"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."

3 IR Theories, Compatible?

I don’t think we should do anything about the “incompatibility” between perspectives. Just like in politics, each side asserts that they are right. There is no clarity at all as to which side is really right, that is if either is right. The action that makes the most sense to make is to compromise that both sides can be correct. In international relations, countries can be said to utilize realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Because most countries’ actions aren’t controlled by one person, it is extremely difficult to appoint a single theory to a country’s actions.

Take the establishment of the U.S. currency as the de-facto world’s currency for example. The U.S. decided that the world should use the dollar as “international” currency. A realist could say the U.S. did this so other countries couldn’t just come in and say the world is using their currency, thereby asserting dominance. A liberal could say the U.S. did this so it could have an edge in trade and establish economic stability. A constructivist could say this happened because many countries wanted a common currency to make trade easier, and the U.S. currency was at the time the most prevalent. In actuality all three of these theories are probably true in some way. The U.S. interest and the world’s interest simply aligned. One theory can’t be said to be right and another to be wrong.

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.

My Perspective: Why Contradictory Perspectives Are Not True Perspectives, and Other Perspectives On Perspectives

There are few things more headache-inducing than trying to reconcile different perspectives on the world. If a person, or a group of people, or many generations of people analyze something in order to discover an explanation for it, and emerge with a certain perspective based on their analysis, they tend to declare that as far as they can see, their perspective is the truth. If more than one group of people goes through this process, and come up with different perspectives that contradict each other, the situation can feel unresolvable. How does one discuss or compromise on what one believes to be the truth? There is a reason why people consider religion and politics the two things you should never get into an argument about — both claim to know the truth. However, being too hard-headed about the supremacy of one perspective over all others is jumping to conclusions, not because the perspective may be wrong, but simply because the other perspectives may still be right. While different perspectives may seem to contradict one another, it does not mean that one is absolutely right and the others are fundamentally wrong. There are two rather simple explanations encompass all incompatibility between different perspectives: 1) they are all wrong, and 2) they are all parts of a larger truth.

The first explanation is rather unlikely in most cases, especially cases like the three different viewpoints of the Bretton Woods system, because the theories can be easily tested to show that there is at least some grain of truth to them (although some people may feel that only one theory is correct, this still would mean that not all of them are wrong.)The second explanation is more likely, and easier to discuss, because there are many ways of interpreting it. If conflicting theories are part of a larger truth, it would stand to reason that different perspectives could apply to different situations. If one theory explains one situation perfectly, but cannot explain another, while a second theory that is completely incompatible with the first theory explains another situation perfectly, but cannot explain the first situation, that is a clue that neither of these theories are complete or “perfect” explanations, and therefore, there must be a larger truth that would explain both situations still waiting undiscovered. All we can do is come up with more and more theories and perspectives until all the pieces of the puzzle are found.

The pesky issue that would inevitably arise from this seemingly comfortable theory is the question of how to find out when the whole truth is found. Sometimes, conflicting perspectives may be one-directional, with perspective number one insisting that perspective number two is just part of perspective number one, and perspective number two insisting that they absolutely are not, or even arguing that perspective number one is actually part of perspective number two. For example, a realist might argue that constructivism is just part of realism -- identities are simply a factor of the state’s interest, and changing identities are just a factor of fluctuations in the state’s position of power in the world. On the other hand, a constructivist might argue that realism is perfectly accurate -- it’s just one facet of constructivism, because a state that operates by the rules of realism is the product of a state whose identity is described as realist. Which one is right then? Or are they both wrong once more? The issues of differing perspectives never seems to reach a satisfactory conclusion. It is, after all, almost certain that someone out there thinks my self-confident explanation of contradictory perspectives is a complete load, and then we’re back to square one again.

Reflection: Les Identites

The visit to the French embassy was very different than what I had expected. The identity issues that were raised and that the diplomat elaborated upon were very intriguing, particularly the major non-historically-cultural differences between France and the U.S. For example, the French do not categorize their citizens into minority groups. This seems either simple or rather odd on the surface, but when you dig deeper to try to understand what exactly that would entail, a great many other questions come up. We in America are so used to racial and ethnic groups figuring in much of our discussion that we don’t even realize that not all cultures would feel it has to be there.

This is a new concept for me that I cannot quite wrap my had around. In nearly every class I am taking, race comes up, even if it isn’t an issue, and it has always been the case all through school. For example, during Macroeconomics, we were being lectured about unemployment and the labor force, and employment statistics about white versus black workers were shown several times. I never stopped to think that it wasn’t actually necessary for these statistics to be shown. In America, we consider it very important, but perhaps in France, discussing black vs. white employment statistics would be a very odd thing to do unless someone was being accused of discrimination. However, I don’t know if it is actually like that in France, because I have not been exposed to French culture, and if these things truly are a part of French identity, it would be hard for the French to discuss it, as they would take it for granted, just as Americans take so much race-related discussion for granted.

Another thing that interested me about the diplomat’s presentation was what he said about the burqa ban. I do not know if he was speaking his opinions, or simply had to be unbiased and neutral and simply report the government’s position, but his arguments seemed to be both rational and odd. He says that banning the burqa is not an infringement on religious rights because it helps Muslim French women integrate into French culture better. This is a very strange idea for me, as in America, we (or at least, the more enlightened and progressive part of “we”) protect minorities in a highly group-based way; and tend to consider religious freedom part of being an American, and, therefore, much more important than integration. However, by French standards, where the idea of a minority group does not have the same connotations as it has here, this may not be instinctively considered an infringement on rights by most French people. That being said, I feel that even considering the differences in French and American identity, it seems evident that the “Liberte” in “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” seems to be getting passed over in favor of "Fraternite" at this time.

P.S. Scott beat me to the good title.

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?

Reflection: French Embassy and Ads

It sure felt like its still summer when we visited the French Embassy. I took the Metro Bus for the first time that day. Compared to the subway it’s cheaper, but apparently unreliable.

I actually didn’t know that the land an embassy is situated on is under the jurisdiction of the embassy’s country. That made me wonder what would happen if someone wearing a burqa visited the French Embassy. The reasoning behind the recent French law banning burqas is that they want these Muslim women to assimilate into French society. While I don’t know if the law is justifiable, I do understand the logic that it is awkward to interact with others when they can only see your eyes. As the French ambassador stated, France doesn’t categorize people into racial or ethnic groups. I find this contrast with the U.S. very interesting. Here the Constitution mandates a census every 10 years, and people are asked what race(s) they identify themselves as. The one big statistic he told us was that France has the highest interracial marriage rate in the world. You would think the U.S. has the highest rate considering the sheer number of different groups of people and its status as the “melting pot.” France appears to be assimilating its immigrants better than the U.S.

The videos we watched in class about the portrayal of America surprised me. The video that immigrants see when they are entering the U.S. was more diverse in its inclusion of people that I thought it might be. The only major group I noticed lacking was plus-size Americans. The ad by the Republican candidate from Alabama shocked me. I would have thought that directly saying that the state should use only English would turn-off many voters. Apparently enough voters share that sentiment that marketers thought they should air it. Enforcing an English-only rule only creates tension between immigrants and those whose ancestors are immigrants. Immigrants to the U.S. are going to learn English whether or not the country forces them to. Knowing English is basically a requirement in moving up the social ladder. Immigrants will learn English to achieve the higher standard of living they moved here for.

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.

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?

States and their power today

Once upon a time a state could invade another state and suffer no negative consequences. Now that the eye of the world is over every single action a state takes, a state is much more restricted in what it can do, at least at first glance. Formal international laws are set mainly by the U.N. and informal ones by the first world countries. States are basically set to certain standards depending on how economically developed they are. Some of the rules that apply to all states are: not invading another state unless legitimately threatened, respecting other states’ rights, and basically staying out of other states’ affairs unless asked to intervene.

Countries must observe other nations’ air space, fish in their own waters or on international waters, and not hunt animals considered endangered. There are largely two ways a state can stay on the sidelines of some of these laws (in other words cheat). For instance the U.S., as the largest economic powerhouse of the world, can largely ignore environmental treaties while promoting environmentalism in the world at the same time. The U.S. didn’t sign the Kyoto Treaty in 1997 and 2001 because the treaty would hurt the U.S. the most economically. The biggest polluter at the time deciding to not sign on to an effort that looks to prevent an international issue is not something a powerless country could do.

Tradition or precedent also gives countries leeway in how they conduct their business. Suppose someone in a democratically governed country somehow overthrows the government and establishes a dictatorship. I doubt the international community would allow that dictator to keep control. The Korean War was over 50 years ago. North Korea seems to be doing fine. Japan continues to hunt whales in the name of research despite commercial whale hunting being illegal. Their reason for whaling is that it is part of their culture. The point here is that these countries can continue to do these things because it’s just part of their history.

States today still have plenty of loop holes to exploit to serve their self-interests.

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

Reflection: The State Department and Liberalism

I enjoyed the visit to the State Department very much. I was always interested in learning about how the U.S. interacts with other countries and acts internationally, and I was pleased that Mr. Bame knew how to address our questions so well. He seemed to be one of the best people I could have imagined for the post he has. He was very intelligent, had a great deal of raw knowledge and a complex understanding of international relations, and was both compassionate and ambitious but savvy about the problems and issues facing the U.S. and the world. His discussion of "smart power" in particular showed how flexibility and a grasp of each particular current situation, rather than blind following of theories, can lead to better outcomes.

Bame also spoke of China, and the differences between that country and the U.S. I thought back to the discussion of liberalism, and how many times, there is war between liberal and non-liberal countries. It is difficult to imagine a war with China, given our current relationship with it, but the theory of liberalism seems to indicate that it is possible or even probable that we will have some kind of confrontation with China in the future.

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?

Reflection: State Department and Voting

Who knew that a State Department Public Affairs official could be such a funny man? Visiting the State Department was pretty interesting. Compared to the DIA, the building was a lot more modest and the staff seemed a bit more relaxed. Negotiating with rather than spying on other countries must change the work atmosphere. It was really cool to learn that he himself saved lives over a decision he made when he was in the Middle East. He really seemed to know a lot about some countries and not so much about others. It must be tough and at the same time satisfying to have a job that impacts so many lives around the world.

The talk about whether or not voting uninformed is better or not than not voting was intriguing. People argued that voting uninformed may harm the society. Yet there should be no requirements to make sure that the voters are informed enough. A better question would be whether or not to lower the voting age from 18. I think by the time kids enter high school many have some idea of what their political views are. Those who care enough to vote probably have enough information and maturity to make an “informed” vote. If we let kids get behind the wheel when they turn 16, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to vote. Looking at history the voting age may eventually be lowered. Many people see high school students as not informed enough to be able to vote. Throughout history people thought African Americans and women were not informed enough to vote when they were. The U.S. has always been expanding the right to vote to include more of its citizens. However these groups fought hard for this right, and I just don’t see this happening with this demographic.

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.

A Vote…Better than Nothing

An uninformed vote is better than not voting at all. “Uninformed” could mean a wide range of things. You can call a voter who votes based solely on party lines uninformed because he may know nothing about the candidate other than the candidate’s party. An uninformed voter could also be someone who just didn’t do enough homework on the candidates than the voter in the next booth. However, there is no fair way to label a voter as informed or uninformed. A person who watches all the debates, rallies, and speeches may be just as informed as a person who read about the candidate on Wikipedia. We can never know the true reason why a voter voted the way he did. Because we have no way of judging and knowing whether a vote was “uninformed” or not, we should take any vote as a positive.

Take for example the 2008 presidential election. To some voters, Obama’s skin color mattered in their decisions. Whether or not votes went for or against him because of it, I think a vast majority would agree that a person’s skin color is not a legitimate factor in deciding whether or not a candidate should be elected. But for these voters it did matter subconsciously or not, and in a true liberal state their vote has just as much legitimacy as voters who voted on a candidate’s policies.

While we can’t judge a vote to be higher or lower value based on the voter’s knowledge, “uninformed” votes still contribute towards a liberal society. Not voting contributes nothing. Just the fact that you bothered to show up at the polling station or sent in that absentee ballot shows that you care enough about the government. The reason the voter decided on his vote should not matter for a liberal state to truly function the way it was supposed to be. Voting uninformed is better than not voting because you contributed towards the overall opinion of the people-the basis of the liberal state.

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

The "Uninformed" Voter

While I believe uninformed voting is hazardous to American politics, and largely responsible for incompetence, corruption, and high incumbency in Congress, it is not as dangerous as not voting at all. Even if people do not know enough to make good decisions, at least they are making decisions and letting their voices be heard when voting instead of passively allowing others to make a choice for them.

This may not sound very logical, and in my opinion, it is actually rather dangerous to the country’s wellbeing, but not as dangerous as silencing people completely. When voter turnout is less than 100%, the result is no longer the country as a whole deciding an election, but a sample of the country indicating what the country as a whole thinks. One of the most basic ideas in statistics is that the smaller the sample, the less representative it is of the general population from which it was taken. Add to that the fact that voter turnout is not a random sample, and the result becomes even more skewed. The part of the population that makes informed voting decisions have factors, whether they be political beliefs, self-interest, or something else, that distinguish the informed from the uninformed part of the population. The naked truth is this: uninformed people are part of the population too. They are a demographic, and deserve to have their voices heard, however unhelpful they may be.

Let us see what it would be like if uninformed people never bothered to vote. First of all, what exactly does “uninformed” entail? If someone is “informed”, what does that mean? And “informed” by who? How is it possible to know if being “informed” actually means “misinformed”? If someone who is considered uninformed about issues votes, then, assuming he or she is not simply flipping a coin to choose, he or she must have some basis for choosing a candidate, even if it seems an idiotic basis. If their basis is that a candidate has good hair, then their choice and reasoning should, being the choice of a free american citizen, be respected. Possibly the will of the American people is to fill Congress with good-haired people, and if that is the case, so be it. What grants anyone the authority to tell people that their will should be to fight crime? The reasons why a given issue is “important” is completely relative. How are we supposed to know if fighting crime is the right thing to do? On whose authority is “fighting crime” stamped as a basis for an “informed” vote? People were firmly convinced that the subjugation of african-americans was the right thing to do decades ago. Perhaps fighting crime is a disastrous and immoral thing to do, and good-haired senators will make America the greatest nation on earth. The only way to find out if this is true or not is to ask the American people, because since all people are equal, there is no one who has the authority to tell us what is a legitimate basis for voting. This method is self-correcting, and bends towards the truth, because the “truth” in the context of what is politically important, is relative, depending entirely on the people themselves. If the population decides good hair is a ridiculous basis for electing someone (and they and only they have the authority to decide this), then the uninformed person who votes on that basis will be an inconsequential drop in the bucket -- assuming, of course, that the bucket is big enough.

To Vote or Not to Vote...

That is the question. Is it better to vote uninformed or to not vote at all? Let me ask this question, is it better to drink spoiled milk or to not drink milk at all? To this second question, most people would answer that they would rather not drink milk at all than to drink spoiled milk and face the health consequences of ingesting rotten dairy. The same concept can be applied to the question of voting; it is better to not vote at all than to vote uninformed. Much like drinking spoiled milk, voting uninformed comes with risks and can corrupt a system.

When a voter walks into a voting booth, he is about to choose the person he wants to represent him in the government. Going to vote and knowing nothing about the candidates or current issues is not productive because the voter can not make an intelligent decision about who will best represent him in the government. Voting for whoever has the best looking name on the ballot can create a government that the population could potentially be unsatisfied with because voters were not familiar with the candidates' policy ideas and ideals. Like how drinking spoiled milk negatively affects your health, voting uninformed negatively affects government and mocks representative democracy.

It is best to educate yourself before going to vote so your vote is most effective and purposeful. Lessons of the day: Don't drink spoiled milk just for the sake of having some milk and don't vote uninformed just for the sake of voting.

The Spy Who Loved Re....alism (yeah that was bad)

The Spy Museum was an enlightening experience.  It was interesting to take a walk through of the history of espionage.  The US has come a long way from our first encounters with this tactic.  Seeing our successes (U-2 planes find nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962), and our failures (Francis Gary Powers being shot down and captured by the Soviet Union during a spy mission in 1960) really makes me wonder how the course of history may have been changed had we not taken advantage of this powerful method of intelligence.  What would President Obama, or generals fighting in Afghanistan use in their decision making deliberations if the CIA weren't constantly seeking out any new sources of information from spies on the ground in strategic areas across the world (although, in the case of the former president, perhaps he should have disregarded some of his intelligence)?  The intelligence industry is, in my opinion, one of our nation's greatest treasures that no one really ever thinks about, but yet, they're always watching out even if we're not.

The notion of states spying on one another is not a particularly new concept, but it has exponentially increased in recent decades, with the increased tensions between the US and the Soviet Union during the early-to-mid stages of the Cold War.  The Cold War, and its impact on foreign policies of states during that period can obviously be associated with our discussions about realism.  Realism seeks to promote the state's main focus (in their opinion): security.  The nuclear arms race, the feeling of nuclear war around every corner, and the relative silence of the United Nations during a lot of it seem to accurately portray the realist point of view on international relations (it can be argued, however, that some classical realists feel there should have been more than two major states/powers in the Cold War for it to truly portray the realist perspective).  The notion of survival of the fittest, that only one of the states, and thus, one ideology, will survive in the end would seem to breed such advantage-seeking tactics such as espionage.  It's worth noting, however, that beginning with the detente foreign policy between the US and the USSR in the 1970s, the dominant foreign policy mindset has moved away from realism and towards liberalism.  It makes me wonder, then, if spying is thus in decline, seeing that espionage seems to be at least partially synonymous with realism.  Liberalism, however, also seeks to promote the self-interest of a state, so as long as power is in a state's agenda, spying is a tactic worth holding onto.


Also, this is for Erin, The Father of Modern Realism indeed (I couldn't find the one with the caption on it :()

Reflection Week 3: Spying

The trip to the Spy museum was a fascinating experience. The amount of ingenuity and creativity that has been put into the art of espionage over the centuries was amazing. I saw bugs concealed in buttons, guns disguised as carved pipes and walking sticks, and all manner of techniques used by spies to hide in plain sight and exchange information without being seen. Some of the things were so outlandish I hadn’t ever really expected they were used in real life, things I had only ever seen in media like James Bond movies or The X-Files, and always thought were exaggerated. While some of the exhibits, especially the old relics from the cold war and world war II, were really entertaining, it was clear that a profession that governments put so much mental effort into must be a very important one.

I felt that the spy museum tied in well with our class’s recent discussions of Machiavelli and the nation-state. Spies are agents of the state, working for the state’s security above all else, and willing to use rather extreme means to achieve this end. The theory that the state’s physical survival is the undisputed first priority of any ruler connects to the role of spies very obviously. This, in combination with the rather unsettling exhibit on cyber-attacks, makes me wonder how much the ways states use to keep these priorities have changed over time.

Reflection on Spying

Going to the International Spy Museum, I learned about a new layer of history, the history of spying. It's amazing that even during the ancient Roman times, soldiers used cunning, secret ways to pass messages that contained information about war plans. Spy techniques began to develop over the years to include code deciphering devices and the use of weapons and cameras concealed in everyday items.

But what was very interesting was to see historical events through the events that happened in the spying world. Spying added a new angle to politics, a war that was behind the front lines, a struggle for information rather than for land or power, a game of intellect rather than a game of brute force.

My favorite part of the museum was the collection of posters from World War II, that warned U.S. citizen to be careful of what they talked about for fear of enemy spies getting a hold of the information. I had no idea that the concern about spies reached the public.

The last exhibit was also interesting. It was an exhibit on "cyber attacks," the use of technology to cause disruptions of electrical power that can shut down a whole nation's operations. Warfare has come a long way and it is now more difficult to know who is the enemy...

Reflection: Spying, Realism, Hegemony

The Spy Museum showed me that spy gadgets and tactics are not just for movies. It must be such an exhilarating feeling to infiltrate a place and sneak back with valuable intelligence. It was amusing to read a post saying that the stories of truly good spies cannot be described here because they were too sneaky to be caught holding information. The most memorable exhibit was the modern cyber spying. I did not know that hacking into the U.S. grid system and taking away electricity from the country was such a legitimate threat. It was scary to read theories on what could happen if the power went out for a vast region of the U.S. for a long time. Instead of taking shelter from bombings or being sent off to war, you could come in conflict with your next door neighbor because he stands between you and the food you need to survive.

I think realism is a pretty grim but accurate way of looking at the world. The “real” part of realism is true in the sense that human beings are naturally selfish. This translates to a global scale in that leaders push for legislation and treaties that favors their own countries. Selfishness is deemed by society to be a bad quality. However, realism forgets about human empathy. When a disaster strikes, many countries pour aid into the victim state, even though the well-being of that state does not immediately help out the donors.

I believe that the U.S. is a benevolent hegemon compared to previous empires. We do not necessarily have better morals, but through globalization it makes little sense to invade another country. If the U.S. wants to simply take over another state to acquire its resources, the world would likely stand up to the U.S. in the form of economic sanctions as punishment. I do not think U.S. hegemony will last very long. The world looks to be headed toward a multi-polar hegemony. China’s strong economic growth even in the face of a world in recession shows that it has the soft power it needs to eventually exert dominance similar to the U.S. As third-world countries continue to industrialize and gain power, the balance of power should shift more evenly among states.

Machiavelli's advice, good or bad?

I think the statement that a ruler must always be prepared to do whatever it takes to maintain his power is largely out of date for contemporary rulers. Most of today’s rulers do not fit Machiavelli’s definition of a ruler. “Rulers” today in first world countries are elected by the people and are expected to serve them. If a ruler followed Machiavelli’s advice today, he will most likely land in jail or be put out of power by the international community. Power today is also distributed among many people and nations instead of just one person. This distribution of power and interdependence between countries essentially keeps rulers in check. It is essentially impossible to do whatever it takes to stay in power in first world countries.

If we see the President of the United States as a contemporary ruler, then it is obvious that he should not take Machiavelli’s advice. If he told the military to invade another country just to show his citizens that he is strong and fearless, Congress would prevent it and impeach him. In countries where a ruler can be reelected, the ruler must make sure his citizens are satisfied with his style of government. What is cruel and what is not has changed considerably since Machiavelli’s time. A ruler like a president or prime minister is also limited to a certain number of years in office. That means no matter what he does, his power will not last as much as he may like. However if you just happen to be a ruler who has complete power and control over a state, then the question becomes a little subjective.

I think Machiavelli would describe North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong-il as a successful ruler. Jong-il has complete control of his state, and he has done quite a lot of things Machiavelli wants a good ruler to do. He has fortified his state in the form of a demilitarization zone. He plays the dual role of a fox and a lion. He builds nuclear weapons to keep other countries on their toes, but he doesn’t do enough to provoke a war. He has a military and population that follows him out of fear of imprisonment and torture. Even if Kim Jong-Il can be considered a successful ruler, his country suffers from severe poverty and lack of human rights. In the end following Machiavelli’s advice might make the ruler happy, but most definitely not the people who are ruled by him.

Reflection: News in Real Time

When visiting the Newseum in the past week, I realized the effect of the news media on a certain situation, and the true personality of the mass media. We have become accustomed to, especially in the age of more frequent allegations of media bias, associating media outlets like the major newspaper or television networks across the country with a small, unseen, and select board of editors deciding the news that reaches the world.  In the Newseum, however, I saw a different side of journalism.

In watching the 9/11 video, I was a bit taken aback about the degree journalists undertook their job, risking their own lives on that fateful morning in order to deliver the news to their eagerly awaiting audience.  Without them, we may have never even known, without being in Manhattan that morning, whether or not people had been jumping out of the buildings.  The journalist who had the grimacing duty of interviewing a local resident showed, to me at least, the personable side of journalism, as even the journalist could not hold back his emotions as he was interviewing the woman who was holding back tears.  In this rare occurrence, we see the media not as ratings-greedy conglomerates, but as ordinary people.

The personable effect of journalists also was evident in the exhibit on Hurricane Katrina.  It seemed as if the emotions of the journalists reflected with some accuracy the feelings of the nation during the hurricane and its aftermath.  The frustration was evident in their deliverance on clips from television that were given, such as how the local and state government did not have a prior plan to protect the city of New Orleans from such a catastrophe by installing new levees, and how there was little refuge within the city planned out beforehand, leading residents to be haphazardly housed in the Superdome for days.  There was also, particularly in the newspaper timeline exhibit, a larger frustration toward the federal government, as there was a sense of relief in the papers that announced that the federal aid to the region has arrived, but more of a feeling of distrust, wondering what took so long for the aid to arrive, while thousands of residents were trapped.  It was just an interesting take on actual power the media holds, as (rightful) constant criticism of the responsible governments involved over the disaster lead to decline the popularity of President Bush.

Reflection: The Importance of the News

Out of everything that has happened in World Politics this week, the visit to the Newseum was the event that stuck out the most for me. I have always been interested in journalism, and the way the 9/11 and Katrina exhibits captured the journalistic aspect of these events was fascinating. The exhibits themselves were impressive, although emotionally draining. The pictures and footage documenting the progression of the disaster at the world trade center brought me back to 2001, when I was only nine years old, seeing it on the evening news and not understanding as much as I do now, and not being able to see what changes that single event would cause. The journalists recording 9/11 seemed to be in a special class, not only experiencing the same feelings as everyone else, but also driven by a sense of duty to immortalize the day so that the country would never forget.

The Katrina exhibit was equally impressive, but the accompanying movie had a different tone than the 9/11 one. Whereas the 9/11 one focused on the stories of journalists documenting September 11th, the Katrina one was more focused on the journalists’ frustration with the government and the rest of the world, and a recurring theme was that they felt like they were the only people outside New Orleans who could understand the seriousness of the situation. Like 9/11, journalists covering Katrina seemed to be sharing a special kind of grief experienced only by them, self-styling themselves as the primary advocates of the victims. However, unlike 9/11, in which journalists were proud of their work in capturing that day, at Katrina, the journalists seemed disappointed in themselves for not being able to communicate sufficiently.

These exhibits, combined with the impact of the mostly horrific gallery of Pulitzer-winning photographs, and the stressing of fundamental principles and ideas on the First Amendment walk, really brought home to me both the importance and influence of mass communication in the modern world.

Reflection: Photos and soccer

The one event that really struck me this week happened when we visited the Newseum. The Pulitzer photos showed me how much a single photo can describe an action or situation. The photo that will last in my memory forever is the one showing a vulture waiting for a starving African child to die. The child didn’t even have a family that cared for him enough to at least shoo away the bird let alone feed him. The description said that the photographer later committed suicide over the guilt of not saving the child. Knowing that you could have saved a person is a tough burden to bear. I also can’t forget a photo of children watching a person who was lynched about to be smashed by a chair. Some of them were laughing at the victim. The world is a scary place.

On a brighter note, going to my first soccer game was pretty exciting. The soccer culture in the U.S. we learned in class really did seem to apply here. The hooligans and hard-core fans for D.C. United were on one side of the stadium. The Columbus Crew hooligans surprisingly were separated from them on the second level, cut off from most interactions with the home team. The stadium was nowhere near full capacity, and from what I can tell the crowd had many students and immigrants. A small group of hooligans where we sat tried to get everyone to chant and cheer for the team. Compare this to a baseball game I went to (Phillies): packed stadium, everyone wore a team shirt, and many older fans. Now to be fair these are two different cities, so to make a fair comparison I should go to a Nationals game. The results would probably be similar though.

P.S. I think the event staff and security guards are there to protect the refs, not the opposing team.

Reflection on the NEWS

Visiting the Newseum was a very powerful and interesting experience. The museum shows how journalism impacted certain events in history or how it was impacted by historical events.

I found the "Covering Katrina" exhibit to be very impressive. It was very interesting to see how the media became the nation's eyes and ears during the storm. The photos journalist took of the destruction the storm had caused on the Gulf Coast and people stranded on rooftops waiting to be rescued portrayed the horrific conditions in which the storm had left the coast in.

Other pictures and news clips showed masses of people crowded in and outside the New Orleans Convention Center for refuge. Newspapers displayed people "looting" stores for food and other items and reporters spoke of break outs of violence. Pictures and reporters' descriptions of the terrible conditions at the convention center spurred questioning about the absence of national help. At this point, newspapers became advocates for those affected by the storm, running headlines such as "Help Us Now" with pictures of people begging for help and printing stories that asked why these people were not receiving help they needed. Newspapers also provided information to those who were trapped at the convention center.

Journalist covering the storm were also affected. They were faced with the decision to cover the story or to help the people they were photographing. Many did put their cameras down and helped those who were stranded. One journalist said "We are human beings first, then journalists second."

It was amazing to see how the media was able to bring such attention and information to the areas that were secluded by the storm, how newspaper writers became advocates for relief, and how journalists offered another team of people to help those in need.

Sovereignty in the West Bank

One of the more contentious issues right now in world news is the developing talks between the Israeli government and the Palestinian National Authority.  The tensions between the two groups have been well documented during several pain-staking peace negotiations throughout the years.  One of the criteria Opello and Rosow give us for the definition of sovereignty is that the nation state has "sovereignty over its territory, which means that its jurisdiction is theoretically exclusive of outside interference by other nation-states or entities."  The governing body of Palestine doesn't enjoy this inherent right of nation-statehood, as over the decades since Israel's formation in 1948, Palestinian land has been subjected to territorial seizing or heavy surveillance by Israeli forces.

Now, Israel has every right to defend its land and its people, and this includes a reasonable right to overtake land, as any nation would, they feel will provide a "buffer-zone" for defenses.  I'm not against Israel, and that's not what I'm trying to get at in this blog post.  The way things seem to work over there though seems to be that the Palestinian Authority cannot even announce plans to do anything without fear of bombs raining through the city skies.  Imagine if that happened here.  In this, it seems that the Palestinian Authority never gets around to wielding the same amount of power over their territory, and to act for the common good of all its people, as other nation-states do, as it must always be on high alert of Israeli response.  The Palestinian Authority has to divert much of its resources into defensive (and yes, unfortunately some offensive) spending, that it slowly erodes the capacity to govern effectively for all its citizens throughout the territory

And how can the Palestinians ever get around to having any sort of economic power when much of the western world does not even fully recognize its statehood?


Palestine should become a sovereign nation-state, and I hope this is eventually what solution becomes of the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the upcoming talks.  It just doesn't make sense to have one side be denied its right to join the world on the level of nation-statehood, because it lacks resources to assert its authority over its territory due to fear, and it doesn't make sense for the fighting to continue, when it can be solved with a solution both sides can agree on (many Israelis will tell you they would love to have a Palestinian state, so it can finally be accountable).

I'll leave you with a quote from Franklin Roosevelt:


The fourth is freedom from fear - which, when translated into world terms, means a world wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical agression against any neighbor - anywhere in the world.

A Look Towards Greenland and Its Prospective Sovereignty

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and Denmark has granted Greenland the right of home rule.

Greenland is governed by its own "parliamentary democracy within a constitutional monarchy," but Denmark makes the decisions in regards to foreign policy and military affairs (The World Factbook, CIA). Two years ago, residents of Greenland voted for greater independence from Denmark and were given more freedom in governing certain aspects of the territory. Greenlandic was also made the official language of the island and the islanders were legally recognized as a independent people (Spiegel).

The islanders hope that the oil and mineral supply contained under the ice surrounding the area will boost Greenland's economy, largely based on the fishing industry, and allow the island to be self-sustaining (Spiegel). Although it may seem that Greenland is well on the road to full sovereignty, it is still very dependent on Denmark's subsidies, its unemployment rate is high, the education system is frail, the political parties are corrupt, and the island is plagued with social problems like alcoholism and suicide (Spiegal). Also, Greenland does not have a military; defense is Denmark's responsibility.

Some of these problems can be correlated to the dependence on Denmark. Greenland has no need for a military because Denmark will defend it in case of attack. If Greenland were to become independent it would have to create a military for its protection as well as provide the things that Denmark was providing for itself. It seems as though a territory dependent on another country is put at a disadvantage in relation to the rest of the world. These dependent territory's have insufficient infrastructure and resources because they look to their "owner" countries for supplies and fortifications of infrastructure. If Greenland, which can be described as a nation-state, were to become sovereign, it would be forced to strengthen its infrastructure in order to survive. In other words, sovereignty could be a means to drive development.

In the end, Denmark may have the power and authority to grant Greenland totally autonomy, but, unfortunately, Greenland may not have the capacity to be as such.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gl.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,592880,00.html