & are on in class, let me know & i'll add you to the chat next time); after tuesday's class, some of us stayed and spoke with ptj about having one class in which the conversation is recorded as everyone also participates in an aim chat - but in 3 distinct groups - so that we can track how ideas move through chats & the class discussion. I think that if we have technology that can make expression easier, then we should take advantage of it; this experiment would allow us to do so even more than normal.

Halfway

In World Politics, this week has proved very helpful for me. The topics that we have discussed became much clearer because of the essay, which forced me to re-listen to the podcasts and look up some information on my own in order to truly understand what I was writing about. I feel that I now have a good understanding of the IR theories that we have discussed along with how to apply them.

I have already written in a comment about the aim chat which was the part of class that I was not satisfied with, and I believe that I made it clear why in the comment. I really enjoy class when everyone is participating with the whole class and not with a small group. I'm sure that everyone would like to hear your opinions in class, not just posted through a chat on a blog later.

This week's trip to the European Union was interesting for me because I did not know what exactly the purpose of the EU was. Something that I found most interesting that the speaker pointed out was the law that products tested on animals cannot be imported into countries in the European Union. The write-up in the booklet also is interesting, that an organization working at a level like the EU is considering, at least in words, the rights of animals. It mentions the ethical and environmental ideas behind animal torture and the unnecessary use of animals. I found this especially interesting as someone who is strongly against animal testing and the meat industry.

reflection week six

this weekend, as you may know if you have already read Ashley's blog we found an online spoof of School House Rock entitled Pirates and Emperors which I recommend you go watch as it's really funny, yet completely biased. Though it is full of controversial topics, I would like to examine just one small part that some may have initially seen as inconsequential.

At the end of the video, a duck decides that it is no longer a duck. This, however, backfires as the duck-hunting bomb that the duck fired still saw the duck for what it was. This is, I believe, a perfect example of constructivism as it discusses the duck's identity; Though the duck may want to change who it is, the rest of the world disagrees; who/what it is seen as is affected by the opinions of others. Because the duck is blinded by it's own ignorance as to what it actually is, it is unaware of coming danger and thus suffers immensely (aka getting blown up).

Though I do not think that we should have to, the United States has, over time, made itself a global police force. If, for some reason, we were to decide that we no longer wanted to police internationally, we could claim that we had resigned and turn our backs to the cries of countries in need; however, like the duck, I believe that we could/can not run from this job as it has become who we are, it is our identity. Other nations depend upon us for protection and thus would not take our resignation well. They would continue to assign problems to us; these problems would pile up and eventually our ignorance would come back to bite us, as we are smacked in the face by a major global crisis on top of the smaller problems. (aka not quite blown up but basically screwed (no other phrase captures that sentiment quite right...))

While we may want to leave Iraq quickly as our military is straining under the current burden that it imposes, moving out before it is stable would simply mean running from our problems. A weakened Iraq with few U.S. forces present would, as we discussed at the pizza dinner, pretty much be an open invitation for invasion by Iran. As the United States avoids its prior engagement, Iraq, Iran would conquer the area, which is most likely bad news for the U.S. as they are not particularly fond of us; our quest for alternate fuel methods would, out of necessity, be moved to a front burner as gas prices would surely skyrocket at least temporarily.
i.e. More hybrid cars! Go Sierra Club! It's upsetting how, as we discovered from the President's biased opinion not to demolish the domestic content rules, America's domestic politics are killing the earth...
Such would be the outlook of a world temporarily shunned by the U.S. If not for the crisis that would occur in the middle east, I would advocate such an act as it would force us to become greener... and all of this comes from the denials of a duck.

Encounter Point

Truthfully, the last week has been a bit stressful for me, mostly because of the simulation. I felt that the groups were a little too big so it was hard to find times that we could all meet. Also, the topic did not seem clearly defined to me, and even after we have completed the project, it seems that groups used different facts about the same bill which makes the project more confusing. It was difficult to find information, even with the help of the reference librarian, because the topic is not of much relevance now, at least not compared to other issues.
I enjoyed the filming and more creative aspect, but feel that I could have been more passionate about the project if the topic was not so business and economics orientated. ( I know that is also part of International Relations, but it was a little hard to understand the ideas presented without previous knowledge. )

I went to see a documentary this week called "Encounter Point" and found it very interesting. It tells the story of Palestinians and Israelis, those with deaths in the family because of the conflict, who work together, risking their lives, to create new understandings between the cultures. I would recommend this documentary for anyone who is interested in the Middle East, specifically Israel/Palestine, or if you are especially interested in Peace and Conflict Resolution. It is a very moving personal story as well.