Reflection: The End

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i60yecA1hEU

Well, we've reached the end of our glorious mission together in World Politics.  Honestly, it's been an amazing ride, and I'd do it all over again.  With less articles though.  I was honestly amazed that I was exposed to so many different points of view in our class.  I can safely say that one of the reasons I decided to come to American was its predisposition to have liberal-leaning students.  Needless to say I was surprised when half of our class seems to lean more towards the right (you may blame that on political shifts in current affairs, but that's besides the point).  But really, would it have been better as an echo chamber?  Probably not.  I don't know how you did it, Professor Jackson, but bravo.

I was very interested in the strategic aspects of world politics, and how we can relate everything we see to life around us.  I mean, I can't even name all the times we would be arguing about something on the floor and something about realism/liberalism/constructivism would come up because it honestly did actually apply there in that situation.  The application of what we've learned is really evident in all we do, and it's important to remember that going forward.

But to be honest, this class helped affirm what I believe I want out of my college experience and what I will be doing going forward.  To be honest, I came to AU believing that SIS would be at least one of my majors here, econ being the other.  I now realize that International Relations really isn't for me.  My opinions could change later on, but I don't see SIS being in my future.  I think the times in class where we discussed economics and poverty seemed to be the most pertinent to me, and I feel that has given me reason to believe that I chose right in being an economics major.  World Politics was still an amazing class though, and everyone should experience it.

Reflection: Does North Korea have anything to be thankful for?

My Thanksgiving went pretty well, though it would have went better had the Red Sox actually made a trade or signing or something as an early Christmas present.  While this was a disappointing development (or lack thereof), I was happy to see my family again.  Although, I have to say that I was surprised that my usually up-to-date family was unusually silent on one of the more controversial and alarming issues in world affairs lately and that is the sudden escalated tension between the South Korea-United States and North Korea.  While we were passing around the rolls I was just waiting for my grandmother to say in her abrupt and loud tone about "what the hell is going on with North Korea." Perhaps my family is unconcerned with the thought of a (more) assertive North Korea, or perhaps they are much too concerned that they didn't even want to discuss the possibility of a nuclear standoff in East Asia, and possibly in the Western Hemisphere.

A best guess on my part is that my parents side with the former way of thinking.  Like it was discussed in class, I feel that North Korea is merely showing its teeth in an era where we've become accustomed to a more liberal, transparent world power apparatus that such a display of a realist method is distressing to nations and people across the world merely because it has become an antiquated technique among developed and even developing nations.  North Korea knows internally that it's going to be difficult to assert their (imagined) authority over the countries of East Asia once their "fearless leader," Kim Jong-Il passes away.  It's similar to what will certainly be a problem for Cuba once the man who is now supposedly working behind the curtains, Fidel Castro, finally kicks the bucket.  Also, as was noted in the New York Times this morning, South Korean officials and diplomats feel that after Kim Jong-Il dies, it will only be a matter of time (likely a few years) before the government collapses. China, through the new WikiLeaks story, has shown impatience with North Korea, perhaps signaling that their mutual friendship that has spanned decades may finally be coming to an end.  North Korea doesn't really have any other friends in the world; China is their last hope.  I mean, if the United States were a nation run like North Korea, and we had a dynasty family running things in our country, wouldn't it be rather destabilizing once the leader died and a transfer of power is taking place?  North Korea may not get another chance for a governmental change for years, as Kim Jong-Il's heir apparent, his son, would probably lead the country for decades to come.  The government, wanting to keep its authority over its people intact, and at risk of losing their only real ally, will attempt to

Reflection: Throwing Money at the Problems of Today

The discussion in class last Tuesday focused on the allocation of resources toward global problems in our contemporary society.  If the world were to suddenly create 50 billion more dollars, without worry of inflation, what would we spend it on?  What is the most efficient way to go about using the money to solve a universal issue?

In the lecture we read/listened to, the man seemed to give credence to the theory that it would be better to use that money toward abolishing hunger in the world's developing nations, or using it to fight an epidemic like AIDS.  Certainly these are noble causes, but he seemed to brush off the threat of global warming as unimportant and irrelevant.  Perhaps hunger/poverty issues should take precedent over global warming, as no one really ever died over global warming.  However, if it is a global inheritance of this money, shouldn't the funds be used to fight an issue that affects those in Switzerland as well as those in Swaziland? I'm pretty sure bioterrorism isn't a majorly pertinent issue in those nations, but the threat of global warming doesn't know borders.

Investing in a "Manhattan Project" of the 21st century could help spark initiative in the world to pay more attention to green technology.  We could save our planet and secure our economic security for decades to come.

Poverty can't be solved, and to be honest terrorism can't theoretically be solved either.  However, global warming can only be solved in a subjective light.  We can't all agree even at this time that climate change is real, and much less whether it is man-made or merely natural.  Perhaps funding should be put aside for the advocation of global warming measures, since a great segment of the population (including an alarming number of people in our class) still believe global warming to be a false prophecy of the future.

I'll actually quote a Republican to finish this reflection.  Before he began his run to the right in order to get re-elected, Senator John McCain noted this about global warming in a debate between his Republican counterparts during the presidential campaign:

"If it's real, then we can help save ourselves from a global disaster.  If it's not, then all we've done is left our children and our grandchildren with a cleaner world."

Maybe we should just have some tax cuts?  50 billion dollars could give every person in the world about $8.15.  Pretty sweet deal.

Reflection: The Shining City on the Pale Blue Dot

First of all, let's settle this now.  The woman giving the presentation on behalf of the World Bank seemed to brush off New Jersey as this cesspool of corrupted garbage.  Let me tell you something: this country would be nothing without New Jersey.  You all can live with tuberculosis?  Didn't think so.  What about living without college football?  Yeah, me neither.  New Jersey makes this country's trains run on time.  Plus, we have several bad sports teams to ridicule to make you all feel better about your own pathetic teams.  Who would be your punching bag then?  That's right.  New Jersey is just around to make all of you complacently say "hey, at least I don't live there!"  Whatever, we don't want you anyway.  

Anyway, the woman who came from the World Bank explained the priorities that the World Bank has recognized throughout its history as an international entity.  These priorities sound familiar when discussing the problems facing citizens in the United States.  Lack of shelter, lack of healthcare, lack of food, clothing, etc.

We talked about the issue of equality in class.  While I agree that that a capitalist society should run on the principles of winners and losers, the "survival of the fittest" mentality that was brought up in class is an extraordinarily primitive principle.  Yes, we at American would probably feel that it doesn't matter if we help the destitute, seeing that we are on the "top of the class" relative to them.

I'm not saying that the incomes of everyone in the country should be equal, but there needs to be equal opportunity for all.  And in that, in an ideal world, our social programs would be effective in providing people with the opportunity to better their lives.

How can we solve this, then?  The woman from the World Bank gave very daunting statistics regarding the allocation of money that developed countries have exhibited in previous fiscal years.  1.4 trillion dollars is spent, per year, on defenses.  A vast majority of that money comes from the United States.  In this country of ENORMOUS affluence, it is a disgrace that we spend seemingly unlimited amounts of money on instruments of destruction and war, while it has become damn near impossible to get a 30 day extension on unemployment benefits for those still out of work.  We need to reexamine our priorities in this country, or soon we will find our citizens dying in the streets of Kabul as well as in the streets of Washington.  

I see the argument for war, but the way I see it we should spend our money more on instruments of peace and prosperity.  Peace is better than war, because life is better than death.

Also, talking to Erin earlier in the week made me realize that it has been 14 years last week since the death of famed astronomer Carl Sagan.  His ideals regarding the fate of humanity, particularly when it comes to the exponential defense spending of developed nations, are aptly shown in his speech below regarding the photo taken of Earth by Voyager 1 in 1990, when it was 4 billion miles away from Earth:

That's here, that's home, that's us.  On it, everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives.  The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, ever mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "supreme leader," every "superstar," every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there -- on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage, in a vast, cosmic, arena.  Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on he scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.  Think for a moment of the rivers of blood, spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters -- of a fraction of a dot.

Our posterings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe are challenged by this point of pale light.  Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.  In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere -- to save us from ourselves.

Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand.  It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and preserve and cherish, the only home we've ever known.  The pale blue dot. 

History in the Making. Or perhaps it's just a re-run.

What happens if we were to include every little minute perspective difference in every situation we see?  Bringing fringe groups to the table has really never been tried in the past, and is there a good reason for that?

Don't you sort of create a meaner spirit about....well, just about everything?  I mean, if the two political parties in Congress voted on things using criteria of their experiences and perspectives based on where they lived and their environment, would anything ever get done?  While this is theoretically the way our government is supposed to work, particularly the House of Representatives, we have seen that this is not the case, as members generally vote on party lines strictly, which has become especially evident recently.  You can't expect two people to fully agree on one thing EXACTLY.  There's going to be different perspectives about an issue or thought process, but in the end they will come together.  This is evident even in the United Nations, the supranational example of world politics.  While not all interests for every nation are met in each resolution, the continuity of things supersedes individual interests of nations

THAT SAID..:

Tickner mentioned that the idea of what constitutes good knowledge have been disproportionately weighed against the value of statistics and hard numbers.  We have, it seems in the past, come to the conclusion that the best way to ascertain knowledge appears to be looking at the background of an event on Wikipedia or in a history book/encyclopedia.  While such an exercise will certainly give you an idea of how an event or time period was carried out from a factual standpoint, how do you know what the true emotional background of the event is?  You rarely, if ever, hear of eyewitness interviews of someone who lived through the feminist suppression of early modern Europe and beyond into the 20th century.  And perhaps that has to do with the saying that she gave, that "history is written by the victors."  How are we supposed to know how men became the victors in our society though?  Ideas of what constitutes good knowledge, we prioritized numbers and statistics, and not the emotional background of the knowledge

The political elite in governments across the world need to take into account the implications, not just on the hard numbers or statistics, but also the emotional implications of the decisions they make.  Perhaps then we wouldn't be so eager to enter wars, and perhaps be more willing to worry about domestic issues.  Anyone can argue that Medicare wasn't exactly the greatest fiscal triumph in our government's history, but most people regardless of political affiliation agree that it has provided this nation with an unparalleled social net that has become a bedrock of this nation's ideals.  I think, eventually, the healthcare reform passed earlier this year will meet the same fate.

We do have to listen to more perspectives, because if we have a blinded view of history, what precedence does that set?  Remember, those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it.  Also, how can we understand world politics without understanding the people?  While it's interesting to talk about the actors in international affairs, it's really the people that are the foundation of what we discuss, seeing that they are the rational force behind decision making, but are rarely discussed in the context of world affairs.  Perhaps now we are seeing a shift away from the interests of the state to the interests of the people.

I feel that this is a pertinent quote/an excellent way to get out some of my frequent dislike of Ronald Reagan.  This is the speech Mario Cuomo gave to the Democratic National Convention in 1984, and I feel that it outlines well how we have to stop looking at the prices of stocks and start looking at the value of our people as a whole:

"In this part of the city there are more poor than ever, more families in trouble, more and more people who need help but can't find it. Even worse: There are elderly people who tremble in the basements of the houses there. And there are people who sleep in the city streets, in the gutter, where the glitter doesn't show. There are ghettos where thousands of young people, without a job or an education, give their lives away to drug dealers every day. There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don't see, in the places that you don't visit in your shining city."

Reflection: Oh The Places We'll Go

Congratulations!

Today is your day.

You're off to Great Places!

You're off and away!

You have brains in your head.

You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself 

any direction you choose.

The United States government has reached a critical junction that will decide the future of the nation: do we continue down the slippery slope of national security overreaction, or do we deal with the domestic problems that we face here at home?  After our trips to Christ House, and then to the Pentagon, it was obvious that the United States has chosen the former, at least for now.

There comes a point where the government is too involved in the security of their nation.  I'm not saying the United States is there yet, or we should just open our borders or end scanning in airports, but I find it odd that people are so frightened by any hint of government intervention in the economy, yet those same people are perfectly fine with the government monitoring every part of their lives from the day they're born until the day they die.

It's interesting to wonder why the US has clearly sided with the military/security end of this growingly one-sided dichotomy.  For those who say that we can have both, I would cite LBJ's problems keeping together the Great Society while fighting a massive war in Southeast Asia.  Still, though, the budget appropriated to the Vietnam War was smaller than the budget of the Defense Department today, even after being adjusted for inflation.

Perhaps the government is to blame for this problem.  After all, nobody has ever lost an election by looking tough on terrorism, yet countless members have been unfortunately voted out of office or barred from entering office due to their "extreme" belief that domestic matters should take precedence over involvement in foreign affairs.

In 1979/1980, every night, you would hear Walter Cronkite, after he concluded each of his evening news broadcasts about the update on the hostage situation in Iran.  While the securement of the American diplomats was a serious issue and the Carter administration should be praised for bringing them home safe, you never would hear him say how many people died due to drug overdose on that day.  You would never hear how many kids went to bed hungry lastnight.  Or how many citizens live below the poverty line.  Are they not important?

Perhaps it's because when discussing security there is a clear enemy.  We see them on television, denouncing the United States and promising retribution for American occupation of land abroad.  The economy isn't going to go on CNBC one morning and say, "hey, sucks to be you guys, but I'm increasing unemployment another half a percent.  Oh yeah, and 4 million more Americans are now below the poverty line."  While it's obviously unclear what reaction would be in such a bizarre situation, one would imagine that it would bring the problems of economic instability to the forefront of American concerns, even more so than it is currently.

Neither problem is going to be "solved."  There isn't a magic solution of government programs and regulations that is going to solve the problem of economic insecurity in this country.  Likewise, the national security of the United States is   Poverty is always going to continue: so long as there are rich people there will be "poor" people.  Terrorism will live on anyway you look at it.

America's "day" is now, and for all we know, the sun may be setting on this day sooner than we realize.  What direction should we choose?  Should we secure our people from the ravages of economic and social neglect, or secure ourselves from those who will never like us anyway?  The economy is certainly not a friendly apparatus, but it is not malevolent.  Squashing terrorism is a futile exercise.  It's like a rash on your skin.  Keep scratching it, and it will get worse.  Let it alone, and it will eventually fade away.  Again, neither of these problems is going to be fully solved, but in my opinion the decision on the future priorities of the United States should be clear.  It's up to you.

You're off to Great Places!

Today is your day!

Your mountain is waiting.

So...get on your way!

Securing Ourselves, but Keeping Promises Abroad

It's difficult to discern the true threat that various militant groups in the Middle East pose to US security, and also to my individual personal security.

I have mixed feelings about the war in Afghanistan.  I'm pleased that this administration has placed more focus on the country in its national security strategy, which was sorely lacking in the previous administration.  Afghanistan certainly is more of a threat to the security of the United States than was Iraq, and it only seems fair that more military emphasis be placed on a country that was actually a threat to the US than was just a threat to itself (I'm not putting down the unparalleled effort our troops exhibited in Iraq, and they deserve all the praise they get and more).

However, I have to keep asking myself, what is a "win" in Afghanistan?  There isn't going to be a signing of a surrender by the Taliban or Al Qaida on an aircraft carrier, or a white flag being raised from their headquarters.  Because, think about it, what is the "headquarters" of these organizations.  They aren't nation-states, and therefore it's more difficult to gauge success against a group that (for the most part) doesn't have a clear leader, finite military forces, and a known area of influence.  It's easy to have the standard bearer of an enemy in war or conflict be the Nazis in WWII.  It had a clear leader, it had a finite military in the German forces, and it was known what territory it was taking or already occupied (to as best extent as it could be known).  So what's a win?  The Taliban or Al Qaida isn't going to surrender as it's not a nation-state, and it's certainly feasible to think that continued influence by the United States in an effort to suppress a terrorist organization would only embolden those who are fighting against us.

It brings up the question of how these terrorist organizations cause the US such a problem in the first place.  And when you think about it, the policy of intervention in foreign affairs on the part of the United States seems to have dug the US its own grave.  While protecting US interests is important, we have tended to overreach into foreign conflicts.  Korea, Vietnam, and various proxy wars have shown that there hasn't been much success in proving to the world of the US hegemony over global affairs.

But how has this foreign policy caused the problems we face today?  Terrorist and fringe organizations tend to arise from certain socioeconomic factors: income inequality, exploitation, corruption, and downtrodden and war-torn economic conditions.  That's why the US was eager to aid Western Europe following World War II, because the State Department was sure that various left-wing organizations would gain more steam among the disposed population of Europe.  The United States, however, has provided the Middle East with not a solution to those problems, but the actual problems.  Beginning with the Eisenhower administration, the US has acted strategically with regards to the Middle East, due mainly to the vast and valuable oil reserves that are prevalent there.  In places like Iran, the CIA ousted a democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq, and installed a corrupt government which eventually cracked in 1979.  And to this day we wonder why the Iranian and US governments have not always seen eye to eye.  Same goes for Iraq.  In the 1980s, the Reagan administration sold weapons to both the Iraqi and Iranian governments in order to essentially have the two militaries destroy themselves in order for the US to exert more control over the region without a hard opposition.  The Reagan administration was also not averse to propping up regimes in foreign countries with our military, much to the detriment of the population in those countries.  We have ourselves to blame for the rise of these radical groups in the Middle East.  It's not a coincidence that our increased involvement in the affairs of the Middle East has been met with the increased membership of those populations with terror networks.

It reminds me of an episode from the West Wing, where a former president who can be easily be seen to reflect Ronald Reagan dies, and the current president's speechwriter Toby can't find any good things to say about what the Lassiter administration did for his eulogy, especially in regards to foreign policy:

"And I look at these great....and terrible old men, and I think: these men spent the better part of the late twentieth century trying to play God in other countries.  And the regimes they anointed...are the ones that haunt us today."

Think about it: if you were living in Afghanistan, and you saw how much oppression foreign governments brought to your country, how would you react?  Would you willingly go through your life without food, water, housing, schools, infrastructure, etc?  Joining a terrorist organization may seem like an inevitable fate, so long as you don't want to starve.

The deploying of troops in Afghanistan seems to perfectly reflect the internationalist spirit the United States has embodied in recent decades following WWII.  But has this spirit really made us safer?  Being the hegemon is nice and all, but it provides dissident nations and populations with something to be united against.  So long as there are terrorist or non-state organizations, the realist world model will live on.  There will continue to be a balance of power act against the United States, so long as we continue to "meddle" (that's a strong word) in the affairs of other nations.

We have been placed in a tough situation: do we move forward, have a potential insurgency in Afghanistan, and reclaim our identity as the infallible hegemon?  Or do we move in a more isolationist direction, possibly decreasing the influence of our nationalism over time, but also decrease the nationalism of other rogue nations/organizations?  If we stay, we will be seen as the country that isn't able to secure a win in the War on Terror, assuming the present course is stayed.  If we leave, we'd be seen as giving up on our friends (although Karzai is no friend) and set a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.

Overall, when you weigh the real current and potential future costs of the presence of US troops in Afghanistan to the potential benefits of a "victory" in that nation, it seems that there aren't enough pros to continue our mission in Afghanistan.  In the short term, we will lose more troops, while gaining little in terms of international recognition and support.  In the long term, we will make ourselves less safe, as we would create more resentment toward us abroad.  You never know, the dissidence may not be limited to the Middle East.  Europe and Asia could begin to spark an anti-American revolution soon.  It's unlikely, but not impossible.

I realized that there's another quote from the same West Wing episode that is pertinent to this, so I'll close with it:

"Why do they hate us?  Because we support their oppressors...we ARE their oppressors.  You start saddling up camels in every country in the Middle East, you better be prepared to spend the next 50 years sifting through sand.  Because this isn't some run on the beach.  This is the new world order."

Reflection: Americans can kill the Media Stars

Jon Stewart brought up an often underreported (and can you blame the media for this?) point about the hyperbolizing and overreacting nature that the media (particularly cable news media) has come to embrace in this country.  It seems that we can't go a few months (or even a few weeks) without incessantly hearing about unimportant drivel such as the Balloon Boy media stunt, the Bristol Palin never-ending saga, it goes on and on.  Meanwhile, we seem to forget that this country is still fighting two wars abroad, with countless troops stationed worldwide that are in harms way, or the fact that there are still millions of Americans in this country who live below the poverty line.  Disasters in Haiti and Southeast Asia have given us a glimpse of the true problems this world faces, as well as the neglect they receive by the mainstream media.  It's stories like those that prompt Americans watching the 6 o'clock news to say "wow, that's a shame," and then move on to the more pertinent issues of the day: something happened with Lindsay Lohan again!  When will she finally get her act together?  Her well-being and sanity greatly concerns me!

In our articles, we read that the increasing neglect by the media to report on matters, as well as the stories the media (purposefully?) overblows in order to increase ratings, has put our country at a risk in the future.  The 9/11 article discussed the very real dangers of the 9/11 attack, but explained that the media was all too eager to convince Americans that war, especially with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on that fateful morning, was the right thing to do.  Imagine the day when North Korea test launches a missile that doesn't fail miserably.  I can only imagine that every single analyst (at least on FoxNews) that night will be crying out for a full invasion of North Korea.  If we're still playing the realist game in world politics, even on a relatively smaller scale than in decades past, shouldn't the attempted nuclear proliferation of North Korea be expected?

The presidency is the most powerful job certainly in this country, and if not the world.  But is the judgement of the president at the beck and call of what the media is reporting on that day?  Or can the president unfairly use the media to his/her advantage?  Don't Americans deserve a better leader than Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann?

We'll get there, at some point.  Soon enough the populace will realize that the media is a business, and that the news that they receive may not always be the news they need or want to hear.  It's inevitable that something that grows so exponentially will eventually crumble beneath its own weight.  However, we may not recognize the point where the American people have reached a consensus to make decisions for themselves, rather than having their government or their media making those decisions for them.

It may not be a spectacular sight with fireworks and marching bands playing, but it will still be an important milestone in our society.

Because sometimes, the light at the end of the tunnel "is just New Jersey."

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.  

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.

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.

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: 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: 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.

"Now, for a different perspective..."

In my high school years leading up to my entry into college, I liked to think that I made myself a more open person.  I've certainly tried to consider opposing perspectives when making arguments to the best of my ability.  When placed on a world stage, however, where my views on whatever issue are rather inconsequential, keeping other perspectives in mind seem to fade away from the agendas of states when confronted with pressing global issues.  States, for the most part, believe that their perspective on any given situation is the correct one, and they are unequivocal in their resolve to promote that perspective among its people and others.  Consider the recent developments in the United States' moderation of the Middle East peace process.  The Israeli government insists that they're entitled to defend themselves from outside threats or forces.  Palestinians, on the other hand, feel as though their de facto sovereignty is being trampled on by the re-authorization of Israeli settlement building in the West Bank.  Two very conflicting perspectives.  Obviously there's no definitive answer in this question as to who's right or who's wrong, otherwise this issue would (probably) have been settled long ago.  But, just as evident in the article on Bretton Woods system, different perspectives on a situation can cause a disagreement to disintegrate into conflict, or even war.

As explained in the article, the undoing of the Bretton Woods system, which had essentially helped rebuild much of the war-torn world after World War II, seemed to start with differing perspectives on how the system was working.  "America felt its erstwhile allies could do more to reduce their surpluses by inflating or revaluing their currencies; the Europeans and Japanese, conversely, contended that it was the responsibility of the United States, with the world's biggest deficit, to take the first steps to correct the situation.  Both sides felt discriminated against" (6).  These views on the power of the United States in a system that, admittedly to other nations, was run by the United States, and the US dollar, began to become arguments, and soon deep rifts between nations, and soon the end of the system as a whole.  "The debate over asymmetries masked a deeper political conflict.  The postwar bargain was coming unstuck.  In the United States, concern was growing about the competitive commercial threat from Europe and Japan...Conversely, concern was growing in Europe and Japan about America's use of its privilege of liability financing - the "exorbitant privilege" (6).  So what is there to do?  Obviously different perspectives on the issue would eventually lead the system (and many other ways of thinking before it) to disaster, culminating with Nixon abdicating the US dollar from the gold standard in 1971.  Is it inevitable for such a system to work consistently when no two people or states share the exact same mindset?  We can't forget, however, that there were other suggestions in creating the Bretton Woods system following World War II.  Keynes seemed to have a different idea that wasn't expanded on much in the article; perhaps his theory could have at least lasted longer than the system that arose?  Either way, it's futile to think that there could ever be an "end" to incompatible theories.  We can only hope that, over time, the weaker and less-approved thoughts will eventually fade away, while the strong and comprehensive perspectives will prevail as we learn more about international relations and our world as a whole.

I don't want to get into a philosophy talk here, but if one perspective is deemed correct compared another, isn't that also a perspective?  A theory could be "accurate," but it all depends on who you ask.  For instance, some would argue that the US's presence in Iraq has been the accurate and correct policy, while others may argue that the decision to invade Iraq was a tactical blunder and was the wrong thing to do.  Ask someone on Wall Street whether they think the financial bailouts were an "accurate" assessment or perspective of the financial situation, and then ask a teacher if they feel the US government had a good perspective of the crisis.  Again, the perspective of situations is dependent on who is being asked.  There is no higher court to decide which perspective is correct or incorrect, at least in this country (so much as the Supreme Court has tried).

Citizens of the world, and states as the actors in the global international relations area, need to keep in mind perspectives of other peoples and other nations when crafting international policy within supranational organizations, such as with the Bretton Woods System.  Every rational theory should get its day in court, to be judged accordingly based on "accuracy."  When the strong theories remain (hopefully the strongest will survive), then can we move forward in discussing the "best" perspectives.  I feel that, given mankind's progression through history in discarding antiquated ideals and perspectives, this lofty idea is not totally out of reach.

I'll leave you with what I think is an appropriate quote from one of my favorite movies:

Badlands, 1973

"Listen to your parents and teachers.  They got a line on most things, so don't treat them like enemies. There's always a chance you could learn something.  Try to keep an open mind.  Try to understand the viewpoint of others.  Consider the minority opinion, but try to get along with the majority opinion once it's accepted.  Course Holly and I've had fun, even if it has been rushed, and... so far we're doing fine.  Hadn't got caught.  Excuse the grammar."

Reflection: A Tale of Two Identities

Speaking with the French diplomat was a very interesting way to learn, first-hand, the relationship between France, the US, and the rest of the world. However, his outlining of the problems that are beginning to challenge the "identity" of France were surprising, and also a little alarming. Integration seemed to be his key hurdle to removing the threat French identity, saying that the French people and government refrain from speaking about minorities or other ethnic communities in France, but instead do it through the individual. I feel that, given the (I don't want to say it, but it applies) radical reforms the Sarkozy government has sought to implement, or has implemented, all in the name of preserving this intangible "identity," there is little base in the argument that the French government does not want to label ethnic minorities as a whole instead of on a case-by-case basis. He also went on to explain that the burqa ban, which has overwhelmingly passed in both houses of the French parliament, is not infringing on religious liberty; rather, it is helping Islamic women integrate into French society. For a republic that has prided itself in its three sayings: "Liberte´, Egalite´, and Fraternite´," I feel that they are not living up to the standards of the second entry in their motto. Is a society integrated, and therefore, one would hope, equal, when one group of people has a freedom of religion and another does not? The diplomat also said that, because of elevated interdependence of European neighbors in the continent where many states make up the interconnected EU, being European is increasingly becoming more important than being French to those living in France. One would hope that such a theory would help erode "identity" issues within states, and decrease the challenges of immigration, particularly from the Islamic world. However, with similar "identity" referenda passing overwhelmingly by citizens in Switzerland, Belgium, even Sweden, one wonders if "becoming European" really would be all that much better, and gives an ominous warning to the United States for the present and future in a time when immigration reform has become a major issue on Capitol Hill.

In discussing immigration and integration, it's hard to leave out the US in this dilemma. On Friday we watched a few videos which, I feel, inaccurately depict the United States as a nation that has historically welcomed immigrants. In the videos supposedly "welcoming" newcoming foreigners to the United States, we see a nation that has nothing but cowboys, rolling hills and countrysides, and groups separated into their respective races. We didn't see interracial couples, or white and black people interacting with one another, we just see the "traditional" things about the US. It made me wonder, given all of the frankly racist policies that have gone into effect in Europe, as well as the fact that the video depicted a European resident (I think he was from France) entering through customs, is US customs supposed to be aiming toward potential European immigrants with these videos? I'm not a conspiracist or anything, but it was just a little odd. The video of the lunatic Republican (I realize that is redundant) running for some inconsequential (at least when it comes to immigration) position in Alabama also didn't give the US a very good name when it comes to welcoming all. It actually gives a foreigner looking in a very polarized outlook of the US. My dad is an immigrant from Sicily, and going to high school in Elizabeth, NJ, which is a very diverse city, he said that the schools seemed to be socially segregated. When I went with him to his high school reunion, simply believing he was hyperbolizing one his stories as always, I was amazed. The Italian kids (now men and women) would sit with the other Italians, the caucasian people with the other caucasian people, the hispanic people with the other hispanic people, and so on, with almost no interaction between any of the ethnic groups. It goes to show that the US is not alone in having an "identity" issue as in France. The problem is, our identity is so polarized, however more equal and religiously tolerant than France or other nations in Europe, whereas those nations are quick in instilling an "identity" agenda upon its minorities. The question remains, though: will our polarization mean that are we next up to the plate?

The Power (or lack thereof) of States

States in the past seemed to have the free reign to do whatever they pleased. Think about how many wars took place in the world (particularly Europe) between the 18th and mid 20th century. Nowadays, most wars are technically "conflicts," as war is not usually declared anymore, rather just waged; see Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. States certainly seem to act "better" than they did in the past, perhaps because of the globalized media documenting important situations around the world (although certainly not paying enough attention to some). Talking about an open, liberal society in the last few weeks, I think that states realize that it is in their best economic interest to comply with social norms set out by international organizations such as the UN, the IMF, the WTO, and other organizations which I'm sure also have acronyms.

However, if nations are striving to keep their moral high-road attitude abroad, does that necessarily mean that they're practicing what they preach at home? Look at the United States. I feel that a state should not allow its citizens to go to bed hungry, or poison its air and water, or deny medical coverage for those who are not sick enough to warrant care, or attack a country that was not a direct threat to its security. Yet the US certainly does not have the greatest track record dealing with these issues, as we've been reluctant to join the world in hunger prevention and environmental programs, however we have gained traction in the health care department. The US should probably have not gone into Iraq in the first place, but if the US wants to keep our moral standing in the world (however eroded it may be), we need to show that military force is only necessary in times of immediate danger. There also needs to be more of an effort among these "moral leader nations" to put pressure on developing countries who have poor human rights records or even genocide. I will admit, for the world to work more efficiently, all states need to respect the sovereignty of one another. But the question remains: are all states ready to work by global rules together?

State Department Reflection

Mr. Bame's dialogue concerning the workings of the State Department was actually really interesting, he was a well-prepared and affable speaker. It's not every day where we hear an official currently working in the US government, and his views on the major hotspots in the world. It was especially insightful when Mr. Bame discussed the notion of "hard" and "soft" power, and how those two have recently formed together into a general hybrid of "smart" power. He seemed to stress that a lot of tentative discussions in the world, regarding major foreign policy issues such as North Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation, all seem to depend on China. Mr. Bame said that the State Department regarded the Chinese as those who "do smart power in a very smart way," and that the Chinese are reluctant to act on major issues pressing securities of many nations until they feel they need to. As the US has no embassy in North Korea, we rely on the Chinese to convey and return information between the US and the PRK. Bame also mentioned that where and when the US and the Chinese have differences, they must try to address them transparently, for the sake of stability. This relation between the US and China is better than it used to be, according to Bame, but when the US has to finally make a stand on economic issues such as the devaluation of the Chinese currency or human rights violations in China, the current Chinese policy of acquiescence only in dire situations will not seem so noble.

Which brings me to my second point, regarding liberalism. Looking at our definitions of political liberalism, we see that China is the strongest nation-state in the world that does not practice the liberalism doctrine. And looking at our readings on IR liberalism, we see that it is in the interest of a liberal state to go to war with a non-liberal state. Does this mean a conflict with China is inevitable? Liberal states value wealth more than security, so it wouldn't appear to me that the US would be eager to threaten the nation that they are most economically interdependent on, and likewise China will not want to go to war with its biggest consumer base. Liberalism theory has warned against the "mutual vulnerabilities" that arise from interdependent relationships, particularly with an illiberal state. In a sense my question is this: Has liberalism become a partially defunct system due to globalization?

Should We "Rock the Vote"?

Voting certainly is a right that most citizens of all nations should enjoy, but where is the line between truly voting one's conscience and being an uninformed voter?  We have seen in recent months and elections that perhaps there is a problem with near-universal availability in voting among the adult population, most notably Alvin Greene's improbable and bizarre win in the South Carolina Senate primary earlier this summer (if you don't know who Alvin Greene is, take about 20 minutes and search him on YouTube, you won't regret it).

We all like to laugh at the amusing yet somewhat alarming people Jay Leno likes to interview on the streets of Los Angeles.  The people who can't tell the difference between Joe Biden and Abraham Lincoln.  Certainly people like this should be strongly discouraged from voting by any means possible (this also brings up a question of how to do that), but I can just guess that most of the people Leno finds on the streets don't normally vote anyway, so the dumb/oblivious/drunk voting is not a major problem -- yet.

New Jersey had a particularly interesting way of dealing with a part of this problem, we had a law on the books for the longest time that prohibited "idiots" and those who were "deemed insane," the former supposedly referring to mentally challenged people, the latter those in asylums and whatnot.  In 2007, however, an appeals court struck down the statute.  To me, this isn't that big of a deal; the problem mainly is that there are plenty of voters out there who are certainly of able mental capacity but are uninformed or misinformed.

It's hard to place blame on liberalism for this dilemma that faces one of the most successful liberal republics, as well as others around the world.  In Nation State, we saw that the founding liberal theorists were not, in fact, totally supportive of universal conscription.  "It should be noted that liberals were not, at first, democrats in the modern sense of that word.  Liberals came to accept democracy only reluctantly, because it was the best way to protect individual liberty from the growing power of the state" (107).  It seems that liberals actually were somewhat elitist when it came to voting; there had to be some reasons other than inherent confusion as to why the founding fathers chose a representative democratic system rather than a direct democracy system, and only allowed certain males to participate in elections.  John Stuart Mill seemed to hold the theory that only rational thinkers, which liberalism trumpeted, were worthy enough to cast a ballot.  However, I feel that Mill's theory is ill-conceived when looking in the long term; Mill, to me, seemed to have subscribed to a social-darwinism type of theory, where, in a liberal society, the rational thinkers would eventually become the majority, if not make up the entire populace.  Mill's "rational utopia" theory certainly is optimistic from a liberal's perspective, but it is not practical in a real-world sense, it just never got around to what Mill had hoped for.

Now, while I feel there should be a basic standard of knowledge among the voting population, I don't think that there should be a total, backdoor and frontdoor voter knowledge test for each citizen seeking suffrage.  I mean, certainly most of us in World Politics can name our senators, our governor, our congressperson, maybe even our local state legislators.  But how many of us can name our local town council-members?  The mayor of our town?  The basis for voting should be, in my opinion, somewhat comparable to the citizen tests that immigrants must pass in order to gain citizenship to the US.  Learning of the basic civics/history of the country you live in never hurt anybody.  If immigrants have to go through such a process to be able to vote in our elections, so should our own citizens.


Info on the (former) New Jersey Law: http://blog.nj.com/njv_joel_schwartzberg/2007/10/no_more_idiots_voting_in_nj.html