Let's all just pow wow

Based on our perceptions and our identity we all have different observations.

"Suppose a person present with me, who advances propositions, to which I do not assent, that Caesar dy'd in his bed, that silver is more fusible than lead, or mercury heavier than gold; 'tis evident, that notwithstanding my incredulity, I clearly understand his meaning, and form all the same ideas, which he forms. My imagination is endow'd with the same powers as his; nor is it possible for him to conceive any idea, which I cannot conceive; or conjoin any, which I cannot conjoin. I therefor ask, Wherin consists the difference betwixt believing and disbelieving any proposition?"
On Belief - David Hume

This is a very open-minded perspective. I'd like to think we all are open to understanding each other's beliefs, but at some levels we aren't. Last class we all threw out our ideas and accepted them diplomatically. We all accepted them with out really analyzing them. We zoned out. We took the safe route. I wish we argued with each other during class. In a very epistemological sense, not to create Leonard 7 animosity. I'm interested to see where the core of each of our beliefs exists. Not a generic 'I believe ... because it's the right thing to do', but what policies we deeply care about, and how our auxillary beliefs stem from there.

The state department, briefly, was interesting as everyone has said. I appreciated learning what really goes on there, but I wouldn't be able to deal with the layers of bureaucracy.

Maintaining the Impartiality of Non-Governmental Organizations

This weekend’s post isn’t going to be much of a reflection. Everything that needed to be said on the alien topic was more or less covered in class in Friday. So instead, I’ll address an interesting story I happened across today.

According to Strategypage, an Italian NGO worker in Sri Lanka has quit the organization to fight for the Tamil Tigers. This came as a surprise to me, since the worker was not a native of the region and seemed to have little stake in the battle there. Additionally, NGOs, especially those affiliated with the U.N., pride themselves on their neutrality, and specifically recruit members from neutral countries. Why would a person from a well-off Western country go off to join a third-world guerilla war? Could it be that the kind of person who is drawn to NGO work can be more susceptible to propaganda from one side? It’s not that I’m suggesting that possibility, but certainly we don’t see this kind of ideological pitfall amongst those who remain ambivalent towards this or any such situation. It is the quality of a person who would willingly leave the comfort of their home to help ease a situation abroad that could fuel their decision to take sides once they see a hint of polarity.

And yet, it is precisely a lack of that quality which explains the inability of the United States to consolidate a working hegemony in worldwide affairs. Theodore Roosevelt once lamented that the United States “lacked the stomach for an empire”. In order to gain the high ground in world affairs, you sometimes must take heavy losses in order to assert your strength. The United States has always had a problem taking heavy losses. Even during World Wars I and II, American casualty rates lagged far behind those of Russia, Germany, and China. The greatest problem with America’s military today is its inability to withstand losses. The average American is not in tune with the norms of warfare, due mainly to the fact that war has never been a norm in the region. That, along with the comfortable lifestyle afforded by being the world’s wealthiest nation, creates a very infertile ground for breeding soldiers, especially given that a good portion of the army’s current ranks have joined mainly for education and financial benefits. Without an army that can rely on the zeal of the individual soldier, the United States cannot effectively wage a protracted offensive war.

Getting back to my original topic of NGOs, I was reminded of the rescue in early July of Ingrid Betancourt and fourteen others from FARC by the Colombian military. In this instance, the symbol of the International Red Cross was used to fool the captors into allowing the hostages to be taken by them. Since this event, a number of questions have been brought up regarding the trustworthiness of those under the Red Cross banner. It is illegal under international law to falsely use the markings of such an organization for military purposes, and this breach of the law, whether it was justified or not, puts at risk the trust afforded to these groups. When the objectivity and legitimacy of NGOs is put at risk, they lose their ability to function effectively, and their own members may be put at risk.

We don't know

I think what has remained the most imprinted in my mind after our Friday discussion, and has been particularly revived after reading Ziggy’s post is that we don’t know. Life is all about personal perception of what is occurring around and to us and when we interact with people we mostly don’t have any understanding of who and what they are, we don’t know. There is a whole lot of faith involved with human interaction. We as a species generally don’t claim telepathic powers and while empathy and imagination can give us some clue as to what is going on in another being’s mind, we don’t know for sure. We are very limited in fact to what we can absolutely positively ascertain as “real “by our physical senses, and maybe we can’t even trust our senses. Personally I don’t really enjoy this line of thought, because “real” and “reality” are relative terms and I would rather not be paranoid about what is actually happening and whether my reality is the same shared by everyone, or not. My mind runs in circles, useless imaginary circuits that don’t accomplish much. Rather I would like to return to the idea that there is faith involved in human interaction. I am not discussing religious faith here or even loyalty, but only that there is some common thread/fear/need in all humans to network, some more so than others, despite the fact that we can never truly know the inner workings of another’s mind. There is still value to be had in what limited comprehension we do gain. This desire to network and understand has created society, government, nation-states, and international organizations. By codifying and regulating our interactions with other humans and groups we make it easier for dialogue and discussion and ultimately some understanding of each other. Humans are constantly striving to erase the “we don’t know” in life.

Reflections on State Department/Friday Class

The visit to the State Department was a fantastic experience which provided a unique look into one of the smaller desks (Central and South Asia). The desk is responsible for volatile nations that clearly keep the employees engaged and busy at all times. The representatives that spoke with us were very articulate and surprisingly honest considering the current administration is often hesitant to admit to challenges and setbacks in the region. I also enjoyed how the representatives who spoke to us were fairly young and already had done so much with their lives. I personally could see myself in their shoes sometime in the near future, and further solidified my belief that I want to pursue a career in international relations.
Class discussion was thought-provoking. I lack the extensive science fiction knowledge of some of my classmates, but I found the class discussion interesting. We went over every possible scenario for extraterrestrial-human relations and the implications of relationships between figures from other planets. In nearly every single instance there were negative consequences, so I am thankful that aliens have yet to contact humanity. I felt that I had little to contribute outside of a historical citation of how states react to foreign state-of-the-art aircraft. We seemed to come to three conclusions; that the aliens would obliterate mankind, that alien technology would strain relationships between nation-states, or that the aliens would be victimized by humans.
While all these points are valid, we must accept that these wild, theoretical concepts can indeed be applied to how nations react to outsiders and how new technology shapes relationships between countries. We can use these fantastic situations to better understand our world around us and how extreme events impact our lives.

Headaches

When I was little younger (actually, I still do this) I used to think really hard about where the universe stops; where infinity stops. Even if there is a massive wall somewhere out there in the universe, there is still more space after the wall, and then more space after that space, and after that, and above that, and below that, and after that, and ... AHHHH. It always gave me a headache to think about such an impossible question! Similarly, this question  about aliens landing on the white house lawn also gave me a pretty bad headache. There are so many possible approaches to answering the question, but no real evidence to base those answers on. I know that the question is really a metaphor for how we interact with other nations – but even that has become so vague and unpredictable that it’s hard to give a definite answer.  I’m stuck on one particular point that Professor Jackson brought up in class. He noted that none of us were able to specify how we would actually know whether or not the aliens had good or bad intentions - and how could we be absolutely sure? It’s interesting to think about. In class and on our blogs, each one of us chose to either assume that the extra terrestrials would come in peace or that they would immediately nuke us – but how did any one of us come to that conclusion? I figure that our assumptions were all based on the identity we presumed the aliens to have, therefore pertaining to constructivism. We choose to act toward another nation or even just another individual based on how we perceive them; based on whether their identity presents themselves as an immediate threat or as an ally. But if this is true, then the whole metaphor of the question no longer works, for we have no previous experience with aliens and therefore cannot be certain of their identity. Then again, can we ever be certain of another nation’s or individual’s identity? 

An Invitation Only Party

Well, first of all folks, in spite of what your pessimistic imagination might be leading you to believe, the aliens were invited to land on the lawn of our spectacular White House. You may be asking, “Why in the world would we ever want aliens landing on the lawn of the White House?” Well, ‘why in the world’ doesn’t really apply here, now does it? After our world’s satellites picked up some odd frequencies that were eventually determined as coming from the source of a spaceship just outside our galaxy, we were forced to think in terms much bigger than just our world. Of course, when news of this discovery leaked to the public, it was absolute mayhem. Were the aliens good or bad? Was it the end of the world? We must annihilate them!  How can I up my chances of being abducted!? While the world’s science fiction lovers rejoiced, and while everyone else cried for mercy, government officials and scientists all around the world were working hard to decipher the cryptic codes that that the aliens were sending down to earth. And after long hours of trials and tribulations, one clear message was deduced: “We come in peace.”

After sharing dialogue with the aliens for a little over a year, we had gained enough evidence to be sure that they were of no threat to us. The aliens had been keeping a close eye on earthlings since long before electricity, automobiles, and Star Wars movies, and had decided that we as a human race were finally ready to be introduced to the aliens offerings of advanced technology and sources of fuel. All the aliens wanted to know was, “When can we land?” The world erupted in dispute over which nation should serve as a host family for these creatures. Well, I bet you can guess who wanted to be the first nation to create ties with a completely different species; we did! The United States government promptly sent in the proposal to the alien’s spacecraft, including the several reasons why we, The US, would be the best vacation spot for their visit to earth. China was our biggest competition in this matter – if we could win this battle over China, and all the other nations in the running, The United States would forever be a beacon of, not only just hope and freedom, but also for inter galactic relations! We would go down in history as the nation who became best friends with the aliens and who then shared the alien’s intelligence with the entire world. Thus, we were honored when the aliens RSVPed back to us with such enthusiasm!

We have prepared for two years for this event. Upon arriving, the alien commander will be welcomed and ushered right into the White House where the President and It will form some sort of ‘Alien to Human Bill of Rights’ that will be active for the duration of their visit. It is necessary that this happens immediately in order to preserve a state of earthly order. Upon receiving the alien’s reply that they chose American over any other nation, The United States has already seen a significant shift in international power in our favor. This is the best thing that has ever happened for our country.

They Shoot Earthlings, Don't They?

Question: If aliens landed on the White House lawn, what do you think that the response of the world's governments would be? How about the response of the U.S. government in particular?

I think we can all agree that our government is overwhelmingly negligent of the growing interstellar threat posed by extraterrestrials. I tell you now, the next great battle won’t be fought in the mountains of Afghanistan, or the jungles of the Congo, but in the cold, dark vastness of space. So, to prepare for that, our military and civilian institutions need a code of conduct in place to determine what steps to take when the aliens land at our doorsteps.

Looking at this from an ideological perspective, we would have to prioritize our actions when meeting this new power. Realism dictates that our first action should be to determine the level of threat posed by the newcomers. This includes both the potential military threat as well as any health and biological effects of allowing them to land on Earth. That’s not to say that I expect a military threat; I don’t believe that a civilization so militarily-inclined as to attack us immediately would ever be able to develop technology so advanced as to reach our planet. They would most likely be ready to communicate with us, and convey that they are interested in peaceful relations. Nevertheless, security should be the first matter of concern, on general principle alone. Better to be safe than sorry, I always say.

In fact, this demonstrates why I tend to call myself a realist: it’s not that I discount other less-wary ideologies, it’s that I address security first and foremost, and move on to liberal and constructivist courses once my security concerns have been assuaged.

After our own safety is guaranteed, the next step to take should be to communicate that we, too, are not hostile. This will be harder for us than them, since many of our people may want to independently act in a hostile manner towards the aliens. It is important that we establish the legitimacy of our ruling bodies, and ensure the safety of our visitors. After that, we should put together a team of scientists, linguists, anthropologists, sociologists, Oliver Stone, and others that would help us decode their speech patterns and communicate with them. Of course, the aliens should not be introduced to the public. Extreme and non-contiguous views should not be the impression we leave on them. We must have a constructive dialogue with the aliens, and learn several important points. For example, what kind of sentient beings exist that we are unaware of? How many are there? What kind of technology do they possess? What kind of cultural and technological innovations do you have that could benefit us? I strongly suspect that any civilization advanced enough to reach us would have better answers to these questions than us.

Many have voiced their belief that an alien arrival would certainly amount to an invasion. These opinions have no doubt been influenced by popular culture, and are not grounded in fact or logical reasoning. To them, I offer this anecdote. It provides an interesting parallel to our scenario. Take note.

Intergalactic relations?

Everyone’s posts have thus far seemed to take the landing of the aliens on the White House lawn as a surprise or belligerent gesture. In these situations there is an extreme lack of knowledge of the aliens and their motivations. Given these conditions most people seem to be siding with a constructivist-realist approach to how the government would react. To explore the situation with some different concluding assumptions, let’s go with the argument made by Jasmine and Seamus McGregor that the aliens will of course have superior technology. I would say that given the superior technology and obvious intelligence needed to construct this technology, the aliens would also have an information advantage over us (aka the world).
Now given this setup, I choose to believe that the aliens landing on the White House lawn would be a pres-set event, with the US government notified beforehand. The United States is in the weaker position in this situation, the aliens have had time to study us and plan their entrance to our society. They have contacted the major world powers and impressed upon them the necessity and benefit of establishing a working relationship. For the world’s governments this leaves them the responsibility of staging an introduction to their respective populations.

The question at hand will be whether or not each government chooses to cooperate with the aliens or not. Will the aliens want to deal with us as a single entity or will they work within our sovereign nation framework? For this “exercise” I will say that the aliens choose to work within our sovereign nation framework. So, will the US cooperate with the aliens? In realist terms it is to the United States’ advantage to at the very least temporarily work with a more advanced civilization in the hope that the US can correct the information and technology imbalance in the relationship. It is within the United States’ territorial security interests to improve technology and hence defense. Looking at the situation in liberal terms there is the issue of economics. Will trade with the aliens benefit us, or could it possibly hurt us? Could we trust trade agreements with an unknown entity though? These questions would have to be analyzed and answered. From a constructivist view aliens would clearly constitute an extreme “other”. As a people, Americans will have to decide how their identity will accept or reject aliens; xenophobia as Seamus brought up will almost definitely be the knee-jerk reaction to the “alien invasion”. The US government will have a tough PR job in front of them to convince the public that the aliens will not destroy/enslave/endanger us. This ability to influence public thought/identity will be a telling signal in whether the White House visit is viewed positively or negatively and ultimately if the public can accept the idea of intergalactic relations.

Hmmh… inter galactic relations, the next new career field?

Space Aliens

Get me out of this godforsaken space land.

Upon the extraterrestrials arrival (they dislike the term alien, because it insinuates that they are illegal immigrants), they relatively easily took control of the US government. Prez G Dub and Condee were compromising the exit strategy with the extraterrestrials, but somehow got tricked into signing executive and legislative power over to the extraterrestrials. We still have the judicial branch, but the Supreme Court can only take cases that will cause Clarence Thomas to speak out. Inherently, Clarence Thomas now holds the most power over the Supreme Court. The extraterrestrials have no passion to go beyond our borders right now, and no other nations are hurrying to aide us. They've eliminated the American democracy and established a system of Philosopher-kings. Basically, the extraterrestrials quote Plato and order the humans around.

The service industry is gone. It's kind of like footloose, we don't really have fun anymore. We spent the first month destructing malls, movie theatres, monuments, parking lots, etc. The extraterrestrials zapped away the debris with their fancy laser guns. Everyone is primarily a subsistence farmer now. Some are doctors or other essential positions on the side. A very select few teach the future Philosopher-kings.

People adjusted quite well. It's new. It's exciting. It's still a few weeks before culture shock sinks in. We still have our computers and televisions and telephones. The TVs are pretty useless. It just aires the extraterrestrials talking about fancy space delicatessens. The computers and telephones are what entertain us. We have limited mobility, but we can still play solitare or call grandma.

We aren't sure who deals with plumbing, electricity, telephone services, or any other similar basic needs. The extraterrestrials insist they are managing everything, but who really knows. We'll supposedly go down in history as the enlightened generation. We have primary knowledge of what existed prior to Day 0. The extraterrestrials eliminated calendars. They also eliminated numbers above 99. We celebrate independence day every Day 0. Today is Day 40. That's about all I have to say about that.

If Aliens Landed in the United States....

I believe that if an alien spaceship landed in America, we would take similar action along the lines of what the Chinese did April 1, 2001, when a US reconnaissance plane was forced to make an emergency landing on the Chinese southern island of Hainan. The Chinese disassembled the Navy EP-3E aircraft in an attempt to understand the plane’s design as well as to analyze any intelligence found on-board. The crew was detained for violating Chinese airspace, but released after eleven days after the United States government issued an official letter of apology. The Chinese eventually returned the disassembled plane after they were satisfied that they had analyzed it for all it was worth.
I believe this incident sets the precedent to a certain extent on what the American response would be if an extraterrestrial spaceship crashed on American soil. First and most obviously, the spaceship would be disassembled and researched. So far, no person from Earth has managed to travel to another planet, so I believe the scientific research would be of the highest importance to the United States government. Of course, such technology will attract the interests of Russia and China, so I would guess a great deal of spying would result to catch up to whatever progress America made regarding its space program.
Where my prediction starts to differ from the Hainan Island Incident is how I believe the aliens would be treated in the United States. I personally cannot see this country particularly accepting of people from another planet. I believe that there would be a great sense of xenophobia towards these people, especially if perceived as a threat to the job market. I believe the aliens would be experimented on in inhumane ways if they did not resemble humans, as there are no ethics governing the treatment and scientific rights of aliens. I believe if the aliens survived such an ordeal they would be released, but it would be unlikely they would have their spaceship returned out of fears of retaliation by other aliens due to the poor treatment of those who were experimented upon. The aliens would probably be in an unpleasant state of limbo where they are regarded as unwelcome oddities as well as spectacles for exhibit.
The rush for new technology and treatment of our first-ever alien visitors I believe would reflect negatively upon Earth as a whole. I believe that any technology gained from the aliens would be closely guarded secrets, building animosity between nation-states. The treatment of any aliens would likely bring out the worst in human prejudice and greed, as human rights would not be applied to non-humans. My advice to aliens; do not land on Earth, much less the United States. Keep this question purely theoretical; as I doubt I would like to see how extraterrestrials would be treated in the United States.

Class Round 4

I found the baseball game almost overwhelming! There were so many people, it was like NYC or something. Then all of the places to spend your money, and how expensive everything is. The government should start regulating monopolies within baseball stadiums. When we eventually found our seats I was surprised by how few people chose to dish out the extra money for the closer seats. The fireworks are always ridiculously loud. They scare me. The innings moved faster than I remembered, but not fast enough. My ADD got the best of me and I left at the 7th inning stretch. All in all the baseball game was totally ballin, and we should go again when it's not so chilly.
--Maggy

The House That Potemkin Built

Like everyone else, I too was struck by the unabashed displays of nationalism at Friday’s baseball game. The emphasis on military pride in particular echoed nearly every one of the claims made in Franklin Foer’s book “How Soccer Explains the World”. But instead of repeating this sentiment, I feel obliged to draw attention to another aspect I witnessed.

The Washington Nationals’ stadium is much more than just a baseball park. There are numerous food stations, memorabilia shops, VIP lounges, specialty stores, and other attractions. It functions more like a baseball-themed mall than an American-themed baseball park. While the game is the main attraction, there is enough to see, do, and buy to last a person the entire game. Add to that the planned promenade leading up to the stadium, which will be filled with even more entertainment and merchandise, and the fireworks and giant LED displays around the stadium. All this was meant to impress stadium-goers, and attract them to see the game again. Obviously, something about the team itself doesn’t quite draw the crowds. This policy of substituting glamour and showmanship for actual substantive performance is nothing new, and can be seen in the world of global politics, as well.

And who better represents this than North Korea?

Since its inception, the North Korean government’s acting policy has been to substitute real national infrastructure and economically-sound decisions with giant monuments and flowery mass gymnastic demonstrations. They try to hide their poor governance and heavy-handed tactics with impressive displays of unity that “prove” that they are the most efficient and prosperous state in the world. And they, like the Nationals, have made attempts to “sell” their artificial brand of prosperity to the outside world; upon the creation of the Demilitarized Zone, they erected a fake city called Kijong-dong just across from the Panmunjeom crossing. It was essentially a façade, meant to entice South Koreans to defect to the “lovely” North. In the city, they even went so far as to build the world’s tallest flagpole, so South Koreans could see the flag of the North from far away. Not to sound too derogatory, but in many ways, Nationals Stadium resembles North Korea: it provides ample amusement and stunning visual displays to distract from the inherent bankruptcy of talent and know-how. The dearly departed Yankee Stadium never needed any of these trivial add-ons, because Yankee fans came to the stadium solely to enjoy the game. Perhaps if the Washington Nationals spent less on petty diversions and more on talented coaches and players, they would gain a dependable fan base. And perhaps if North Korea spent less on building, dismantling, and rebuilding its nuclear facility at Yongbyon, and more on investing in market infrastructure, they would have a somewhat-respectable state.

2nd Reflection Post in under 24 hours: Response to Ziggy and SilenceDoGood

I personally find sports a powerful outlet to connect with people I might not otherwise socialize with. It's not so much the patriotism of the game, but the fact that the game takes people from diverse walks of life and channels their passion into a common identity that I find so amazing. I just found the patriotic aspect of the Nationals unique, but it certainly was not the main factor I took away from the game. Seamus is about to rant, so I suggest you keep reading.
While it's true, I have never met a life-long friend in the stands, I have met people that I’ve continued to talk to well after the final whistle blows. In other instances, you meet your friends at a local establishment before a game, solidifying your bond between your community and your team. It is about the community of people who feel the same euphoria and dejection as you, all united behind a set of players and jersey colors that I find inspiring. It's about knowing the team songs and the ability of a moment in time to bring out emotions.
As an athlete, I hold many things near and dear that I feel deepen my zeal for the teams I loyally follow. For starters, I subscribe to the Victorian ideal that sports build character. While you can debate that athletes are prima donnas, I know athletics have had a positive effect on my life: physically, socially, and I’d even argue academically. The teamwork of a basketball team, the motivation of a runner, the risk-taking of a football player, all sports provide lessons that can be applied to so many aspects of a person’s life. There is a reason why so many athletes have gone on to be astronauts, presidents, and actors; they possess the drive to push themselves further than they ever thought possible. It is this acquired appreciation of hard work and patience that I believe contributes to success in nearly every aspect of life
Second, being a part of an athletic team is an experience unique to any other. You are automatically given a community of like-minded individuals that you must struggle alongside towards a common goal. You must be willing to sacrifice your body and mind so that your teammates, who sometimes you barely know yourself, can be victorious. This unspoken law of self-sacrifice for the benefit of the team as a whole creates a strong bond of loyalty and respect that I find unlike anywhere else. While it might be lost on some professional athletes, victory is not an individual thing in team sports. The game-winning goal from the forward does not come without the cross from the midfielder, and an entire team shares in its triumphs and tragedies throughout the season. Due to my experiences, I empathize with athletes on the field while in the stands, enabling me to appreciate their hard work and determination.
Sports unify diverse groups of people (in the US at least) and provides a common identity between two people who otherwise might have nothing in common. I must disagree with you that this is an illusion of friendship, a few hours to unite people before going back to the real world. For me, my support of one of my teams, the Chicago Fire for example, is not something I can switch off after the game is over. I see the same people at the games, I see the same players in their red and white, and of course, I remember that Chicago is my home and thus a wonderful place.
For me, sports represent a way of life. They are both a commitment personally to fitness and an abstract commitment to something greater than myself. It’s something you can put your faith in with knowledge that it exists and that it is trying to make you happy (I personally find sports much more satisfying than religion for such reasons). My fellow bloggers can try to say that these are simply games with no lasting impact, just a means to satisfy a competitive desire, but I could not disagree more with such a belief. The teams I cheer for are a key component of my identity as a human being.

Identity of Seamus McGregor: male, 18 years old, 6’2’’, 165 lb., green eyes, brown hair, politically liberal, Midwestern, non-religious, student, and a passionate fan of the Chicago Bears, Chicago Fire, and Glasgow Rangers.

Weekend wrapup...

The following thought is a sort of question that was driving me crazy at the end of our Friday class. I just want to throw it out there and ask for some outside opinion.

What is best for an individual is not necessarily what is best for the people as a whole. So when we try and examine whether the government is acting in our best interest, we have to be careful in separating the self-interest from the group-interest. I am not sure that it is possible to remove our self-bias enough to allow a perspective that takes in what is “in the public’s best interest”. Does the individual have the capacity to act solely in the group’s interest? Isn’t this a generally implied quality of a leader? And not just a leader, but a government, faceless menace that it is portrayed as, consists of so many individual persons, also supposedly acting the public’s self-interest, even if it opposes their own self-interest?

Moving on to baseball, I would like to first disclaim that I have an extremely unpatriotic lack of knowledge of anything having to do with the all American sport. For full disclosure I should also add that I am not a sports follower by any standards. The idea that some of the worst teams still have fanatic fans, despite decades of losing is amazing to me. I should think it would take a certain amount of tenacity and good sense of humor to hold on that long. Nationals’ stadium was interesting in that it reminded me of a small food fair arranged in a circle, lots of booths selling the same over-priced food and long lines, while all around people mill about. The mood was cheerful though and the large number of families I saw seems to prove that the Nats have succeeded in so far as persuading people to keep up a wholesome all American tradition and come to their stadium. I liked the point that PTJ made during our after-dinner conversation that it’s not so much about the sport as what goes on around. In connecting a little early then to constructivism, I would say baseball and the baseball game experience is all about identity (American) and cultural perception.

Take me out to the ball game!

Last night was the big Nationals baseball game! I had never been to a major league baseball game before, so it was an especially exciting event. The moment I stepped out from the last metro stop, my mood immediately changed. Everyone was urgently ushering themselves up the escalators decked out in their favorite baseball gear. Everyone was going to the same place, to watch the same game, enjoy the same greasy food, pay the same ridiculous prices, and have the same kind of good ole fun. Even though I do not follow any other baseball team other than The Red Sox, I felt as though I was a devoted Nationals fan. Even though this was by default, I still felt as though I was “part of the team.” When I walked through gates and was presented with a free Nationals hat, I literally jumped with joy. Soon there after, I ran up to a mascot, wearing my new hat, and excitedly asked for a picture. I danced and sang along to the music that was playing. I bought the overpriced gelato. I bought into the whole shebang – and I was happy to. When in the bleachers, I took a moment to look around. Everyone was so happy. Everyone had ventured out from various lifestyles and viewpoints to join in their one common love for baseball and this definitely created a sense of nationality that I rarely see in such masses.

Taking a step back from this experience, I see that the whole baseball game, as far as the topic of nationality goes, was a complete illusion. The majority of the people in the stands, who stood up to sing the national anthem and who felt that same rush of national pride, will leave the stadiums without any of those feelings – they won’t even knowingly reflect upon or acknowledge the fact that they participated in such an event. Two people sitting next to each other may connect while rooting for the same team, but the minute they leave the stadium, that sense of unity will quickly dissipate. The thing about sports is that you don’t have to share the same political or religious views to be on the same side. All of that can be put aside and for a short few hours everyone can enjoy the company of someone they might otherwise never sit next to or support. This friendliness is super duper great and all – but it is unrealistic and only lasts for one game at a time, which is hardly enough to create a real lasting sense of nationality. I think people recognize this on some level and congregate to baseball games with such enthusiasm partly for this very reason – for the sense of nationality it instills in them; a feeling that may be hard to attain in other situations for it always gets confused and intertwined with controversial issues that create rifts. I don't think there is anything wrong with the baseball nationality illusion that I am speaking of - I think it's a nice break from the real world. 

Baseball Game Reflections

Friday’s excursion to Nationals Park was a unique experience. I enjoyed the atmosphere of a modern stadium and the spectacle that is a Washington National’s game; but I couldn’t help but notice the pro-government environment at the stadium. Red, white, and blue banners hung from every section of seats while the flag billowed in all its digital glory from the numerous screens around the stadium. We happened to be at the veteran’s appreciation game and every fan who funneled through the main gate received a camouflage bucket hat with the National’s logo emblazoned on the front. This was just the beginning of a night that featured the songs of all branches of service and an extremely patriotic environment.
A naval officer sang the national anthem and the game began, but baseball seemed secondary in my mind as I was blown away by the graphics and noises of the game. The Nationals and the Padres both succeeded in scoring several runs, while the announcer added to the carnival atmosphere by pronouncing Christian Guzman’s name in a wide variety of over-dramatic ways that reminded me vaguely of the announcing at a boxing match. I enjoyed this surreal environment and felt that I was experiencing something that for so many people is a major aspect of their American sense of identity.
I was impressed by how well the Nationals marketed the vendors within the stadium. By combining local fixtures such as Ben’s Chili Bowl with the nationally recognized brands such as Dippin’ Dots and international icons such as Sony Playstation, the Nationals create an ambiance that a Washington native can be proud of and where a tourist has a feeling of familiarity. I personally feel that few things are as American as this shameless display of capitalism. Sponsorships lined the stadium and I left the game feeling the same patriotic feeling that undoubtedly was shared amongst many of the spectators.

Realist vs. Liberal Institution

My opinion on the subject are pretty straight forward. Although the charter specifies the purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, they are primarily a liberal institution.

The UN was created with plans of it being this realist powerhouse of sorts. With the recent failure of the League of Nations the creators should have realized that any sort of world governing body would be very idealistic.

The UN cannot punish disobeying sovereigns. It's a popular ideology that people only follow the rules in order to escape repercussion. For instance: You're on a road trip. You're in the middle of nowhere, only car on the road. You reach a stop sign. Do you stop?

Personally, no. There are no other cars so that eliminates the safety benefits of stopping. The only reason to stop would be to avoid getting pulled over. If there is no risk of repercussion, why stop?

Back to my point:
The UN might impose sanctions if you disobey their desires, but overall they have almost no authority over sovereigns. I think they've come to realize this, so its gotten to a point where the UN compromises with a dissenter in order to salvage its reputation. Everyone receives an absolute gain, but the UN probably rarely get's the relative gain.

birds in the water and fish flying in the air

I am a little embarrassed to say that I almost used one of my free passes tonight for this blog question. How silly of me! This may actually be the easiest question to answer of all the blog prompts thus far. (credit goes to Rachel for insisting this to be true several times – sorry it took me so long to listen!!) I say this because The United Nations spells out the answer for all us World Politics students right in their mission statement. The United Nation’s purpose is, “to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.” (http://www.un.org/aboutun/basicfacts/unorg.htm) We all know what that reminds us of… dun dun dun… liberalism!

This question reminds me of that analogy PTJ brought up in our last class about how fish have a difficult time talking about water and how birds are nearly incapable of speaking in depth about air. Air and water surround them at all times; it’s what keeps them alive for it’s what they breathe… it’s so much a part of them that they don’t even realize how vital it is to their existence; if it were to be taken away from thm, they would cease to survive. Okay, so maybe I stretched PTJ's analogy a little further than what was said in class, however, it still works! The UN is so obviously a liberal organization that the question is difficult to tackle straight on. We’re used to having to fight to prove our point, but this argument doesn’t really need much persuading. Furthermore, and in keeping with my version of the analogy, The UN holds values directly opposite to those of realism. The United Nations would not be what it is today if it followed in realism’s footsteps. Much like a fish out of water, if we were to subtract liberalism from The United Nations, it would be unable to thrive… and would just die and crumble. Yes, there would still be remnants of non-liberal tactics left behind in the rubble, but the framework would be gone and what would be left would not be nearly enough on which to successfully run an international organization.

            So, basically, it’s blaringly obvious as to which “ism” The United Nations is more akin to, so instead of emphasizing how alike liberalism and The UN’s values are, why not highlight how opposite The United Nations’s beliefs are to those of realism. Probably the most predominant theme that disputes any theory that The United Nations is a realist organization is that The UN is looking after the interest of the international community as a whole rather than one specific state. This is the reason why The United Nations were created in the first place. If The UN had been built upon a realist foundation, I reckon that it would not be called “The UN” but more like something along the lines of, “The It’s-a-Cut-Throat-World-and-That’s-Just-the-Way-It-Is Nations.” Which brings me to my next point: The UN is geared to making positive change rather than staying focused on the past. On the UN’s homepage, there is even a direct link to “UN Millenium Development Goals” which explains the various goals that The United Nations would like to and are actively working to meet by the year 2015. This shows their devotion to improving upon the past and moving forward, rather than relying on past history as a sole source of direction.

I’m sure that when answering this blog, there will be those few fish who wanted to see how it would be to live on land and those few birds who decided it’d be interesting to take a swim, and I commend those of you who did that for you definitely chose the harder route. But nonetheless, I had fun writing this blog and I hope you had fun reading it!

Philosophical Roots of the United Nations

Question: Is the U.N. primarily a realist or a liberal organization?

As necessary a question as this is, it cannot be put so two-dimensionally. One cannot simply slap the “realist” or “liberal” label on the entire United Nations. The many facets of the organization were conceived from different sources, each intent on pursuing their own agenda. Simply put, there are too many powers at work here to round their viewpoints into one ideology.

We’ll start at the beginning. The formation of the U.N. was done in the wake of World War II, with the purpose of ensuring worldwide security. Here, we see a realist expectation of a future war. However, in order to band together to form such an organization, a certain level of trust had to be felt that each member nation would adhere to their promises. This demonstrates liberal recognition of the trustworthiness of alliances and the commitment to dialogue.

In the Security Council, there is a similar ideological mix. That most founding member states of the U.N. allowed for five countries to possess veto power shows that they had faith that those countries would act in accordance with the views of the rest of the world. These countries were not so concerned that the USA, the USSR, the UK, France, and China would use their power aggressively, so they liberally acceded to that system. However, those five countries proposed the idea because they wanted to retain they influence in defense and security matters, since they, operating under a realist mindset, foresaw lingering military threats.

The U.N.’s charitable works projects are a wing of their liberalism-motivated activities, as it is not necessarily a defense concern of entire nations (save your “plumbing in Palestine” arguments, I’m already aware of them). To ask for resources from these nations to help the poor requires a basic trust that these resources will not be needed for defense purposes, which complies with liberal philosophy. However, the fact that national governments are the ones being asked to give aid, and not private organizations, business, or individuals, represents the realist idea that the state is the overarching unit of governance.

I don’t believe the U.N. as a whole espouses one particular viewpoint. In their current state, they’re too bureaucratic to espouse much of anything. I’m sure they would love to curve towards the liberal perspective, and work towards mutual security and development, but many of their member states are forced to operate under a realist mentality when they cannot put their faith in the organization alone. It could be argued that the U.N. could reverse this image by reforming its mechanisms and acting as a potent global negotiation force, but with 192 members, representing nearly every population group in the world, finding a consensus on any issue is nigh-impossible.

The UN: Organization of Realists

While compelling arguments can be made for either side, I personally cite the lengthy history of the UN to state that it was formed and largely has carried out its job as a realist institution. Member nations enjoy United Nations membership as a safeguard towards the security of their respective states in a confederation of alliances of convenience. While the five nations with veto power on the UN Security Council clearly hold more power in this system, weaker nations cooperate with at least one such nation to ensure their territorial integrity will be protected by a powerful allied state. One example I would like to point to as an early establishment of the UN realist agenda would be the Korean War.
On June 25, 1950, North Korean troops poured over the 38th parallel in an attempt to take over South Korea and unify the Korean peninsula. The United Nations saw this act of aggression as a severe violation of the survival of the South Korean state. Within hours, the UN Security Council passed UNSC Resolution 82, establishing the South Korean government as the lawful leaders of South Korea and calling for North Korea to withdraw north of the 38th parallel. The massive North Korean military was advancing rapidly through South Korea, capturing the capital city of Seoul, and forcing South Korean to a perimeter around the city of Pusan. UN troops, consisting mainly of Americans, reinforced the Pusan perimeter and made an amphibious landing at the port city of Inchon, well behind North Korean frontlines, forcing a hasty retreat by North Korean troops and ultimately saving the South Korean state. It was the first large-scale use of a multinational UN force to protect state sovereignty.
The Korean War was the UN Security Council’s first test of its goal to ensure state security on a global scale. The United Nations has since formed the Department of Peacekeeping operations to face the threats of the future. The Department’s mission states, “in accordance with the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) is dedicated to assisting the Member States and the Secretary-General in their efforts to maintain international peace and security.” In other words, the agenda of the UN has largely remained the same to the principles it was founded upon, the protection of territorial integrity of member states. UN negotiations carry with them the weight of the threat of military force, a precedent set by the Korean War. The presence of the United Nations has deterred multiple conflicts and serves for the survival of the nation-state through a system of loose alliances, making the UN a realist institution.

Can't get enough Seamus? I can hardly blame you.

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ctz=240&c2coff=1&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=a&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2000&as_maxd=15&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2008&lr=&safe=active&q=inblogtitle:%22resolution+110%22+inpostauthor:seamus&ie=UTF-8&bl_url=http://resolution110.blogspot.com/

Class round three

I thought it was interesting that despite the previous class where the majority was arguing against Machiavellian ideology, we all came to a consensus that his themes are still relevant in modern society. I think class is a little boring when we all agree. I'd assume we are all content with realism; we think it gets the job done, but once we start exploring other theories we'll start to shift our own ideas some more. We're going to find the we're actually liberalists or perhaps a hybrid of ideas. Maybe we all were just sleepy and having a lazy Friday. We should engage a little bit more. Let's be contrary in order to open each others minds. Let's all throw ideas out there that challenge our own beliefs. When someone offers a counterpoint let's not try and defend our side to the death, but rather take it in and try to keep our minds out there and open. Our ideologies should grow with us. If they don't how can we ever truly learn?

Prioritizing One's Nationality

I was originally going to post this as a comment on another blog, but I decided that it was not so much a critique as an explanation of my own views. Therefore, I feel this is a more appropriate place for it.

Many of us have brought up recently, especially in the wake of Newt Gingrich's speech, how we tend to consider ourselves "Americans" before all else. Here’s the one problem I’ve always had with the “American citizen over global citizen” position: Imagine, for a moment, that conditions in the United States suddenly deteriorated. Take, for example, today’s news about Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. Suppose the financial infrastructure of the United States broke down, and our way of life suddenly became much harder. Think food shortages, unemployment, and high crime rates. How many of us would choose to stay in America, and how many would leave for a more viable economy? Though I’m sure the vast majority of the country would go down with the ship, either due to national pride or simply because they cannot leave, I wonder how many of those with the means to relocate would do so. I know this is an extreme example, but for one to declare him or herself first and foremost a citizen of America means, in my view, to throw all your money behind one horse. While being an American is very important to me, I would say that first and foremost, I am an agent of my own interests. If world events dictate that I leave America, I would do so, albeit reluctantly. In that sense, I must consider myself more of a global citizen, simply because I do not irrevocably tie myself to one country in particular.

I am aware that others might have different definitions for what "being American first" means, since mine is exceedingly Draconian. I'm curious as to what those might be.

In Machiavelli We Trust

I’m going to be blunt – it’s almost two in the morning, I’ve got classes starting at 8:30 tomorrow, I’ve just finished my five-page Macroeconomics paper, and Subway was out of chicken breasts and bacon. I’m in no mood to start blogging now, so this time I’ll try to refrain from the usual lengthy diatribe.

The one thing that struck me about Friday’s class was how many people seemed to agree with Machiavelli’s principles and the idea that territorial integrity is a foremost concern. I know for a fact that our group consists of a diverse bunch of people with differing political views, so I found it out-of-place that we were all agreeing with the same basic premise. If I had to attribute this to something, I would say it was a result of group mentality; many people were placed in that state of mind by the blog question, and either didn’t think or didn’t comprehend that it was their right to disagree with the idea. Now, I have always considered myself a political realist, and my views on certain subjects have been characterized by some more pacifistic people as on the “militarist” or “Machiavellian” side, though this is not always the case. I would venture a guess that we have more idealists, or more differentiating opinions, in this group than we have been led to believe. Once we look into other theories, we’ll see who still stands by realism, and who migrates towards other theories.

The subject of territorial integrity was the main topic of discussion on Friday, and we seem to have re-characterized the question into “What is the purpose of territorial integrity?” Why do leaders care so much? What makes land so important? Several answers were put forward, some of which merit some thought. For one, land serves a military advantage; as Machiavelli stated, a prince should repeatedly patrol his country’s borders, wary of places where the enemy could invade from. Owning large tracts of land allows more time to prepare defenses to deflect invading forces away from the capital. Also, we discussed how defending land can be a means of defending ideals and ways of life, too. I brought up how Rhodesians were unwilling to cede power to the black majority not due to racism, but due to African countries’ track record of chaos and war. The same principle of defending ideas by defending land can be seen in various other scenarios, from the Peloponnesian War to the American Revolutionary and Civil wars. Then again, these ideas can even be as simple as national pride, which can drive countrymen to defend every inch of their land simply for the sake of keeping it. In the end, a war over land is really a war of ideas.

It's all relative.

I found myself very taken with the pragmatic and goal-oriented strategies laid out in The Prince. I am a practical person and I see Machiavelli as being along the same lines. I appreciated that he didn’t beat around the bush in explaining that leaders rule through the manipulation of human foibles. And it is by this reasoning that I would say that yes, Machiavelli’s arguments remain essentially usable. As we seemed to conclude in each of our weekly question posts, there is no hard yes or no to an issue, but rather” yes/no, however in this area… “. The same applies to Machiavelli, some of his arguments no longer apply to modern politics but so many of them do.
I am very much a believer in the interconnectedness of all things, it’s all relative. That realists choose to name their primary goal as territorial integrity is great and sounds very simple. However, territorial integrity as we discussed in class extends beyond material borders to culture, economy, people, etc. And so on in turn do these overarching categories hold their own host of issues which must be addressed in order to have “territorial integrity”. Through this connection I find realism to be a very appealing political theory, easy to explain and on the surface very cut and dry with its single-minded goal. But looked at deeper, realism does have a human element, one it seeks to protect and secure.

Time to Reflect...

Okay so first off….

There were so many layers to what was discussed in class on Thursday. In fact, there were so many layers that I am actually having a bit of a difficult time connecting and making sense of it all. Come to think of it, that’s actually one of my favorite aspects of our World Politics class. Each class I walk in knowing, for sure, that the discussion will begin with debating a specific question or idea that Professor Jackson presents. However, where the class ends is always at a completely different spot from where it began. Our class has the wonderful ability to look at the entire spectrum of the discussion topic, steering our focus away from the obvious and delving deeper into the nitty-gritty details while still keeping the overlying topic in mind. In Thursday’s class, I frequently found myself listening to others and thinking, “Wow, I honestly would have never thought of that… that makes so much sense!” Basically, I think everyone in the class is exceptionally brilliant.

Okay so secondly….

            I actually feel as though I was able to speak quite a bit in our last class and say most of what was on my mind (this was a very satisfying and new feeling), thus I do not have too much more to say other than noting a couple of my interesting observations. I am still firm in my opinion that territorial integrity should not be the leader’s foremost concern. Adam made a good point that, although most of the class shared my same opinion, our discussion would always end up relating back to the security of the state. However I do not feel this proves territorial integrity’s importance above all else. Rather, I feel that it proves something I had stated in my first blog post, that everything is interconnected and that no matter how hard we try to delegate importance to all of these various world politics issues, everything is relative and intertwined.

            Okay so lastly,

            Professor Jackson threw out this question in the concluding moments of class: “What was Machiavelli’s idea of the perfect leader?” I’m pretty sure that Machiavelli didn’t even have a solid answer to this question, for, frequently, his suggestions were just not plausible. Like Professor Jackson said in class, the only leader that Machiavelli does not criticize and who does not mess up in the end is Moses. Doesn’t that speak for itself? Furthermore, many of Machiavelli’s ideas contradict each other! He offers so many different ways to succeed and states that each way is the best way – but no leader could possible encompass all of these traits or practice all of these values in his or her lifespan, and if her or she tried, I would put money down that “the populace” would think the leader is mentally ill. 

p.s. Sorry my thoughts are so scattered tonight! I couldn't decide what to write about and, therefore, wrote a little teeny tiny bit about everything.

Excellent Friday Discussion

I was ecstatic that within class; we cited our blogs, literature we’ve read for class, and the podcast lecture and synthesized it into several strong arguments. I felt the class discussion over whether or not territorial integrity was the greatest concern to the leader of a nation-state was very thought-provoking. The more we talked, the more I realized territorial integrity meant far more than simple defense of borders from marauding nation-states. In fact, my previous post claiming civil institutions were the most vital concerns to a state’s interest ended up having a role in the security situation of a country. Culture, alliances, subservience, military strength, geography, and economic power were all ideas proposed for how various states secure their borders and continue to exist and flourish.
Coming into this class, I thought the nation-state was a slowly dying institution, outdated but readily adapted because the world is comfortable with it. When I left class, I see that statehood is a factor that should not be overlooked. United States domestic and foreign policy creates an image and a sense of identity that we all share. In the past, after Europe became a powerful trade bloc, blurring the lines of statehood, I thought this was a sign of things to come, and considered it progress. But after Friday’s discussion I have come to the conclusion that the nation-state is alive and well, and it will remain that way for quite some time. The entire point of a nation-state is to unify the populace behind one government and a single identity. Looking at all the things we discussed as security matters; I realize that I’ve gone to several years of public school, been to American hospitals, watched American television programs, and watched firefighters attempt to save a house. These little occurrences foster a sense of unity and pride that is not unique to any one nation-state, although America seems to have the whole self-promotion aspect down. What other nation openly tells people it’s the best in the world? In other words, I believe the nation-state will remain alive because of our shared identity and I now believe that conglomerates of states will continue to grow, but this does not signify the beginning of the end for the nation-state.

Seh-curr-tee

Bluntly, no.

In the modern day soft power is more important than hard power. To the half of you in gateway, I don't know if you sided with cowels or bosco, but I definitely think whoever has the money has the power. A large army holds a lot of power, but it's also very expensive. If a country can keep their economy out of recession whilst growing and maintaining a large army, then all power to them. When issues arise in the economy, the government should cut back on military spending. In a day of globalization, military conflict is illogical. In the long run, everyone will benefit more if two sovereigns resolve their conflict without going to war. Although, a few will see short term economic stimuli if the two sovereigns go to war, a long term unbalance in those economies may occur when the two sovereigns resolve.

Basically, a leader's biggest concern should be the economy.

Buddha

Border Preservation in the Modern Context

Question: Is the security – defined as the territorial integrity – of the state the first and foremost thing that a state’s leader ought to concern him/herself with?

I’m sorry, I’m afraid I can’t exactly pinpoint the topic of discussion. My definition of territorial integrity has always been something along the lines of “the right of a state to retain ownership of and authority in its recognized territory”. That does cover many possible security issues, but certainly not all of them. When you define “security” as “territorial integrity”, are you solely referring to cases of land ownership and placement of borders? Or do you mean any security issue caused by outside interference that takes place within a state’s territory? I’ll briefly address both points.

The right of a state to defend its existing borders is an issue that remains central to international politics. I spoke about it extensively in my first blog post, especially with regards to the reasons why borders might change. Currently, as far as the U.N. and most power players are concerned, borders represent legal boundary lines of states, and demarcate the precise extent of a government’s ruling mandate over the land. Therefore, it is only this type of border that we can comment on for the time being. Now, current borders are protected by layers and layers of legal doctrine that are, for the most part, recognized by the entire world. Borders are not easily changed nowadays; since a pattern of global order has gradually begun to mediate world affairs, states cannot simply invade and annex territories, or trade them like baseball cards. Saddam Hussein learned this all too well when he attempted an invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990. No, if borders are to be legally changed nowadays, they must be subject to international tribunals, recognized by various nations and international organizations, and provide for the replacement of government infrastructure.

A prime example of this was the dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula, which lies on the border between Nigeria and Cameroon. Both countries claimed it, based on conflicting legal claims regarding colonial-era treaties. However, rather than go to war over it, they decided to hand the matter over to the International Court of Justice. After careful study and deliberation over the treaties, it was determined that the peninsula belonged to Cameroon. Although Nigeria still does not agree with the ruling, they peacefully withdrew their military and civilian personnel.

Territorial integrity has, therefore, become not so much a security problem as a political one. Despite many modern military attempts to change borders and carve out new countries, recognition only comes with a clear legal case as well as a certain degree of political maneuvering. Of course, it is expected that a state will take any measures to retain all of its land, even regarding it as a national security matter, but ultimately, the legal framework has become strong enough that it must be respected by all sides.

Now, with regard to the second point, it is often stated that countries spend far too much on defense, as it usually eats up the largest portion of their budgets. The United States, in particular, spends untold amounts of the national budget on defense, far more than any other country, leading many to question just how necessary the defense of a superpower is. It is easy for these people to question whether a strong defense is a necessity; we certainly don’t have Barbarian hordes waiting at the border, sharpening their blades and waiting for the right time to strike. However, it is important to remember that there are indeed powers that would like to take advantage of a passive United States, not only in America itself but among her allies and trade partners.

Looking at this problem from another perspective, we see an even greater need for appropriate security forces. States that aren’t approaching superpower status certainly need defense capabilities, as their enemies both foreign and domestic stand a greater chance of seriously damaging the government and the state. In addition to that, if America were to take the route previously mentioned, it would remove from the picture a major stabilizer in world affairs. Without the United States around to protect its allies and maintain global order, lesser nations would have to deal with their enemies with minimal outside assistance, as the U.N. is essentially ineffective without strong countries to back it up. As much as the need for alternative modes of spending exist, internal territorial security must remain unbreached, for if any government functions are to work, proper stability and authority of government must be maintained.

Security?

At first, I struggled with this question, for I may have taken a different perspective if the definition of security stated in the question had been different. You say security and I think safety. I think living without fear; living away from violence and out of harms way. You say security and I definitely do not think “territorial integrity.” If the question were asking whether or not I feel that my interpretation of security is a foremost concern of the leader of a state, I would propose that, yes, it may be, at least more of a concern than “territorial integrity.” However, before I continue, I would like to make it clear that I do think territorial integrity is a vital part of a successful and powerful nation, but I do not think it is above human security in it’s importance. It is true that it is necessary for a nation to have secure borders so as to avoid being seized, but first the nation must deal with the problems rooted in the nation itself, such as hunger, healthcare, safety, strength of the government, and support from it’s people. If a nation’s leader were to focus solely on the land, they will distance themselves from what matters most - those whom the leader is trying to lead. Of course, citizens want to have a sense of citizenship and do not want to have to worry about being intruded by other nations, but that comes second to the more pressing issues that may be affecting their health and wellbeing. A leader must build from the ground up, securing the support of his or her followers and creating for them a better quality of life. For if the leader of a state does this, the citizens will be happy with where they live and the nation will not seem as vulnerable to outside territories and furthermore, will not feel the desire secede. The land will never turn on you, however the people you are leading very well may if they are not happy with your leadership. 

Domestic vs. Territorial Integrity

The image is my head after reading this week’s question is of a “state leader” wandering the perimeters of his state supervising the building of huge defense walls, while at his back his country and his people lay in waste from disaster(civil, natural, by disease- you choose). I understand my fantastical image is rather extreme and unlikely; however, it presents a good starting point and illustration for my argument against territorial integrity as a leader’s first priority. Rather the defense of interior harmony should reign as a leader’s priority. I hold this to be true for most states but grant that there are obvious and rational reasons during times of warfare or outside aggression when a nation must temporarily look more towards its “territorial integrity” than its domestic integrity.
Interior harmony or at the very least stability though often incorporates territorial integrity in that for a leader to keep the faith of his people he needs to present them with a secure nation amongst other responsibilities. For a stable state such as Canada, it would be ridiculous to say that territorial integrity should be its prime minister’s main concern. Certainly there are border issues that the prime minister might address, but it is not a huge issue for Canadians. Georgia on the other hand presents a very current example of where territorial integrity is a national worry. With the possibility of the country losing significant chunks of territory and very effectively weakening its authority and power, Georgians expect their leader to be mainly concerned with this issue. For all practical purposes (remembering Machiavelli’s pragmatism) it is really in consideration of the people’s priorities that the leader concerns her or himself with territorial integrity above other issues.

Does Territorial Integrity Worry you?

The priorities of the state should reflect the values of the people. Security, health care, welfare, social security, numerous factors must be considered by politicians who represent the interests of the state. But the question is if security is that one most important issue that leaders of the world should consider their number one priority. Territorial integrity, the right of a state to exercise its sovereignty within its own borders without outside interference, is a major issue in some parts of the world. I am about to do something very un-Seamus McGregor, I will not pick a side, but will instead say it depends on which state we are talking about. The fact of the matter is, territorial integrity is of the highest concern in some countries, but I personally would say it is not the most important issue within America or most of the world.
Territorial integrity has been pushed into the spotlight due to the conflict between Russia and Georgia. Russia, by invading Georgia to seize breakaway Georgian provinces, has absolutely violated Georgia’s territorial integrity. The breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a Georgian internal affair, and in a perfect world, outside players would not have interfered (like how no one complained about Russian atrocities in Chechnya and Dagestan, but I digress). Given recent events, I would say Mikheil Saakashvili should be concerned with the security situation in his country and give it the highest priority. I think another example of a country that should consider security the most pressing issue is Pakistan. President Zardari has radical fundamentalists in the tribal western provinces in his own country. He also has Pakistan’s historical adversary India in the east with the issue of Kashmir still unresolved. Considering President Zardari is the widower of Benezir Bhutto, who lost her life in a terrorist bombing, I am certain he will give his highest attention to security, both regarding internal matters as well as territorial integrity between nation-states.
However, this concept of security-before-all-else is not on the first thing on the mind of numerous international leaders. The United States has a massive defense budget and the Department of Homeland Security, but the territorial borders of this nation are far from threatened. If territorial integrity is what we are considering security, then it is fairly obvious that the United States is not in risk of invasion by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, Russia and China are emerging powers with impressive militaries, but only someone crazy (like Lou Dobbs) would suggest that at the present time, either state poses a serious military threat to the sovereignty of the United States.
But you don’t have to be the leader of a rich and powerful nation to not consider ensuring territorial integrity the top priority of the state. Take Ghana for example, it’s a nation known for hospitable people… and not much else. However, it’s in close proximity to Liberia and borders the Ivory Coast, two nations with histories of violence, and Togo, an authoritarian regime. Why does Ghana not sweat security? Because the neighboring nations have internal problems, and Ghana, as a poor and peaceful country, simply decides not to meddle in the affairs of other states. Political and relative economic stability within Ghana have made Ghana a model state in western Africa.
So you see, whether or not security is of the highest importance to you depends on geography to a certain extent. Also a leader should concern themselves with internal issues that could destabilize their nation-state. While security is the top concern in many parts of the world, I would argue that in most countries, territorial integrity is not the single most important issue concerning the head of state.

The Blog Group That Roared

Well, if I may depart from the normal perspective, I thought the little “social experiment” we acted out on Friday was very telling regarding human nature. To be perfectly honest, I feel as though, despite our adversarial actions, we all would have made more or less the same decisions. However, I would have acted differently on a few key occasions:

For one, I would not have consented to the decision made by my group to voluntarily relinquish one of our chairs to another group. If we, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Pamba, had extra resources, they should have been deployed in a more strategic manner. Had I, the Pambese defense minister, not been away procuring weapons for the defense of our fair republic, I would have held onto the chair and waited until an opportunity presented itself.

And, as I anticipated, one did. Before long, those good-for-nothing Propranololitans tried to cut a deal with us. However, once we rejected their Skittles-for-table offer, they launched a preemptive Nerf Vulcan strike against our motherland. I was forced to return fire, which temporarily halted their assault.

Now, had we still possessed that extra chair, we could have used it as a bargaining chip. I would have offered to trade the chair to the Duchy of Girl-Gangstania, where the Vulcan’s owner, Phil the Strong, resided. I would have persuaded him to cease his weapon sales to the Propranololitans in exchange for the extra chair, which their group was in desperate need of. Such a tactical move is exactly what extra resources should be used for, as I and many others have elaborated on in our blog posts.

The reason that our actions in the class differed from the values we stated in our blogs was due to the largest difference between our simulation and reality: the lack of actual consequence for our actions. The tables and chair were not “real” resources, and no group would have starved or been attacked another group if they failed to allocate resources properly. With this in mind, we were able to take more charitable measures than we would have had our well-being been on the line.

Later in the class, my group reached a deal whereby we would absorb our former enemy, the Principality of San Propranolo. This was done with no further bloodshed. Instantly, we both shared supremacy in both resources and military firepower. However, there were some outsiders who tried to break up our newly-found union by questioning whether our agreement constituted a merger or an annexation. Balderdash! Großpamba was formed through annexation, you fools!

Nevertheless, our merger was seen as a success by the other groups, and we considered expanding our borders to include the Duchy of Girl-Gangstania and the Emirate of A.

So, in retrospect, I would like to take this opportunity to forgive the group that was picked first to enter the room. Despite our “thought embargo” against them, I feel that the people of the Wordian People’s Jamahiriya acted more or less as we all would have in spreading chairs. In fact, on the topic of how the exercise started, I want to give credence to Catherine…sorry, Athkor’s method of assigning resources, which she put forward at the end of the class. This plan would have one person set up the tables and chairs however he or she wants, provided that they choose which spot to take after everyone else. I feel that if our aim is to promote equality, then this method is near-foolproof. However, I must also admit that I was among the “random selection” crowd at the outset of the class, because I, like many others, was more eager to simply get into the room than to divide up chairs and tables in a fair manner.

At the end of the class, one particular question still pervaded me. We had mentioned the Stanford prison experiment, during which about fifty people were assigned statuses as either “prison guards” or “prisoners”, and were told to interact according to their roles. Within six days, however, the experiment had to be shut down because the participants became too involved in their roles. We spoke in class about how this type of artificial psychological separation affects how people and groups interact, and how the same principle can be applied to nation-states. I wondered during the course of the discussion, “What if the experimenters at Stanford hadn’t applied the labels of “prison guards” and “prisoners”. What if they had been labeled something more tranquil, such as “hotel employees” and “hotel guests”, or if they hadn’t been given a label at all? Would they still have acted in a hostile manner?" Perhaps it was simply the perception that they were adversarial groups that caused them to oppose one another. The same idea, therefore, can be seen among states; we had spoke earlier about how the “limits” of what states can and can’t do are constantly being pushed. What if states behave in ways that they think states are traditionally supposed to behave? The same mentality grips those in power as those in the prison experiment: the model of what the group should be, what their aims and values are like, and the nature of their relationships to other groups. It is a fascinating idea, the possibility of stripping away all previous notions of how a state is supposed to act, but what results would it bring? Would the state be more responsive to the needs of its people, and people around the globe, or would it be used as a vehicle to further the interests of the ruling elite? Just what do traditional notions of a state protect?

On a final note…a gun ban? The nerve! Where’s Antonin Scalia when you need him?

Love for UC World Politics

         Okay so, no, Thursday’s class did not specifically focus on educating us any more about current and past international issues. For over an hour, all the class did was bicker back and forth. We bickered about the reasoning for how the seating arrangement worked out the way it did and then we bickered some more about how we could have done things differently as to make our entire experience less violent. However, I think that what many of us are failing to realize is that, as we entered Thursday’s class, we were thrown into a mock world crisis. Yes, I know that this so called “crisis” was extremely unrealistic, but I feel that each one of us are informed enough about legitimate international affairs to fill in aspects of what was left out in class and to discard the factors that were too absurd to matter. For, in doing so, I think that all of us can then apply what we experienced in class to how and why things happen the way they do in our world and society today.

            I personally enjoyed the class. Actually, I thoroughly enjoyed class. Beyond what I thought it taught us about how different nations communicate and offer aid to one another, I thought it taught us a lot about each other. It was interesting to see how all of us, many of whom would like to spend their lives actually working in the field of international relations, chose to reason with one another. We each bring something so unique to the table and I think that Thursday’s class really emphasized that. I can't wait to see what the next class brings!

Self-Indulgent and ineffectual discussion...

One of my main frustrations with politics is the (in my opinion) obsession with past political events and the corresponding lack of action and forward looking planning. I am not suggesting ignoring we repeat our past mistakes by ignoring history, but rather that we ignore the impulse to overanalyze what 20/20 hindsight plainly presents. In Leadership Gateway this past week we discussed whether the US would still be the major world power in 50 years. Questions such as this and the discussions they generate are rather pointless in my view. There are too many factors involved, and guesses don’t change anything about what will happen. Instead I wish we could focus on a more middle forward looking view. Concentrating on how we can now and for the future set ourselves up to be in the best position possible. These are the factors we can control, outside of ourselves other agencies and nations will make their own choices, and perhaps those choices will put them in a position above the US politically or perhaps it won’t.
Our class exercise and following discussion on Thursday was interesting but not very productive since almost the entire class consisted of us discussing why we acted the way we did for the first 20 minutes of class. Again I would repeat that some reflection on how our current position evolved is useful, but not if the lessons learned are never applied because we never move beyond discussion of the past to discussion on the future. A balance is needed, and an efficient system worked out that keeps such self-indulgencies from wasting time and possibilities.

Class round 2

I was probably supposed to live in 5th century bce Athens, because I'm a firm believer in democracy. I also believe a lot of Socrates philosophy. So at the beginning of class, I was getting agitated by the idea that we could compromise and come to a consensus. At some level, we all knew that we would be stuck in whatever situation for no more than an hour. So it really almost didn't matter who sat where. I know there wont be any hard feelings against any of the other groups next class.

When it comes to the situations like this in the future, we should just realize the quickest way to solve everything and appease the majority is democratically. Plus, a utopian world would be so boring to live in.

Class is always interesting, and everyone definitely is smart. I know we'll all learn a lot about stuff by the end of the semester, hopefully most of that 'stuff' is world politics.

--Maggy

How Seamus McGregor Explains the World

To be honest, I thought this was a good discussion, but by far the least productive/educational one. Somehow the NERF weapons moved from the hall to the classroom, which added an extra dynamic, although it certainly took away from the discussion of world politics. I found most of the class was taken up by petty bickering and reasoning why the chairs were distributed in the manner they were. While we had the opportunity to discuss sovereignty, hegemony, and annexation, I must admit I am thankful for Professor Jackson’s class-wide gun control policy.
This is one of the few classes in my life where I learn something new with every class. I find my classmates absolutely brilliant and have learned a lot from every one of them in our discussions. I must say that so far I have been quite pleased with the University College program and hope that we all continue to get along and learn from each other.
I’ll conclude by just saying that I think our group has the right attitude, both inside and outside the classroom. We can have serious debates in class and then can go out for dinner as friends. We are serious students who don’t take themselves too seriously. Keep it up everyone; this is going to be a great year!

The Question of Transnational Aid

Question: Should powerful countries look after the interests of less-powerful countries?

It has often been characterized by outside observers that it is America’s “moral imperative” as the world’s sole superpower to assist in the development of poorer countries. Be it through economic aid, food aid, technological aid, or some other form of assistance, the burden has always fallen upon America, the world’s most capable and well-fed nation, to lend its own resources to those in need. But, the question remains whether or not America should acquiesce to these demands and use its resources in such a selfless manner. There is a clear argument to be made that, while we do possess more wealth than any other nation, we should use what we have to better our own society, since we have worked so hard to achieve such a stature.

In my opinion, such aid should be applied when it is politically beneficial to do so. I see here two possible scenarios wherein humanitarian aid can be coupled with political maneuvering to achieve mutual benefit. The first scenario involves one large power (in this case, the United States) dealing with several smaller and somewhat neutral powers. If these countries are in need of aid, the United States would be best served by lending such aid with certain political stipulations attached, possibly including military alignment. I’ll use a famous example: in the immediate aftermath of World War II, several European nations were reeling from effects of the fighting. The political situation was tense and fragile, and the regional economies were subject to massive debt and inflation. Much non-military production capacity was also gone. Now, into the scene come two competing power spheres: the United States and its allies, under the banner of capitalism, and the Soviet Union and its allies, under the banner of communism. At this point, the political will of these small battered European states was soft, and subject to quick change. Recognizing this, the United States moved to quickly institute the Marshall Plan, which provided civil and military aid to nations affected by the war with the promise that they would use part of it to fight off socialist influence. Under this plan, several nations were able to put down serious insurrections, and they remained in the American sphere of influence. This measure kept the balance of power from tipping the other way in Europe.

The other scenario in which to employ foreign aid is when dealing with rogue or opposing regimes that pose a threat to the wealthy country. In this plan, aid is distributed in exchange for certain measures being taken by the receiving side, ideally steps that reduce the perceived danger of the recipient. Such an approach is often called the “carrot-and-stick” method, and is instituted frequently in the world of diplomacy. Take North Korea, for example. Their populace is in dire need of food and other supplies, and the ruling party fears a challenge to their position if things get too out of hand. What they do have, however, is more than enough deterrence against threats from foreign powers, namely a ridiculously large army backed up by prototype nuclear weapons. Now, the United States, as well as the four countries located closest to North Korea (South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan) employ the carrot-and-stick method when attempting to negotiate a dismantling of North Korea’s defense capabilities. They offer ample food and medical aid, as well as tools and raw materials, to North Korea in exchange for the destruction of their nuclear capabilities and promises to keep their military in check. Such incentives, while not always successful in dealing with regimes like North Korea, nevertheless provide a better option than withholding aid and directly confronting the opposition.

With regard to a “moral imperative” to help third-world nations, it is understandable to hold this view, in light of unresolved historical grievances as well as the horrid nature of poverty when compared to the culture of overconsumption in the first world. However, I think, if anything, it would be irresponsible to the citizens of first-world countries for their leaders to simply give away their own earned wealth while asking for nothing in return. As handsome as the idea of straight charity sounds, it must be remembered that a government’s money is the result of the work of all of its citizens, many of whom may not be so altruistic.