Reflection on World Politics

This semester World Politics class has been a great look in to the world of International Relations. Before taking this class, I did not know much about the art of international relations and how so many things, such as identities and perspectives, affect the way countries interact with another.

It was also interesting to look at the different ways scholars look at countries' behaviors and classify these behaviors into theories, mainly realism, liberalism, constructivism and other versions of the three. Struggles for power, social and national identities, and international cooperation all can affect the way countries interact with one another, depending on which theory you look at.

Also, examining international issues and realizing that there are so many ways to look at them and interpret them depending on which IR theory you employ showed me that International Relations isn't an exact science, it's not black and white. It's an art, a game of chess, trying to predict the opponent's next move and strategizing to benefit yourself and (maybe) your allies.

Sovereignty Protecting Difference

I agree that sovereignty can be a tool in protecting those who are labeled "different." In Horizons, the space-residing humans are under attack by the regular humans because of the space-residing humans' different appearance. Establishing "a nation with the power to protect its own" can better protect and cater to the needs of the particular group, in this case the space-residing humans. With having their own sovereignty, these humans can more easily protect their needs and security. If things don't mesh (the interests of different groups) it is easier to just keep them separate.

Also, with their own sovereignty, groups can more easily target what their needs are and either implement effective policy or communicate them to other groups.

Overall, sovereignty is beneficial to groups that are "different" because it allows them to focus on their needs and protection from infringement and attack from other groups.

Reflection on North Korea

North Korea fired artillery at South Korea and claimed it was a "response" to South Korea's naval drills. Heightened tensions have frightened people into thinking that this could be the beginning of war.

I don't think this is war, but I think it is a way for North Korea to display its power and capabilities after being pushed to the back burner by sanctions. North Korea might have felt the need to assert its still existing power in the global sphere.

Also, traveling home for Thanksgiving made me think of the TSA and their new security measures. When I arrived home, my family asked me if I was "felt up" by the TSA. I told them that security wasn't any different from what I have experienced before, but I did hear about the pat downs and body scanners that the TSA was now using and people's protests about the new security measures. It is interesting to see how people support increased security to keep them safe from attacks, but once this security creeps up on their civil liberties it is no longer appealing. It creates a double standard. People want to be protected, but don't like certain protection measures implemented.

Reflection on Columbus' Motives

Was it gold or god that brought Columbus to the new world? Was it gold or god that made him treat the Indians so poorly? Columbus claimed it was god and his desire to spread the greatness of Christianity, but was it really?

One of my favorite musicians, Julian Casablancas, once said "Greed is the inventor of injustice as well as the current enforcer." This can be applied to Columbus and his "holy" mission. Columbus was motivated by greed for gold and power and that was why he treated the Indians with injustice If he were really embarking on his voyage to spread Christianity I don't think he would have looked upon the Indians with superiority, but would rather treat them with compassion, like Christianity teaches.

Greed always encourages us to act unfairly toward others because we are blinded by what we desperately desire.

Is Columbus to Blame?

I think Columbus did have a bit to do with the direction of how the native people of America were treated. Columbus came to the "new world" with a slight superiority complex, thinking that "civilized" European culture is what these "uncultured" people with no religion needed.

Columbus couldn't accept that the natives had a different culture, language, and religion that served them perfectly well before the Europeans cam along. I think Columbus' treatment and view of the natives set a precedent for how others treated and viewed the Indians. Good relations in the beginning between the Europeans and the natives could have led to better ones in the future. The constant push of Christianity and European culture and values on the Indians, however, diminished the potential for cooperation, made the natives feel threatened, and caused conflict.

The Representation of "Indians"

Americans have become accustomed to calling Native American "Indians" because of that little mistake Columbus made. Mention of "Indians" conjures up images of dark skinned people clad with feathers and war paint.

This particular image of Indians is very "Hollywood" and "whimsical," taken advantage by the Washington Redskins to represent their football team. The superficial notion that Indians are "redskinned" and savage warriors does not do justice to the complex cultures of the various Native American tribes.

Exploitation of this stereotypical image undermines Native American as a people. Plastering the image of a so called "Indian" on football helmets, hats, flags, banners, souvenir cups along side colts, dolphins, and bears and having a "redskin" parade around as a mascot doesn't seem right.

Cultures deserve to be respected. Preserved and taught about in museums is one way to do this. What I particularly liked about the Museum of the American Indian is that it conveyed that Native American culture is not a dead one and a thing of the past, but rather a living culture that is still practiced by an array of people who are not "redskinned"and adorned with feather headdresses.

Reflection on Education

Class discussion on Friday moved to the subject of education. Does everyone deserve the right to an education? I think everyone does deserve the opportunity to receive an education, but that opportunity is scarce and close to non-existent in many developing countries.

Ideally, everyone should have access to a school. Children who live in Africa, for example, should be able to walk to a local school and learn about things beyond their villages.

The presentation given by the World Bank informed us that the organization helps developing countries foster good health and education. However, on many occasions the corrupt governments of these countries misuse the aid, so education and health issues are not resolved. I think the World Bank can be more effective if it was able to bypass these corrupt governments and lend the aid to non-profit and community organizations.

I think what the World Bank does is very helpful to those who live in developing countries. I believe that no one should be put at a disadvantage because of where they live, whether it be an affluent neighborhood in France or a slum in India. We all share ties to one another as humanity and to cut some of those ties is to damage our humanity.

The Value of Different Perspectives

I believe that there is significant value in different perspectives on world politics. I think many agree that a narrow mind is not an intelligent one. Narrow world politics isn't very intelligent either.

Tickner focused on a feminism perspective and explained that there is value in looking at world politics in the light of feminism. This can extended to many different perspectives of different groups. Ultimately, world politics and the decisions made by political leaders affect people. So examining different perspectives of different groups, from women to natives, from the poor to ethnic groups, can give valuable information to the identities of these groups and how the decisions of world politics will affect them.

Although examining a subject like world politics through many different lenses and groups' perspectives can give rise to discrepancies among theories, I think having different ways to look at a single subject also gives rise to valuable options.

Reflection on the Pentagon

Our visit to the Pentagon, made me think about national security a little bit more. Erin asked the question of since 9/11 how has security at the Pentagon changed? Our tour guide answered that additional security checkpoints were added and the entrance to the Pentagon no longer was directly connected to the Metro.

After every incidence of breached security, security measures change to protect against another breach. But because security evolves, won't threats to that security evolve too? Can we really completely deter and avoid threats and attacks as these may evolve to breach reinforced security? It's like creating a vaccine to protect against a virus, but the creation and administration of the vaccine only prompts the virus to evolve and become immune to the vaccine.

In that case, the nation may never be completely secure, only aware of threats and how to deter them.

The Facade of Security

The United States having troops deployed in Afghanistan does not necessarily make me more secure, but I do believe that it is supposed to make me think and feel like I am secure.

Deploying troops in Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks was a way for the United States to target the terrorists that carried out the attacks and eliminate the threat they posed. It was also a way for the United States to show they were actually doing something about these attacks on the American people and securing the safety of the nation. It was a way to persuade the American public that the nation is secure because the government has deployed military force into the territory of the enemy. Having troops deployed may have the effect of reassuring Americans and making them feel like they are secure.

War, however, does cause conflict (obviously) and creates opposition at home and abroad which can make citizens, in reality and regardless of how they feel, not secure, but rather vulnerable to attack.

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 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.

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.

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 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 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

In a World Full of Complexities

Because the world is so complex, there is no one way to explain it. That is why there are different religions, different theories of how the universe came to be, and different theories of international relations.

Of course, with all differing view points there are incompatibilities among perspectives. In regard to international relations, these incompatibilities make international relations more of an art than a science. One must use his own judgement when applying a theory to certain situations. Like with art, there is no "right" way of doing anything and everything is up for interpretation.

If one perspective is deemed "accurate" it does not mean that all other perspectives are wrong. It just means that the "accurate" perspective was judged to best explain the situation at hand. Other perspectives can just as well explain other situations.

So there is no absolutely wrong or absolutely right perspective. Just perspectives that have more relevancy in certain situations.

Réflexion sur l'ambassade française

Paying a visit to the French Embassy gave me a first hand understanding of constructivism. Listening to the French diplomat speak, I was surprised to hear that France "has no minorities." France is all about integrating immigrants into the "French culture;" everyone should know French and this idea of integration is what led to the French Parliament's ban on the wearing of the burqa. When immigrants arrive in France, it almost seems as though their identities are rearranged to be French first and then (insert country of origin here).

But why is France so adamant about integrating everyone into the French culture, while other countries, like the United States, embrace and promote diversity? In the U.S. many ethnic groups maintain their own respective cultures and do not completely conform to American culture, which has led to the forming of ethnic communities.

Has France's integration ideals formed the French stereotypes of French people being rude and stuck up and only accepting of those who speak French? Are the French too prideful about their French identity to the point that they feel the need to impose it on others?

I think France's aggressive promotion of its "French identity" may lead it to make unwise political decisions in the future, like the decision of banning the wearing of the burqa which seems to come across as a stab at personal liberté.

What Should States Not Do?

States exercise a certain amount of power, but there are also certain limits on this power. Limits have been created by "social norms and expectations," and one of these social norms is that violating human rights is unjust. Thus, a state's power must be limited so it will not violate its citizens' or other people's rights.

We know that the violation of human rights is unjust and a problem because organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch exist. Philosophers, like John Locke, have provided the basis that all humans are entitled t0 the basic rights of life, liberty, and property. States often exercise too much power and this results in the violation of human rights. For example, 83 Zimbabwe activists were "arbitrarily" arrested at a peaceful demonstration outside the Zimbabwean Parliament, according to Amnesty International. The arrests were deemed "arbitrary" because they were "aimed at restricting the rights to freedom of expression and assembly," according to Michelle Kagari, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Africa Program; the demonstrators were not instigating violence. The Zimbabwean police's power and more generally, the state's power were not limited in this case and it resulted in the violation of the Zimbabwean citizens' right to assembly and freedom of speech.

Therefore, states should not violate human rights. A state's power should be limited, so that the state's citizens' rights are not infringed upon and other state's citizens' rights are not violated either.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/zimbabwe-must-release-83-activists-detained-peaceful-demonstration-2010-09-20

Refections on the Department of State

I found the visit to the Department of State to be a great look into the way the United States' interacts with other countries. The Department of State encourages diplomacy, which I think is the best way to deal with negotiations among countries. In a world in which countries engage in trade and other transactions with one another, keeping dialogue open between officials of countries can help maintain these beneficial relationships.

The State Department has also worked to initiate peace talks with the Middle East, which I think will be a step in the right direction in bettering the United States' relationship with the Middle East.

Getting a chance to talk with David Bame and hearing about his experiences working at the State Department and abroad gave me a first hand look into the world of foreign relations. Bame also brought up the term "smart power" and its increasing importance in international relations. Bame described it as the strategic combination of hard and soft power. It reminded me of something Machiavelli would talk about, a strategic combination of opposites, like his point that a ruler must be cunning like a fox and strong like a lion. It made me realize that maybe Machiavelli and his ideas aren't obsolete just yet.