Reflection on the Restoration of Sanity

I attended the Rally to Restore Sanity this Saturday. The music performances and comedy sketches made the rally entertaining, but Jon Stewart's closing speech ended the rally on a (somewhat) serious note.

Stewart made the point that, in regard to the press and those in the political sphere"If we amplify everything we hear nothing," meaning that our overreaction to certain things makes the problems that arise harder to solve. He went on to exemplify, "just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe not more." Stewart also said "The press is our immune system. If we overreact to everything we actually get sicker..."

In regard to our national security, overreacting to situations can jeopardize our security. Labeling Muslims as terrorists doesn't solve the problem of terrorism, but creates hostility between Muslims and Americans. We must be focused when tackling national security and target the real threats. Exaggeration and overreaction from the press regarding certain issues deteriorates our security and only makes it complicated to implement effective security solutions and strategies.

Reflection: Rally to Restore Sanity

Who knew so many people could fit in the Metro? We started the journey after the rally started, yet the Metro was still packed with many enthusiastic and sane people. We even had to wait for a train several times in order to find one that had space. Speaking about packed, the rally itself was really packed. We walked toward the Capitol until we hit the wall of humans. We found pockets of space and moved ahead whenever we could. While we were close enough to hear and see the screen, it was funny that my mom who was watching the rally on T.V. had a better idea of what’s going on. Still, it was interesting to be a part of a massive blob of people.

The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear tied perfectly into the class discussion of national security. If we label all Muslims as terrorists, that just increases the number of people who hate the U.S. Basically, if we expand the circle of hate, only more hate will come back to bite us. Hate stems from fear; fear often stems from lack of rationality. Stewart represented sanity and Colbert symbolized fear. I think they did a great job of proving that the world doesn’t have to be such a scary place if we think things out more. When we put things in perspective, we have a lot more friends than enemies.

Stewart’s speech at the end of the rally had some really valid points. I especially liked the part about not being able to tell who the real racists and bigots are. We all like it or not have bias against people who aren’t like us. A rational person would recognize this and try not to act on the bias. The people who act based on irrational fears are the real racists and bigots. If we call people racists and bigots the instant they say something questionable, we take attention away from the racists and bigots who earned their titles.

Lets hope sanity spreads across the U.S. and the world.

Security and Identity

Are there boundaries to security policy? This is a difficult question to answer, as almost anything that defines us as a state could, in some way, be interpreted to affect our security, beyond the weapons and manpower needed to defend ourselves from attack. The most distantly-connected aspects of our nation can have an impact on our ability to stay secure. Some are obvious, like, for example, the economic situation and our diplomatic ties: if we have enough money, we will be able to build proper weapons, if we have the right allies, they can help us. However, some are less directly connected, but just as important. For example, educational standards: if our population is well-educated, they can utilize their mental capabilities and knowledge to defend our country intelligently. And then there arises the issue of what makes a state more or less likely to be attacked, which is varied and could come in all shapes and forms. One could be direct and logical, and say that if we push green fuel, we will be less interested in foreign oil, and thus weaken the power of people in regions where America is not well-liked, therefore stopping a threat before it advances. Or one could be completely speculative and disconnected, and theorize that fighting global warming might improve America’s image in the world and stop a threat before even the motivation for the threat emerges. Even the craziest of ideas can, at least theoretically, be seen as possibly affecting a state’s security.

For example, take education. This one policy can affect our national security on many, many levels. On the most direct level, it can help fill and expand a workforce with a certain skill set, such as engineers who can design better weapons. On a slightly less direct level, it can create a large pool of extremely knowledgeable experts who can come up with better strategies and tactics for defending ourselves. On an indirect level, it can give a population the means with which to select better leaders, the information that lessens the threat of irrational, uncomprehending voter anger forcing the government’s hand on important issues of national security, and even could make people more knowledgeable about foreign countries, therefore lessening misunderstandings. And this is just one policy that could have a ripple effect of consequences that wind up profoundly affecting the security of the state. There really are no boundaries on what can be labelled as “security policy”.

Of course, this can lead into murky territory. It would help our security, of course, if we could meddle in other states’ affairs to the extent that we could make sure that they act internationally in a way that would strengthen our own security, help us out with all domestic issues that would make us stronger, and not do anything to help or incite our enemies. This of course, does not mean we should do this, because while it helps our own security, it may not do the same for that of other states. This is the murky part, because just like our national identity can affect our level of security, our approach to security can affect our national identity. For example, taking over as many countries as we can in order to control them and use them against our enemies is something most Americans would object to. Since in our definition of the concept, sovereignty rests with the people, we would only be defined as “the United States of America” as long as we had a say in how we as a state acted. However, if we all decided that controlling other states was a good idea, we would be blatantly violating our professed ideal of self governance, and would therefore render our national identity false. Our state would no longer be “the United States of America” as defined before we started controlling other states. On a similar note, it would help security if the government could arrest anyone they wished to, at any time. However, we as a country define ourselves by our commitment to liberty and our affording of natural rights, such as habeus corpus, to our citizens. Therefore, we would cease to be defending American ideals the moment we gave them up, and since our ideals define us, we would cease to be Americans. We would probably still be called “Americans”, but the definition of an American that runs deeper than the name would be lost.

I believe that things should stop being defined as “security” the moment they stop protecting a state, and proceed to destroy it. If we cease to become America, we are no longer protecting America, we have only a defensive shield left, and whatever we are defending would no longer resemble America, but would be something entirely different. This is a dangerously tempting path to take when our security is threatened. After all, it is very difficult for an enemy to harm something if it is destroyed before they reach it.

Keeping Security in Check with Our Interests

The new focus of the United States when it comes to its national security policy, however, is toward global terrorism, particularly terrorism arising in the Middle East.  

Since the beginning/initial escalation of the Cold War in the 1950s, there's been a larger effort on the part of the US government to become involved in international conflicts.  Through Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan, with smaller yet significant conflicts arising in-between, the United States has justifiably affirmed its role as the global hegemony through a policy of internationalism and nation-building, in case anyone was doubting the power of the US.  

We were discussing in our group on Tuesday about the differences between the underlying themes of the 1950 NSC 68 document and the 2010 National Security Strategy.  Both were similar in the calling for necessary cooperation with our targeted enemy, whether it be through diplomatic negotiations/economic policy or through military actions.  However, the diplomatic channels between these two enemies were more open in the Cold War than today.  The relations between the US and the USSR eventually cooled with the introduction of detente policies beginning in the Nixon administration.  However, it's different in modern terms, because one remembers the confrontation in the UN during the Cuban Missile Crisis between Adlai Stevenson and Ambassador Zorin.  But how can we confront an enemy that is not a state, or does not have recognition of international organizations?

The United States, since it has realized its global importance in the last century or so, has employed questionable tactics in the name of national security.  In the Cold War, Americans who even questioned the idea of social or income inequality were persecuted by the American public, as propaganda and fear against the Soviet Union provided the federal government with the mandate to imprison political dissenters.  Nowadays, the Patriot Act, along with other "security" initiatives that were a reaction to the 9/11 attacks, have provided the federal government with the authority to listen in on phone conversations, with other unprecedented measures for the sake of national security.  Think about it: if the Cold War were still going on, and we heard on the news that the USSR was wire-tapping on its citizens in order to "protect" its security, we would have laughed and said "Oh those silly Reds, when will they learn?"  The United States, in my opinion, doesn't need to wiretap on its citizens in order to protect itself from internal or external threats.  Torture is also a practice which the United States has ostensibly used in the past (and perhaps the present).  While I understand that our enemies are using similar practices, the United States should not stoop to the level of its enemies.  We're the global hegemon; we should take the high road whenever the opportunity arises, and maybe we'll pass our problems along the way.

With great power, comes great responsibility.  

Risk - at the end

Three teams winning the game of Risk that had gone on so long was not something I was expecting. The mutual win was unexpectedly satisfying. In games, the high point is usually when you wipe out another player, but this time, the hoops we had to jump through and the difficulty of designing a perfect solution to all three of our problems (combined with the pleasure of rubbing the Green team off the map) made the three-way win feel like just as big an accomplishment. After all, we got all of our goals, so why not go for a win-win-win scenario? It seemed that in this game, Liberalism definitely won out. Working together to achieve individual goals and mutual benefit worked, while not collaborating or considering the other teams’ concerns enough, like red and green, did not turn out quite as well.

Briefly, before deciding to join forces, the blue team briefly considered turning on the yellow team for gain, only to realize that the better, safer, and shorter strategy was to collaborate. Likewise, when yellow, blue, and black all decided to gang up on green in response to their unhelpfully realist actions, they were easily surrounded by troops of three different teams, all of whom were mutually committed to their destruction, and therefore eliminated them very quickly and easily. And everyone was glad for the earlier defeat of team Red as well, giving the game the same satisfaction of victory while still keeping the, well, risk of the game low by cooperating. By the end of the night, the teams trusted each other so much that, for the sake of troop movement logistics, blue had no concerns over letting black temporarily declare war on them, trusting that they would not be attacked.

The game showed that when individual goals could be attained without threatening each other, there is little reason not to work together. Too much suspicion raises the risk of attack, makes people less likely to act boldly, and more likely to disregard the concerns of other teams, losing an important bargaining chip in the process. However, out of everything that this class has done throughout the entire course of this game, the thing that I would say way most true to what I would imagine real International Relations to be like came in the form of a throwaway remark at 11:30, near the end of the game: “everyone wants to go to bed.” In real life, states want to achieve their goals and come to a solution as soon as possible, and whether it’s a game being dragged on a full class and a late-night meeting past the deadline, or a war lasting a year and a half longer that expected, the more the parties want to just get it over with, the more sure they are that the other parties share their goals, and the more risks they are willing to take to secure a solution.

Reflection: Risk, how would you conquer the world?

Who knew that 3 teams could simultaneously win the game of Risk? Having played Risk numerously times before, I was under the assumption that there would only be one team laughing in the end. Risk is a game full of emotions. Despair, triumph, anger, and joy are some of the emotions players experience in a game of Risk. Often times only the world conqueror ends up not having to deal with the negative emotions.

Maybe I’m looking too much into it, but I think I saw glimpses of sadism when Green was about to be wiped off the map. Players in the Green team, who were obviously hurt by the betrayal, asked for mercy in a situation where it couldn’t do anything. I have no idea if the 3 teams could have won with Green on the map, but no mercy was shown. Because we all knew each other, betrayals feel more personal even in a game. Now I would be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy the wipe out of Red. The joy we get when exercising power is just in human nature.

The game reinforced the idea that liberalism works in a weird way. The teams who negotiated least with the rest were the ones who got wiped out. Even though countries don’t get wiped out for not talking in the real world, the ones who make the most ties clearly do better economically. Black who was the hegemon managed to negotiate with teams to ally with it. Red built up armies around China, which triggered an alert on the other teams to deal with it. Yellow got a pass for their massive army in the Middle East by the good work of their diplomat. Blue made an error early in the game, but laid low for a while and built alliances. Green spread themselves out in order to it’s achieve its goal, making them an easy picking for a 3 v 1. The teams who were off doing their own thing fell, and those who negotiated succeeded. Overall this was a very interesting game.

Reflection: The Risk paid off, but we could have beaten you "Black and Blue"

Okay, let's never play this game again.  While it didn't destroy any friendships or anything, I feel I had strategized a little too much beyond healthy levels about this game.  Also, I'm tired of finding clever ways to put "Risk" in my blog post titles, so thank goodness this is over.  By the way, sorry to the other class for calling you guys overcommitted to your game; I know now your pain.

It was interesting to see the complete and utter revitalization of Team Blue as the game went on.  We had basically left them for dead, as they had given up their town center, and the board was full of wars.  As Red was eliminated, however, the strategy of Blue had begun to change.  It was very interesting to see the Blue team move from a liberalist/constructivist mindset of getting countries to sign on to potentially costly international agreements at the diplomatic table to a realist/liberalist perspective once their interests were up against the wall.  This could potentially predict problems in the real world -- if a country is backed into a corner, would you really expect it to continue the damaging practices that got them into their mess in the first place (this is not a knock against liberalism)?  A country with its interests threatened can be expected to turn to a more realist mindset, and this could prove valuable in future Risk games, both imaginary and real.

However, Green seemed to show the consequences of quickly pivoting from a liberal mindset to a realist one.  Green attempted to defend itself against a quickly converging enemy, and being too reactionary to such preliminary steps seemed to be their downfall, as we took them out rather quickly.

However, three's a crowd.  The one problem that global powers have always had with liberalism is the inherent power-sharing mechanism that accompanies it.  The Imperial March/Ride of the Valkyries sounds pretty lame when you have to share the glory with two others.  We had to share our victory with Blue and Yellow, however it could have theoretically been solved with just Blue and Black as victors.  Yellow had moved all but one of their troops out of Ukraine, and the order on the board would have allowed us to take Ukraine (as we still had our strategic pseudo-war with Yellow), while still being able to wipe the war off the board.  Blue could have used its censure power to ensure that Yellow would not have any say in sanctioning our takeover of Ukraine, and voila: two winners, not three.  Perhaps this shows that there can no longer be, in this new interdependent world order, a one-winner scenario in such a large scale conflict.  As the image above shows, the Soviet Union was instrumental in taking Germany for the Allies in World War II, proving that one group needs help from those who they may one day consider enemies in defeating a common enemy today.  It certainly gives an ominous outlook for the power-brokerage that will have to result in future worldwide conflicts, especially as economics have become much more important in global society.

Reflection on the End of the Game

Our game of Diplomatic Risk ended with the Black, Yellow, and Blue teams all winning and the Red and Green team both being eliminated.

It was interesting to see the Black, Yellow, and Blue teams work collaboratively to take out the Green team and to achieve each of their objectives. You could say it was a happy ending for the three winning teams, but it was also a liberal ending since the three teams saw it in their own best interest to work together to fulfill their goals.

The Green team, however, probably took on a realist mind set as the game concluded. It seemed as though all the other teams turned against Green and Green felt as though the other teams were out to get Green.

Realism, however, was not that apparent in the ending of the game because multiple teams won and not one of the winning teams powerfully dominated the other. Not one team emerged the "all powerful one" at the end of the game, rather, Black, Blue, and Yellow all shared winning power and were content with achieving their objectives, thus power was balanced. Good game.

One runs the "Risk" of doing this blog post

Our Risk games have been interesting.  We've already seen one team essentially go down (or have they? :O).  The teams that remain have shown an amusingly accurate portrayal of world powers, both in an historical and modern context.

There's the obvious parallel between our game of Risk and the theories we have come to know in IR.  Realism is evident in the game, as the players on the board are certainly determined to achieve their goals at any means necessary, at least at the start of the game.  However, just like in Monopoly as you have to wheel and deal in order to get your properties (don't EVER trade Water Works for Boardwalk....not worth it!), there is an inevitable give and take in Risk as the game progresses.  In order to come closer to attaining your goal, you have to be willing to sacrifice something.  The blue team made a calculated gamble to give up their only population center in Northern Europe, as they assumed that such an act would allow other pieces to fall in order for them to achieve their goal of mutual peace worldwide.  

There's also the liberal-ish (although probably more neo-con in modern context) theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  We saw this practiced in World War II with the US and the Soviet Union working together to vanquish the Nazis from European expansion.  Former President Bush also was not averse to using this doctrine in his affairs abroad.  The red team certainly is a threat to interests across the board, and there's a rising mutiny against them in our team, yellow, and perhaps green.  While yellow has indicated to us, at least through my reputable diplomatic channels, that they clearly don't want us to win, they are supposedly more concerned with red than they are us.  While we're not allies, this shared enemy brings us together, like Bob Kelso brought differing opinions on Scrubs together in hatred against him.

Who has two thumbs and doesn't give a crap?

This draws some parallels to the real world, but it also shows that the world system is probably built a little better than a flimsy piece of cardboard and cheap plastic pieces.  What was once an undisputed realist society has progressively moved toward a more liberal/constructivist format.  While Risk at the forefront appears to encourage keeping interests to yourself and playing the way that will best help you win, we've seen a growing disclosure of our goals with the other groups, in order to help further our mutual interests.  However, we can probably expect to see a return to realism when the time comes for alliances to end in order for one player to win.  Right now, the world does not appear to be returning to a realist mindset, as economic interdependence and world social contracts have inhibited a rise in realist thinking among nations, apart from a few exceptions.  While Risk doesn't necessarily portray the world balance of power exactly, it does a pretty good job giving an outline of it, and it certainly will be interesting to see how this game ends.

Also, quit stealing my briefing memos.  When the hegemon runs the world, we won't be forgetting who tried to wrong us.

Risk and the Real World

I think that while diplomatic Risk ignores a great many aspects of the real world, such as economic relations, nuances in alliances, and the internal actions of a state that may change its goals, the ones it does address are often quite like international relations in the real world. In diplomatic risk, every team has a specific agenda, a specific relationship with each of the other teams, a set of abilities, resources, and armies, and uses all of these in order to achieve their goals. Every action a team takes is in the interest of these goals ultimately. Sometimes the connection between an action and a goal is rather indirect -- for example, one team may do something that will help an ally because said ally is a stronger enemy of the team that is at war with the first team. However, in the world of Risk and the rules that apply in that world, the only reason for a team to act is to achieve a goal. This might seem a little out of sync with the way real world IR happens, but in the short run, this is a reality for many states. Sometimes, the only way for a state to survive is to achieve a very specific goal, such as the ones given to the Risk players.

For example, a state may be hell-bent for getting access to a certain resource in another state, because the first state has run out and completely depends on that resource to sustain their economy. Or a state may have decided that the only way to survive is to have control of territory on the border of an enemy state. Or a state may have a policy of opposing anyone who fulfills a certain criteria, like the US in the war on terrorism. We only see part of the picture in a Risk game, but the bottom line is very similar to real life.

IR theory also came up in diplomatic risk. There was obvious realism, as every state’s first priority was to achieve their goal by any means. There was also liberalism in the diplomatic part of the game, where the different state diplomats allied with one another for mutual benefit, or when various members of the state leadership held conferences with members of other teams on the costs and benefits of a particular action, so that they would help each other to both get individual benefit. Constructivism showed up as well -- instead of every team just trying to conquer the world, each team had a described identity that included, but was not limited to, a goal. They also all had a unique set of special powers. I think that the liberal influence on the game was the most obvious, at least in this version of Risk, as each state found that working together was very beneficial to getting things moving in their preferred direction.

Risk applied to the real world

Some aspects of the game are similar to actual world politics. For example, the situation in the battlefield changes quickly. Every single action by a team is monitored closely by all of the other teams. When Red attacked Green, Black immediately responded by attacking Red. Similar to the real life hegemon, the United States, Black appears to want to keep peace in the world. In order to stay in power, both the U.S. and Black want to act friendly so the other teams don’t see them as a large threat. Just like in real life, war is costly. Every skirmish costs lives for both sides involved. Because war weakens both sides, nations don’t go to war for fun. Diplomats make deals with other teams in order to benefit both sides. Nations send diplomats around the world to increase ties and form treaties.

Unlike actual world politics, the only way a nation can acquire more resources is to take it away from another nation. In actuality, this would be a very bad move, when there are plenty of ways to increase economic strength without incurring the wrath of other countries. The game is made for alliances to form and to break, because there can only be one winner. Risk forces conflict, when in world politics conflict is the last thing a nation wants. Alliances and war status do not change so rapidly in the real world. During the course of the game, alliances and declaration of war between teams have been occurring so fast that they have become essentially meaningless. Green could be allied with Black one turn, and then 2 turns later could be at full-blown war with them. Because such instability would be unfavorable to countries in the real world, modern alliances tend to be more permanent, or at least long lasting.

Diplomatic Risk and the Real World of Politics

I have to admit Diplomatic Risk is very fun. I also have to admit that it has certain aspects that resemble actual politics.

Although the game does not address complexities and details such as economic issues and social aspects, it does give a general idea of how nations act in the global arena.

Each group (or nation) has its own agenda and will act in the interest of completing the goals of that agenda. Many real world nations have "agendas" and will act to follow this agenda. For example, the United States has taken on the task of fighting terrorism, so it engaged in war with Afghanistan after 9/11.

Each group is also trying to survive, maintain, and maybe even gain territory. This is also true of real nations; most nations want to survive and keep the territory it owns in order to maintain a presence in the world and not be totally obliterated.

Traces of realism, constructivism, and liberalism can be seen in the game as well. Realism: many nations are acting in their own interest to achieve their goals and using their "secret powers" to their own advantage. Constructivism: some nations are portraying a certain identity and acting according to that identity, the blue team is a peacemaker and is establishing alliances and the black team is the hegemon and is working to maintain this position. Liberalism: some teams are working together to achieve their perspective goals.

Update

Hey, just to keep people interested in the blog, remember, one of the coolest people in the history of the world is coming to AU tomorrow.

Who?



DUUUUUUKKKKKAAAAAAKKKKKKIIIIIISSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is all.

Reflection 8 - IR and Opera

I have never played Risk before, although I knew the basic rules, so I can’t really comment on whether diplomatic risk is more interesting or less interesting the regular kind. However, our class on Tuesday was really interesting. I particularly enjoyed the division of responsibilities that came with playing the game as a team. I thought it felt as though we (our team) was all really working together to maximize our gains. The rules regarding the diplomatic side of the game made the game feel almost realistic with regards to what we have learned about world politics so far. The changing nature of the relationships between the teams made things very confusing but fun, as over the course of one short period, we became more and less resentful of other teams, such as the black hegemon, and the teams we had been at war with but later made peace with, even though it was supposed to be just a game.The secrecy between the teams also made the game very interesting, although also complicated, because it was hard to remember what all the other teams were doing whenever we transferred information from the head of state to the diplomat and vice versa. I suppose that’s a bit like how it happens in real life, though. One thing that really made the game fun was, I think, the fact that it was a game, and while some teams, at some times, were trying to screw over all the other teams in a very realist way, working together for a more mutual outcome was also imposed on us by the rules to make it different from regular Risk and make our interactions more complex.

The opera was a really great way to restart our wednesday labs. I have wanted to go to the Kennedy Center for a long time, and was very exited to finally get to see it and attend a performance there. I had never seen an opera before, and although I thought it was a good performance, I found it to be pretty boring. I fell asleep briefly during Salome’s love song to the head, because of all the repetition. I enjoyed the music more than the stage part, being a musician myself.

Reflection: Risky Business

Our little Risk simulation in class certainly has been interesting to say the least, however I feel our class isn't as dedicated to this game as our Monday-Thursday counterparts (seriously, all yous's talk about is Risk it seems, and how you're going to destroy one another :P).  There seems to be some practicality in our simulation to the relevant issues of world affairs.  One group appears to have their hearts set on maintaining or creating peace, one is concerned with spreading themselves to as many territories as they can, and others I haven't put my finger on yet.

It's interesting to put our game, and the roles of the players in the game, into a real-life context.  I'm part of the global hegemon group, and it's easy to draw similarities between the role our group has acquired and the role the United States plays on the world stage.  However, the United States has, over the years that it has evolved as the global superpower, been an owner of all of the roles that I have witnessed in our simulated Risk game.  We attempt to keep peace in the world, while also not being averse to waging war when necessary.  True, we don't "try" to spread religion around the world, but we certainly don't inhibit our own people in doing so.  This application of real-world issues in a board game give our groups more of an impetus to act the part, and be more wary in starting conflict among ourselves.  However, each group must be wary of the other groups' intentions.  While creating alliances and peace are noble goals, obviously one group is doing it because it is in their best interest to do so, in the name of the game.  This could also be reflected in actual international affairs, as countries are justifiably concerned with perhaps nations providing aid to other nations for no particular reason.  In this, it seems that Risk is an apt portrayal of the realist mindset, as economics aren't discussed, and there are inherent questions that arise with any decision a group makes, even if it's made by a bunch of teenagers.

Reflection on Risk

I had only played Risk once before playing it in World Politics class this week. It was definitely interesting to see it revamped with new rules to make it pertinent to international relations. Seeing policy and territory conquest in action gave a first hand look into this world of international relations.

Being the black team, the world's hegemon, also made things interesting. We had to be very cautious in our decisions to keep peace but also to remain the hegemon in the game.

I think the name of the game has significance. "Risk" can describe the situation when countries make decisions in the global arena. All countries have their own agendas, many of which are not known by other nations, like in the game we played in class this week. This makes decisions made by nations to be risks in certain cases.

Reflection: Risk!

Watching Salome and playing Risk made up for an interesting week. I really liked one and not the other. I became extremely sleepy watching Salome to say the least. Risk on the other hand was really exciting and I can’t wait for the next class. PTJ’s way of Risk made the game quite unpredictable. As opposed to everyone trying to kill each other and conquer the world, each team was given a unique goal to achieve in order to win. Diplomatic talks and official alliance/war status made the game more representative of real life. Having resource and city bonuses instead of territorial bonuses was an interesting twist. I wander if and how much the plague is going to spread from Western United States.

Observing each team’s moves, I noticed that teams knew better than to randomly attack others. In the entire class time there was only one attack. The phrase “War is costly.” must have really been ingrained in peoples’ minds. It was tough to decipher each team’s goals. I was immediately suspicious of the hegemon when they suggested peace with everyone. Because they gain the most troops each turn, it is to their advantage for the game to take longer without anything happening. Many of the team diplomats suggested peace, which made it quite confusing as to which team would actually win by peace. I’m really curious as to what goal ends up as the winner’s goal. Is it going to be global domination, peace, or something entirely different?

Reflection: Auto Workers Simulation

While I missed the class discussions and subject matter last week, the project on the auto industry was an interesting change of pace. It was current, addressing an issue that is of concern in America today, whereas our usual discussions are theoretical and many of the examples we use are historical. Dealing with specific facts and hard evidence -- that is, dealing with how the world is currently working, rather than how it ought to work or how it tends to work in the long run, was very different from the theory and hypotheticals of the different schools of IR was a major shift in the style of our class.

The simulations themselves were an interesting experience. While we had fun making our video, we had to also spend a great deal of time looking up not just information and statistics on the subject of the automotive industry and outsourcing, but information and statistics that explicitly supported our group’s (the UAW’s) stance in order to make an argument, whether we agreed with it or not, and discredit the arguments of the other groups, even if we personally agreed with them. I think that all the groups’ arguments were both compelling and narrowly tailored to the group’s interest. All of them had solid, convincing evidence, and all of them had inflated, one-sided assumptions. This seemed very natural to me. In the real world, interests often are in directly-opposed conflict with each other, with both sides giving perfectly valid arguments and both sides being biased by their viewpoints. I got the feeling that while in real life, interests groups are probably a lot slicker and heavily invested than we were, debates between interest groups and the government probably have substantial similarities to our presentations.

However, despite the highly practical, contemporary, and facts-based nature of the debate, I also noticed a thread of the liberalism/realism debate coming through in some of the different groups. The UAW argued that the US would suffer economically if they had a trade imbalance with their partners, pointing to the realist argument that relative gains are important, not just absolute gains. They also were in favor of protecting American jobs first and foremost. The AIAM on the other hand, were highly liberal, arguing that free trade between nations would give rise to a higher-quality auto industry that would benefit all consumers around the world. Constructivism also cropped up in the debate, with the Sierra Club arguing that the U.S.’s identity as a economic power with high environmental standards, as opposed to China’s identity as a massively industrial state with very low environmental standards made it reasonable to assume that the two states would act as their identities predicted, with the U.S. producing less waste and China producing a great deal.

Reflection: Simulation, Auto Workers

The simulation was a nice deviance from the normal class discussions. Though it was unfortunate that the President decided to stick with the status quo, I did think there were compelling arguments on both sides. I was surprised that GM was for the removal of the tariff. I’m sure the removal of the tariff would hurt GM in the short run, though in the long run the increased competition may help them get up to speed with their competitors’ technology. I was also intrigued that the Sierra Club was for the tariff. I disagree that repealing the tariff would increase pollution more than keeping the tariff. Increased competition resulting from removal of the tariff would speed up the trend towards fuel efficient and alternative energy source vehicles. This would offset any increase in the number of drivers because the cars are more affordable. The sooner consumers can get their hands on hybrid and electric cars the better it is for the environment.

Outsourcing is an inevitable part of globalization. The auto workers have had plenty of time to see that the auto industry is shrinking, so it is not like the government is suddenly setting them off on their own. Not to sound mean, but they already saw a form of “outsourcing” when machines advanced and took positions that once were held by humans. Now I know it is a lot tougher to be in the position of an autoworker or to have a family member who is one. It’s difficult to go back to school or have the time to learn new skills when one is working. However, one must learn that technology and globalization has significantly increased the pace in which new jobs are created and destroyed. It’s tough for the auto workers, but they must learn to acquire the skills needed to keep up in today’s global market.

Reflection on Cars and IR Theory

The simulation experience proved to be helpful in demonstrating how the different schools of thought of IR theory play a role in shaping policy.

The AIAM, the Consumer Federation of America, and GM channeled liberalism because of their arguments for lifting the tariff and opening up trade to foster cooperation among nations.

The Sierra Club channeled constructivism, as Scott pointed out, because of its argument that organizations should step in to protect the environment and keep the tariff in place. But also, the Sierra Club channeled constructivism to explain how China would react to the lifting of the tariff. Seeing China as a large manufacturing company (China's identity), the Sierra Club assumed that lifting the tariff on foreign manufactured cars would increase emissions from China's automobile manufacturing factories.

The UAW channeled realism; they were pessimistic in arguing lifting the tariff would eliminate their jobs and the automobile companies were only acting out of self interest in outsourcing jobs.

Reflection: Simulations and more

I feel that our simulation this week was an interesting experience, as it gave us more insight into a pertinent issue facing the economic conditions of the United States, especially as there is need for economic transition as the recession comes to an end. I'll admit: I'm a liberal, and I'm proud of it. My grandmother worked for GM as a member of the UAW for 35 years. Up until now, I felt that tariffs were the right answer when it comes to trade in the automotive economy. To an extent, I still do, but after this simulation I certainly see the other side of the argument. I'm sure that this was the underlying purpose entirely of the project.

I think that all the groups did a great job in presenting their arguments clearly. As I saw in their videos and presentations, I feel that their was a clear reflection in these seemingly simple presentations to the complex world of IR theory. It seemed that our group (GM), along with the consumer group seemed to represent the liberalism school, as we supported an international approach to trade, opening up previous barriers; the UAW and to a lesser extent the foreign auto manufacturers represented realism, as they felt that there needs to be a greater effort on the part of the US to balance the rising economic power of rapidly developing nations like China, while the Sierra Club represented constructivism, as they would generally feel that there should be a greater influence of international organizations to protect the perspective of trade practices, and thus protect the environment, using a non-governmental approach to deal with this issue, but having nations enter into a social contract like the Kyoto Protocol, etc. It just was very interesting to see how clear the ideas of international relations are exhibited in such a minor college project.

I feel, however that our "president" did not see our side of the argument within the same scope we had hoped he would. The president felt that our side of the argument, reducing or eliminating the tariff, didn't do enough to convince him that our side would be incontrovertibly beneficial to the American economy. While I feel that we made a convincing and persuasive argument, I'd just like to say that it's important to note that it would cost more money to keep increasingly antiquated jobs than to let structural unemployment take its course and have American workers find new jobs in areas where America has a comparative advantage in trade. It's not worth paying 225,000 dollars for every job saved when these workers are making significantly less than that. We probably should have brought that up, especially as a rebuttal to the captivating video of the UAW group (I certainly regret being in that video :P).

Also, since when is Italy a third-world country?

Reflection: Marginalized to Oblivion

After this week's class, it became more evident to me of the need for a real insight in this country, and the world for that matter, into the issues of marginalization of groups, before its too late.  I'm not talking about the Tea Baggers, and how their rights haven't been respected, even though this abrupt anger almost directly coincides with the election of a Democratic president.  Anyway, I speak of real oppression.  There are countless examples across the world, whether it be in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and even in some parts of Europe (Balkans) where the large proportion of population that likely make up the majority have been suppressed from achieving their own self-interests.  I wish that Dr. Howard's presentation came after our discussion on Friday, because it would have been interesting to hear a view of the State Department when it came to the political suppression of populations world-wide.  He talked about how Iran, Iraq, and the Middle East Peace Process are the priorities facing the department, but it makes you wonder if the State Department even has on its radar the fact that poor citizens in many nations face poverty, disease, genocide, and oppression.  It's especially important in areas that the US deems important for its own success, like China or the Middle East.  While Iran and Iraq are facing (or did face, respectively) political suppression, there cannot be any neglect of the similar problems millions of people face around the world.

While we think of oppression as synonymous with a dictator like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Pinochet, etc, there's actually a new culprit in this modern era of globalization.  Economic forces and "the invisible hand" have provided despair to nations such as India and China, where poor workers must work in unsanitary work environments in order to scab out a wage that is not even enough to live on.  Even in our own nation, as referenced by Elle with the Moral Underground book, there is evidence of such economic forces providing a large segment of the population with negative consequences.  We need to remember that the 1990s were a great ride for some, but for many living at, near, or below the poverty line, their lives were stagnant or became even worse.  Remember, wealth isn't "created," it is taken.  There's only so much money in the world.  Governments of the world should, in my view, be very wary of such a growing income gap, particularly among near-developed or developing countries.  We can't take a blind eye to the growingly un-silent majority that could threaten the global economy with ease.

Reflection Week 6: And Now for Something Completely Different...

This week seemed strangely empty without a trip into D.C., which usually breaks up the monotonous classwork nicely. However, Dr. Peter Howard’s presentation was one of the more interesting and enjoyable presentations we have had for our Wednesday labs. Even more than Mr. Bame, Dr. Howard really gave us a picture of what it must be like to work in the State Department, especially for someone who used to be a professor, integrating broad sweeping ideas and mindsets and the minutiae of an office job. Dr. Howard’s (qualified) remark that IR theories had “nothing” to do with his job was actually rather interesting to think about after his presentation. The very fact that the IR theories are studied in real life proves that whatever government officials do on a daily basis, some higher-level theoretical knowledge must play an important role in their work. Yet their work is not primarily concerned with molding the global political society to work according to a theory, but to simply solve whatever urgent dilemma the world has to deal with. This served as a reminder to me that IR theories are not completely hypothetical. They must, at least in broad terms, describe the mundane workings of the world. However, Dr. Howard’s presentation also reminded me that the government of the US, and all states, is not some undefined self-aware entity but is made up of the interaction between actual human beings with thoughts and consciousness. The more I think about actual people like Dr Howard -- even if they are less personable than he -- working to accomplish the kinds of actions that he described, the more unrealistically rigid many conceptions of the state laid out in the various IR theories, especially the mindless, pre-programmed realism, seem to be.

This leads into the second part of my reflection nicely. After studying and nitpicking over the different IR theories for almost a month and a half, switching gears to start questioning the universality of everything we have learned is rather difficult for me to wrap my mind around at first. During discussion, I kept falling back into mentally trying to apply IR theory to solve an issue raised by a classmate, only to realize they didn’t apply in this situation, at least, not clearly enough for a student like myself to see. It feels to me as though each step of this class is opening my mind a little wider than before, letting me integrate my new knowledge with older knowledge before adding yet another perspective to the mix. I had been subconsciously starting to see world politics as a simple clash of different perspectives, but this new advancement reminds me that it is much more complex and far-reaching than that.

Reflection on the Importance of Language

This week I have learned of the importance of the use of language in politics. Certain words can give different connotations which can give different meanings that can spur particular actions.

Dr. Peter Howard explained that he must use certain language when writing about Middle East peace in the papers he drafts for the State Department.

This week I also read an article in the Wall Street Journal about the situation in Ecuador. Police revolted because the government cut the policemen's benefits. President Correa of Ecuador called the outbreak of violence an "attempted coup d'état" to make the government look like the "victim" and placed the blame on Ecuador's former president(WSJ). President Correa use of "coup d'état" to label the policemen's protest could have been a strategy to bring attention and aid to the country.

Language has great power in politics. Words are a powerful tool for politicians to use as exemplified by Ecuador's president and by Dr. Howard. On the stage of world politics, it is the way leaders use language that invokes certain reactions in the world's other leaders.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704789404575524020941308454.html

Reflection: Marginalization and U.S. Foreign Policy

It was nice not having to dress up and walk around in the heat this week. I thought government workers are all serious and solemn, but yet again my stereotypical view was broken. Then I realized that only the officials who are cheery and outgoing would want to speak to college kids.

The discussion we had about marginalization was very interesting. Throughout it I got the impression that many think being marginalized is always a bad thing. However, I think it is important that some people choose to be “marginalized.” Relating somewhat to the uninformed vs. not voting topic, it can be said that many people don’t vote simply because they don’t care. Those who don’t vote are marginalized because their voices weren’t heard, yet many of them chose to not vote. Everyone has an opinion. If all of us wanted to let the government know what we thought, massive traffic jams in D.C. the likes of which would make Beijing’s recent traffic jam look smooth would be the least of the capitol’s problems. There would be so many protests on all the issues you can think of that people would just stop caring about what each was doing. Because people are marginalized, the voices of the few are heard and change happens.

I chuckled in my mind when Dr. Peter Howard said that the IR theories are not really used in the Department’s day to day tasks. However, I did wander if as an official of the U.S. government that he wanted to keep U.S. intentions masked. Had he said that they mainly use realism, I would get the image of the U.S. not being benevolent and trying to assert power over the world as an imperialistic state. Had he said the U.S. uses liberalism, I would think the U.S. is out “saving the world” just for its economic benefit. I think it’s simpler to think the U.S. as a person as with all countries. People are naturally selfish and will look out for their own well-being before others. The U.S. asserts dominance both militarily and economically to hold onto its power. This is just like how most people would not want to be demoted in a job and make less money. The U.S. is like a C.E.O. who is facing competition from younger workers who are eyeing the top spot.