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
Saturday, September 6, 2008
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!
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!
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
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.
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.
Shoulda Woulda Coulda
I have already looked at a few blogs that have been posted in response to this question and I’ve noticed a trend. Everyone seems to focus his or her attention on the connotation of the word “should”. This focus makes sense. It is one of those words where you can mold it into any meaning you want it to be, which means especially good things for politicians. “Should” doesn’t have any strings attached to it. “Well I really should, and I would… if I only could!” Well, in most cases when someone says that, they actually can, they just choose not to.
Of course powerful states should look after the interest of the less powerful states. They should always, “Spread the wealth!” In fact, many countries do, do this. However, the help that they extend varies from being bountiful to being very meager. It’s all about power; that’s what it seems to boils down to. The humanitarian in us all wants to reach down and offer a helping hand to those who are so desperately reaching for higher ground, but the politician in us asks, “What’s in it for us?” I feel as though, in many cases, unless the powerful state will become more powerful in the process of helping the state in need, they wont offer any help at all. When a wealthy country offers aid to a third world nation, beyond helping the poor, they are also shining a positive light on their own nation by being generous and kind. Thus, there is no harm in offering help, for it benefits both the giver and the receiver. However, there are some exceptions.
It may not be especially wise for a more powerful nation to take on a substantial amount of responsibility in caring for the interests of a less powerful nation. The powerful nation has it’s own set of national problems to deal with. It should not jeopardize it’s own success and quality of life of it’s own citizens in order to help a less powerful nation toward prosperity. It’s relatively similar to the topic we discussed in class this past Tuesday. Just because the President is an international figure does not mean that other nations, other than the United States, should be able to vote in the election. If international elections were to occur, the President would be expected to look after the interest of nations other than his or her own, which is not in the job description, nor should it be, for his primary concern should be for a more promising future for his own country. Similarly, although powerful nations are active and predominant in international affairs and politics, they cannot solely focus on the betterment of a less affluent state, for although they may have the authority and power to do so, they can not be held responsible for problems they did not create.
Furthermore, the world is not a peaceful place, as much I would love it to be, and politics comes into play even when concerning matters such as charity. Just because a nation is in dire need of help, does not mean that they will receive it. Based on whatever international history the said nation has acquired, the nation could either be allies or enemies of the more powerful nation. Because of how the world is currently, a more powerful nation cannot make the choice to offer help based solely on the exigency of the less powerful nations problem. Rather, the powerful nation has to think about what this potential course of action will mean for it’s own nations future and standing in world politics.
I don’t personally agree with any of this. Personally, I think we should be able to see a nation for what it really is, a home to thousands of desperate individuals and families, rather than seeing a nation as an entity with whom we may or may not be friendly with. We should be able to look after the interests of less powerful states without having to worry about sparking a conflict of losing our own power. But then again, when I say we should, don’t I mean we would, but only if we could? And by that, don’t I really mean we can?
Should?
To me “should” implies a righteous or moral obligation between a more powerful state and weaker state. Given the variance in moral systems and judgments of what is proper or right across the world, I don’t think this interpretation can really be applied to our current world political system. Whether more powerful states should intervene or not in weaker states’ affairs has much more to do with real political, economic and cultural reasons than with the powerful states taking on the role of protector and defender in the name of justice. Rather than “should powerful states look after the well being of lesser/weak states?” I would alter the question to read:
Are there acceptable incentives/interests that allow more powerful states to intervene on behalf of the well being of a lesser/weaker state? And if so what are they? Must these possible motivations be mutually beneficial to both the nations involved?
I would answer yes to the first question. Acceptable reasons for intervention include the instability of a weaker state threatening the security of the stronger state or for the purpose of doling out aid in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Often though a nation cloaks its true interventionist goals with the proclamation of acting for the greater good of all or under a similarly sweet but empty proclamation. The “War on Terror”, with its broad and sweeping mission of rooting out violent radical groups around the world has not lived up to its name. US economic interests have directed which groups and countries we focus our attention and efforts on. This lack of transparency in government actions and politics in general angers me, but I realize on the other hand that the international community is going to be a lot less receptive to a “War to Protect US Oil Interests” than a war marketed as being beneficial to all. The United States government is supposed to protect US interests, whether their current strategies of doing so are really acceptable to its citizens is arguable, but also beside the point in this case. A nation-state’s first priority is self-preservation, perhaps as we move towards a different form of government with a greater concert of global powers this will change.
Are there acceptable incentives/interests that allow more powerful states to intervene on behalf of the well being of a lesser/weaker state? And if so what are they? Must these possible motivations be mutually beneficial to both the nations involved?
I would answer yes to the first question. Acceptable reasons for intervention include the instability of a weaker state threatening the security of the stronger state or for the purpose of doling out aid in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Often though a nation cloaks its true interventionist goals with the proclamation of acting for the greater good of all or under a similarly sweet but empty proclamation. The “War on Terror”, with its broad and sweeping mission of rooting out violent radical groups around the world has not lived up to its name. US economic interests have directed which groups and countries we focus our attention and efforts on. This lack of transparency in government actions and politics in general angers me, but I realize on the other hand that the international community is going to be a lot less receptive to a “War to Protect US Oil Interests” than a war marketed as being beneficial to all. The United States government is supposed to protect US interests, whether their current strategies of doing so are really acceptable to its citizens is arguable, but also beside the point in this case. A nation-state’s first priority is self-preservation, perhaps as we move towards a different form of government with a greater concert of global powers this will change.
Should Powerful Countries Concern Themselves with the Well-Being of Less Fortunate States?
I hold the belief that all people, and all states, are self-interested. A state’s well-being is of the highest priority, which is logical considering the people in leadership positions are elected by the populace of that specific nation to serve their needs. But the question is whether or not powerful states should look after the needs of weaker nations. I believe that if the powerful state stands to benefit or prevent dangerous situations by providing aid, it should assist that weaker nation out of its own self-interest.
The greatest problem in the eyes of powerful nations regarding weak states is the threat to stability these underdeveloped nations pose. In most cases, poor countries have unstable governments, largely due to the fact discontent runs high in nations that can’t provide basic services for their citizens. Unstable nations tend to have a dangerous mix of factors: a large part of the populace that is very young (due to high birth rates and poor health care); there is little formal education; and weapons are often widely available. This potent concoction can spill into neighboring nations and can be felt around the world. Al-Qaeda is a prime example of a neglected group of people who turned on the developed world to spread a radical ideology and vent their anger. Saudi construction heir and Egyptian doctor aside, the majority of Al-Qaeda’s organization are from poor, disenfranchised parts of the world such as Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Yemen. Individuals brought up knowing they were poor and helpless to stop it look for ways to get revenge against those who they feel are responsible for their suffering. This combines with radical religious beliefs and a readily available supply of firearms, and soon wealthy nations find their national security at risk by terrorists.
So, should powerful states support weaker ones? I personally believe basic aid concentrated in education, infrastructure, and health care is the key. Instability is inevitable in countries where these three things are not widely available to the public. Education and health care are long-term services that help calm discontent among people and infrastructure raises the quality of living and connects communities, allowing for expanded local business. Wealthy nations should assist poor nations in these fields to increase stability, reducing the chances of discontent around the world spilling into their nations in the form of a terrorist attack or other act of aggression. Military aid to nations with authoritarian regimes breeds ill will among the populace, and encourages people to turn personal vendettas into global acts of terror. I believe the United States and other leaders of the free world should avoid giving military aid to nations with track records of human rights abuses to distance itself from the image of being supportive of pro-western dictators.
So yes, I do believe that wealthy nations should assist weaker states. However, I am in favor of doing it when it is deemed in the best interest of the powerful country. There is no need to break the bank trying to iron out the finer points of humanitarian aid to other nations, but powerful nations should concentrate assistance in specific areas to maintain relative stability in the third world.
The greatest problem in the eyes of powerful nations regarding weak states is the threat to stability these underdeveloped nations pose. In most cases, poor countries have unstable governments, largely due to the fact discontent runs high in nations that can’t provide basic services for their citizens. Unstable nations tend to have a dangerous mix of factors: a large part of the populace that is very young (due to high birth rates and poor health care); there is little formal education; and weapons are often widely available. This potent concoction can spill into neighboring nations and can be felt around the world. Al-Qaeda is a prime example of a neglected group of people who turned on the developed world to spread a radical ideology and vent their anger. Saudi construction heir and Egyptian doctor aside, the majority of Al-Qaeda’s organization are from poor, disenfranchised parts of the world such as Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Yemen. Individuals brought up knowing they were poor and helpless to stop it look for ways to get revenge against those who they feel are responsible for their suffering. This combines with radical religious beliefs and a readily available supply of firearms, and soon wealthy nations find their national security at risk by terrorists.
So, should powerful states support weaker ones? I personally believe basic aid concentrated in education, infrastructure, and health care is the key. Instability is inevitable in countries where these three things are not widely available to the public. Education and health care are long-term services that help calm discontent among people and infrastructure raises the quality of living and connects communities, allowing for expanded local business. Wealthy nations should assist poor nations in these fields to increase stability, reducing the chances of discontent around the world spilling into their nations in the form of a terrorist attack or other act of aggression. Military aid to nations with authoritarian regimes breeds ill will among the populace, and encourages people to turn personal vendettas into global acts of terror. I believe the United States and other leaders of the free world should avoid giving military aid to nations with track records of human rights abuses to distance itself from the image of being supportive of pro-western dictators.
So yes, I do believe that wealthy nations should assist weaker states. However, I am in favor of doing it when it is deemed in the best interest of the powerful country. There is no need to break the bank trying to iron out the finer points of humanitarian aid to other nations, but powerful nations should concentrate assistance in specific areas to maintain relative stability in the third world.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Class Discussion Round 1
World politics in itself is broad and vague. There are so many different facets and areas of focus, that it almost becomes indiscernible what can and cannot be included under the umbrella term. In class on Friday, we all took our own routes and got hung up on the fine details. We spent so much time focusing on the intricate parts, we pretty much missed the full picture. There is no way our class could (or should) come up with a consensus of what is and is not world politics.
As long as our class understands that, we can learn from each other.
So, in short, if we all take a step back and realize we aren't persuading people to join our 'side' class could yield tenfold the perspective.
--Maggy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)