An Addendum to Friday's Class.

Today’s discussion was very thought-provoking, I’m sure we’ll all agree. There were a couple of issues left that I would have liked to have commented on, but couldn’t due to time constraints.

First of all, with regards to the exact parameters of what exactly falls into the category of world politics, I agree with the general consensus that most everything easily has the potential to impact the entire world. My assertion that a difference exists between national and international affairs was not meant to exclude seemingly internal events and conditions. Rather, I believe that defining an issue as an internal affair, rather than an international one, is yet another tool used by diplomats to respond to such issues. The D.C. riots, for example, very well may have had global implications that we are not aware of, and I’m sure their influence extended beyond the confines of the city and the country. However, if one were unable to find an outward effect of these riots, they could be written off as an “internal social crisis” and ignored by diplomats and politicians. This would only allow such an issue to fester, until it eventually boils over into a major political concern.

A similar “internal affairs” situation recently took place in Zimbabwe, where controversy over the country’s “democratic elections” was a point of contention throughout the world. Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, faced a serious challenge to his presidency by rival Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change. He took covert, but nonetheless obvious, measures to retain his presidency. These consisted mainly of rigging ballot stations, threatening opposition supporters, and arresting opposition leaders. Many throughout the world called for Thabo Mbeki, president of the considerably more stable and democratic South Africa, to intervene and support fair democratic principles. However, President Mbeki told the world that he regarded the dispute as a matter of Zimbabwe’s internal political system, and that it was not his place to get directly involved. The most he could do, he said, was to facilitate talks between the two factions. Now, whether or not it was “moral” to stay neutral is questionable, but it was nonetheless a product of the diplomatic strategy of containment, an effort to limit the troubles within one nation’s borders. In this sense, the concept of the state remains the primary character in world politics: the leaders involved vie for control of a particular nation as a whole, regional national leaders struggle to keep the blowback from entering their borders, and outside powers decry the entire situation and direct whatever resources they can towards or away from the country in question (sanctions would be one example of this).

Despite the growing influence of private interests and international/supranational organizations, the individual state remains the primary building block of world politics. And as for a precise definition of what does and doesn’t count as world politics, I would ultimately argue that the issue is irrelevant. World politics is a business conducted between people, who, in dealing with the issues before them, should be free to take into consideration any factor that may affect their argument. In short, there should not be imposed on them any limitation as to what constitutes a “world affair”, because any matter can quickly balloon to that level of importance.

As a final note, I wanted to quickly address another matter that was brought up in class. Someone (Jasmine, I think?) mentioned the Danish newspaper controversy, and the worldwide riots among Muslims. Later, PTJ asked the question “What economical gain is there to the Muslims rioting?” This reminded me of a point I had made in my previous blog entry, about modern diplomatic values versus traditional ones. Today, of course, that question seems like a perfectly logical one: decisions by those in power reflect self-interest, and those in power always try to make the most economical or politically beneficial decision. However, the riots proved that there are still groups that favor theological concerns over all else. Of course there was no economic benefit to such behavior, nor was it good publicity. The rioters were driven instead by a true belief that their actions were in accordance with the will of God, and the opinions of the rest of the world were irrelevant in comparison. These people still operate under a traditionalist mindset, and have not yet embraced western ideas of secularism and free speech in the face of religion. It is a belief that has steadily been dying out for the last several hundred years, but its recent resurgence amid vocal support in some areas of the world has caused bewilderment and concern among intellectuals and strategists.

That’s all for now. As a side note, as much as I love Antonio Iparralde, I also wish I could have chosen “President Camacho” as an alias. If you don’t know who that is, I suggest you watch the movie “Idiocracy”. Like right now. Here’s an idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJnf5tkfoo.

I would like to further our class discussion on the significance of a national event to world politics, such as we were discussing with the Washington DC riot of 1968. The summer before the USA had experienced the race riots of Detroit. The civil rights, feminist and anti-Vietnam movements were in full swing throughout the sixties. These racial tensions and proactive movements were not isolated in America alone. College students in France staged anti-Vietnam protests, while Simone Beauvoir rallied women across the world with her writing.
I don't believe that all national events/local concerns link themselves directly to world politics; however, many movements (more each day with the help of globalization) cut across borders and affect many countries. When one country acts, either to accommodate or hinder a movement this action can easily set a precedent, cause further conflict, or upset whatever system that movement is currently operating within. When the consequences do rebound across that country's borders a "world politics" situation is created.
International movements have their own momentum and authority that while locally subjected to a nation-state's rules, as a whole carries some power in the global political playground. This power varies greatly from movement to movement but I don't believe it can be wholly disregarded as one more player to complicate the world politics network.
original post-pollybaker.blogspot.com/

Intimidated

To be very honest, I was more than a little intimidated in class this past Friday. Although the discussion was interesting and heated, I felt that I had little to contribute compared to some of my fellow classmates. Each argument triggered my own personal opinions to constantly pop up in my mind, however, I rarely wanted to vocalize these thoughts since they seemed so juvenile compared to the likes of Perry’s, Nate’s, and Adam’s extensive responses. As they would list historical facts about Hamas, I would try and figure out what exactly Hamas was… Please don’t laugh. I know I’m really putting myself out there by being this honest about what I don’t know yet, but I figure it’s better to be honest then risk sounding ignorant. I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable when it comes to world politics, but, after Friday’s class, I’m beginning to seriously doubt that assumption. I have complete confidence in the validity of my own opinions, but I fear that, at least in this genre, they are based more on emotion than cold hard facts

Additionally, I felt that class was spent answering two similar, but very different, questions: “What is world politics?” and “What is the biggest issue in world politics?” The conversation would constantly switch back and forth between proclaiming something as the “biggest issue” and then questioning, “but is that even world politics?” If we don’t even know what world politics is then how can we state that one issue is more important than the next?  I would have liked to say in class that, “I think it’s all relative,” but I refrained for I feel as though most would have rejected the theory as too broad, philosophical, or hard to tackle. I attempted to explain myself in my first blog entry by noting that “the biggest issue” in world politics is not a singular issue for it is affected by hundreds of other world problems as well. For instance, how can the poor worry about global warming when they are dying of dehydration and hunger? Surprisingly I feel that the class discussion proved my theory right. Even though Professor Jackson had already said that there was no one right answer to this question, students felt passionate in that their answer was best and most appropriate. Isn’t that the precise reason we have world politics in the first place? No one can agree on which world issue is most legitimate and of more importance, thus we encounter conflict. I guess that’s why I had so little to say in class, for I didn’t have any one specific answer as to which problem was above the rest and I never felt that anyone’s opinion was outright wrong. 

Views on Class Discussion #1

In the seemingly all-encompassing field of World Politics, there are numerous relationships that need to be taken into account. The class brought up many of these relationships: state-to-state (Catherine), people-to-people (Andrew), and business-to-business (Michelle), and all made very good points. However, I felt that we just touched on the relationship between businesses and states, and I would like to discuss how states utilize private corporations for nearly every aspect of government operations. I believe world politics in the future will increasingly entail relations between the public and private sectors to achieve a specific aim. Indeed, relationships such as these have already been important around the world.
The government hires contractors from a wide variety of corporations to provide services. From the electricians who run the wire through government buildings to the military contractors in Iraq, the private sector is becoming increasingly involved in day-to-day government operations. The Bush administration has shown that it believes the future of government involves substantial private involvement. Some see private corporations as a low-liability way for the government to work around its own red tape in a timely, cost-effective manner.
While this all sounds good, the unfortunate fact is sometimes in an effort to cut costs or establish their corporations as a cut above the rest, negative consequences harm Americans or damage our image in the world. A couple of examples are the electrical work on military bases by KBR, a branch of Halliburton, where faulty wiring in the showers of many bases caused injury, and even death, to American soldiers. I don’t mean to get all preachy, but soldiers in Iraq have enough to worry about without the fear of being killed by their shower. Another example of private-sector-gone-wrong is Blackwater Security and how military contracting firms like it have damaged the image of the United States across the world. The contractors have done many things to cast themselves as gung-ho cowboys with little respect for the Iraqis or their culture. From running Iraqi cars off the road to shooting unarmed civilians, Blackwater has a documented list of offenses that, due to their private-sector status, will never be brought to trial. “Blackwater is also a neoconservative Evangelical organization that has a faith in Jesus Christ as one of the major values of their company” (Scahill, Blackwater). The hiring of a radical group such as Blackwater Security deepens Iraqi resentment of an invasion it sees as imperialist and a threat to their way of life.
The private sector is rapidly having a larger role in government, with both positive and negative effects. This is a developing trend I would love for the class to discuss in-depth, as government when we graduate will probably be even more concentrated in the private sector than it is now, and I would like to hear diverse viewpoints on what this means for the future of our country.

The 'most important' issue in world politics.

The vague question will yield very different, very specific answers. They'll all be right, too. We all have compassion for people in adversarial situations. A desire to right the wrong in the world, or whatevs.

In order to even theoretically 'right the wrong' we take from those benefiting and giving to those at a disadvantage. It creates an endless circle of interest groups fighting for opposite causes. Everyone can't win.

I suppose our compassion is the flaw. Instead of letting nature fight it out in a Darwin style, we try to make things politically correct and universally acceptable. Paradoxically, it's unnatural yet it's evolution.

We're not robots; devoid of emotion. We care about those at a disadvantage. The vicious interest group circle will never end, but everyone is okay with that.

Personally, my number one issue is universal rights. There are certain rights that all humans deserve, regardless of where they were born, what crimes the committed, or any other characteristic used to segregate people.

People should have the right to: not fear their government, access the news, accessible and affordable literacy classes, and a myriad of other things we take for granted.

-Maggy
(If my rhetoric, style, or vocabulary particularly bothers any of you, I can beef this whole blog writing thing up a bit.)

Full Circle

"What is the most important issue in world politics?”

I have never been able to tackle a broad question, such as this one, with any sort of ease; it is simply too difficult to pinpoint any one single issue as most important. In an ever-changing world and society, not only do pressing new issues surface every day, but each of these issues, both new and old, are forever interconnected. Thus, to say one problem is more important than the other would be much too easy, and much too ignorant, of an answer.

My response to this question was almost “global warming.” That is, until I realized that I had thought of this by default rather than passionately believing it to be true. Don’t get me wrong – I am a devout believer that unless the entire world starts living greener very soon and very quickly, mother nature will slowly deteriorate, bringing humanity down with it. This being said, many parts of the world are too poverty stricken and disease ridden to even begin to care about living green. Citizens in third world countries have enough trouble as it is trying to provide food, water, and shelter for their families, children, and, not to mention, their selves. If these citizens do not know if they will be alive next week, for there is a good chance they will starve to death or catch a deadly disease, how can anyone expect them to think about the future of our environment? For the impoverished, rather than worrying about the cleanliness of the air that they breathe, their main concern is that they will continue to breathe at all.

It’s impossible to focus on one world issue without relating it to all the others. This concept applies to an endless list of world problems, for instance, the debate about China. The United States condemns China for its treatment of Chinese citizens, yet, we as a nation depend on their exports; without them, cost of living in the US would increase dramatically. Furthermore, you can also throw into the mix that China is now the leading producer of harmful CO2 emissions, bringing this argument full circle. When seeking a solution for the multiple problems in China, you now have to attempt to resolve issues concerning human rights, economic success, environmental sustainability, and survival.

When this question was assigned, I thought it would help to sort out my thoughts on world politics. I assumed that I would be able to designate one issue as above the others in significance, but instead I have just added to my own personal frustration and confusion pertaining to both the question and the world’s problems. However, I do stand resolute in my opinion that the world's turmoil is all interconnected and most important as a whole rather than divided up into subgroups. I hope to flush out this topic in more depth in future posts.  

The Central Goal of Diplomacy

Question: What is the most important aspect of World Politics?

It seems as though I never can quite prepare myself to answer a question like this. To ask for such a blunt statement, that being the single most important facet of an entire field of knowledge, seems almost impossible given that the field itself has taken centuries to develop, attracting the best and brightest minds who, of anyone, should have found the answer to such a problem before. It doesn’t help that the field in question happens to be the one which most of us, me included, have chosen to devote the best years of our lives to, one which we must take absolutely seriously, and as such cannot simply brush off with a grand generalization as we would any other field. No, in order to pinpoint the single most important aspect of World Politics, we must attempt to answer such a root question with a similarly root explanation. Anything less would serve to minimize the extraordinary scope of the field and threatens to take away the intrigue with world affairs that has led us to this point. As the business of world politics is done between the world’s independent states, the first question, as I see it, is “What is a state?”

The definition of a state itself is not universally agreed upon. Though it generally consists of a tract of land and its corresponding independent governing body, the concept of diplomatic recognition tears this asunder. Any independent power is allowed to recognize whichever states they choose, regardless of political reality. Most widely-recognized countries, including the United Nations organization, recognize at least 193 independent states. However, there exist many cases where a piece of land under de-facto control of a rival government is recognized only by a small number of other bodies. Turkey is the only universally-recognized country to recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, despite the fact that it functions as if it were independent. A similar situation now exists in the Caucasus region, where Russia now officially recognizes Abkhazia and South Ossetia, despite the rest of the world’s refusal to do so. The countries of the world seem split on the issue of whether or not to recognize Kosovo as independent, regardless of who is actually in charge in Pristina. Louis XIV of France famously recognized himself as a state. I personally recognize over 800 independent countries, despite the disconnect from what most would deem the political reality. Yet, despite what may or may not actually exist in these places, to lack international recognition is to also lack any automatic leverage in world affairs. Without any partners with which to trade or communicate, the concept of foreign relations is rendered useless.

Of course, the ideological grounds on which a state is to be created must be fertile enough to garner international support. They generally fall into one of a few categories, and study of each reveals much about the priorities of those who recognize them. The first ideology supporting independence comes from a legal standpoint. Those in this category take the view that the state is essentially a legal entity, and can only be modified through appropriate treaties and charters. Such believers in this idea include the United Nations. When a problem of sovereignty is presented to the United Nations, the dispute is usually settled in accordance with past treaties and agreements. While this is probably the right direction to take, it often ignores the passions of the groups involved, which is the basis of the second ideology. The second ideology of separatism involves ethno-cultural differences, which have historically been the vehicles of state creation. This is the view that tends to be taken by those without the political juice, that countries are expressions of cultural identity. And while there is historical truth to that, it seems that the world’s governing bodies have largely abandoned this view in favor of the first, much to the chagrin of separatist groups worldwide.

These two competing theories represent a clash of ideology that has been consistently present since the dawn of time: modernity vs. tradition. The world’s major governments, including the United Nations, have all adopted the view that a state is a legal and sovereign entity charged with caring for its citizens and appropriating funds for the betterment of their societies (though in practice, this has not always been the case). Despite changes in demographics, a state’s borders tend to remain the same, since the idea of defining a state based solely on it’s resident ethnic group could be taken as racism. This often conflicts with the traditional view, that states represent a separate cultural group and serve to affirm its place in the world. On more than one occasion, these ideologies have squared off against each other. Take the Balkans, for example. When Bosnia-Herzegovina was embroiled in war, the Bosniaks, the Croats, and the Serbs were at each others throats, with each accusing the others of genocide. The Bosnian Serbs made national heroes out of men like Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who ordered the killing of Bosniak civilians. It would, therefore, seem unthinkable for these three groups to live together in the same country. However, the United Nations, as well as most of its member states, was determined to keep Bosnia-Herzegovina as a single territorial unit, for fear that separation would only enhance the cause of other separatist regions. After the Dayton Peace Accords, Bosnia-Herzegovina remained a single country, but was split internally into two completely autonomous entities (including one small region in both places at once), with each of the three ethnic groups abiding by its own laws. Although peace has so far been more or less kept, it seems silly to allow for such extensive autonomy without allowing straightforward separation. Alternatively, in nearby Kosovo, the opposite happened: rather than operate entirely within the legal system, Kosovo was allowed to secede outright from Serbia. This is, of course, understandable; with a 9:1 Albanian-to-Serbian ratio, and a history of violence between the two groups, separation seemed like a necessity. However, in the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo had a similar status to other regions that have made attempts at independence, and granting it to Kosovo was, admittedly, a breach in existing protocol. For this new precedent to be accepted, a new legal statute must be created, which will undoubtedly have major effects on politics worldwide.

This rambling explanation ultimately brings me to what I believe is the most important aspect of World Politics: lending an authoritative legal framework to organized world powers, with the eventual purpose of establishing and facilitating channels of communication through which ends can be achieved without resorting to force. By granting a certain quality of legitimacy to the world’s greatest powers, politicians have been able to effectively transcend the anarchy which had formerly been the rule of law. Now that the players have been confirmed, relations between them can be conducted on multilateral terms, and this, in and of itself, is what world politics is all about.

Improving the Quality of Living in the Third World: The Most Important Goal of World Politics

It has been said that the mark of a great nation is how well it takes care of its poorest citizens. I see a lot of truth in that statement, but find it a modest goal given the communications technology and distribution systems of the modern era. Now, it is possible for middle class citizens of developed nations to impact the lives of entrepreneurs in the third world through private microcredit foundations such as www.kiva.org. Private nonprofits have long been at the forefront of improving the standard of living in the most remote corners of the globe, but the fairly new concept of microcredit, small loans to individuals in developing nations, has taken humanitarian support to a new, more personal level that brings out the best in human compassion and responsibility. Improving the standard of living around the world is the single most important aspect of world politics.
Improving living conditions of the worlds poorest by allowing them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is in my mind the answer to the massive gap between living conditions in the most developed nations and those of the third world. The website http://www.kiva.org/ is a leading figure in the field of microcredit. The process for lending is fairly simple; a lender browses the site, where he or she can view a list of potential borrowers. Each profile states the amount of the loan requested, what the money will be used for, the type of repayment, and kiva provides a risk assessment of the borrower. The lender can contribute anywhere from $25 or more to a borrower, which the borrower will use to build or expand their business. The remarkable thing about kiva.org and other microcredit sites like it are the high rate of repayment on the loans. The percent of borrowers that default on the loans are so low; lenders consider microcredit a secure investment, allowing the industry to flourish.
Perhaps more important is what the loan does for the borrower, not only financially, but psychologically. Naturally, the fact that they can attain capital at affordable interest rates is a big appeal; as is the financial security attained through the growth of their business; but this in my opinion is not at the heart of the matter. They gain a sense of self-worth that I feel leads to the high rate of successful repayment from kiva borrowers. They understand as well as anyone that a loan is a calculated risk, and that the lenders have put their faith and part of their livelihoods into seeing them succeed. This sense of responsibility has enabled borrowers not only to successful repay their loans, but has had a snowball effect on their communities. The newfound prosperity of local business stimulates local economies and provides jobs and community improvements, improving the community’s quality of life.
The most important element of world politics is how to bridge the gap between living conditions in the world’s wealthiest and poorest nations. I believe small loans, not charity, is the answer. Microloans build trust between diverse peoples and allow for economic development around the globe. Currently, microcredit is a private enterprise, but I believe if done correctly, governments can make a tremendous impact in the lives of those in developing nations. In the past, the problem with humanitarian aid in improving living conditions is that it was administered from one government to another. Corrupt officials skimmed money intended for medical supplies, bureaucracy allowed food aid to rot in warehouses, and the third world has suffered despite tremendous amounts of money devoted to aiding and improving life in their countries. Governments of wealthy nations must not content themselves to blindly throw money at the world’s problems; it must deal through the individual borrowers directly. Borrowers should go through an application process, similar to applications for visas, green cards, etc. The government should hire many new State Department employees to assess the risk for the prospective loans and determine if the potential borrower is eligible for the loan. In the case of the United States, it can greatly improve relations between people and nations. People around the world know the United States is rich and powerful, but how many consider the United States trustworthy or compassionate? I believe it is in the best interest of this nation to invest in individuals in developing regions. I think few people would consider the quality of life in Sub-Saharan Africa superior to that of the United States and western Europe, but I hope that through a little money and a little faith, we can enable people around the world to live with dignity and comfort.