Reflection - Week Fifteen

Wow!  It's already the end of the semester!

The ideas of development put forward in the "conference" were interesting... I believe we can't have the same plan for every country.  There are definitely different problems with every country and different strengths.  It is the same way with illnesses, social problems, and other personal problems.  The same thing won't work for everyone because everyone is different.

As I look back upon the semester, I can see things that I should have done better.  I can see places I should have studied more, tried harder, and focused better.  I see these mistakes as a learning opportunity going forward.  Doing better going forward is important.  The thing I need to remember is that there is no sense in living in the past.  I need to take my experiences and move on in my life and better my own problems to turn them into solutions.

Sovereignty protects difference?

Rosenblum notes on p. 245 of the paperback edition: "The only way to keep them [the space-residing humans, who are phenotypically different even though they are genetically the same] safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Hence, sovereignty protects difference, in this way of thinking about things. Do you agree?


I do agree with Rosenblum's statement.  We can see throughout history where people have invaded and removed sovereignty and people have suffered.  We can also see through our lives how we allow powerful sovereign nations have protected their culture.  However, we need to recognize that power in a state is what protects its sovereignty, which in turn protects its difference.


If a state cannot protect its sovereignty, it cannot protect its difference.  It has been seen in indigenous populations throughout history.  We took away their sovereignty, and their difference fell apart.  We gave it back, and the culture came back and is now recognized and studied.  Sovereignty is crucial to difference.

Is Todorov right?

On p. 250, Todorov writes: "'The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner; the man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect' (I myself, a Bulgarian living in France, borrow this quotation from Edward Said, a Palestinian living in the United States, who himself found it in Erich Auerbach, a German exiled in Turkey)." Is he right?


I think Todorov is right in a sense, but also wrong.  It depends on how the individual "self" looks at the foreign "other".  If the individual sees the foreign as acceptable and interesting, then the quote is right.  If the whole world is foreign and the individual treats the foreign as equal, the world can be harmonious.  If people treat the "other" as equal, the world would be perfect.  This, however, is not how it has been in the world.


"Selves" often see the "other" as less than themselves.  They are petty, closed-minded, and often hostile.  This is seen among various states and even religious groups.  Since the "self" in these cases can't see the "other" as okay, and the people within these groups can't either, there can be no perfection in the thought process.  There can be no perfection in the way people treat each other.  Sadly, if people keep there closed-minded ideals, Todorov's quote can never be right.  Nobody will have that perfection the quote mentions.

Reflection: Week Fifteen

The end of the semester has finally arrived! As our world politics seminar comes to a close, I am left with conflicted emotions. While I am excited to launch into my group’s spring research thesis, I know I will miss the open discussion model offered in world politics. I have truly enjoyed the process of sorting out and grappling with political issues out loud with my classmates, Gunperi, and Professor Jackson. Lively debate always presents me with an opportunity to deepen my understanding of the complexity of international affairs.

My group and topic choice for the spring research thesis was directly affected by my positive experience with lively debate in world politics this semester. In fact, I decided to work with Christian, Toby, and Gabe because of the breadth of opinions represented in the group. Take Christian for example. While Christian and I certainly hold divergent opinions on important political issues, we have a similar appreciation of pragmatic analysis. I am truly looking forward to lively discussions on the implications of using private military companies as non-state actors in modern warfare.

While I will miss discussions in world politics, I am ready to move on to analyzing both theory and application for a single issue. So if you have any interesting articles or professional journals on PMCs or the evolving state of 21^st century warfare, send it my way!

Reflection - Week Fourteen

Well, not too much happened this week to report.  Other than the issue in Korea.

Scary stuff, that.  I really feel for the people, the innocent civilians stuck in the crossfire.  What motivates a person to rule a country like North Korea?  Moreover, I'm kinda concerned about the international response.  It's so... noncommittal! Especially with Japan.  Also, how can North Korea accuse South Korea of using civilian shields?!  The whole mess is shocking and horrifying, and the affected people are in my prayers as we head into a new week to see what is in store for us.

Reflection: Week Fourteen

Thanksgiving break was supposed to be my oasis; my refuge from nights reading over international development policy, questioning justice systems, and conjugating obscure verbs in foreign languages. In high school, I spent most of my time wishing I could be out of my small town and in the nation’s capital with the politicos and coffee shop revolutionaries. Towards the end of November, all I wanted was family football games, my sad excuse for a car, and some apple pie.

Nevertheless, I somehow found myself in a rather contentious political debate or “discussion” over the Thanksgiving table with my uncle. The debate was sparked when my uncle learned about my intentions to study abroad in Istanbul. He then proceeded to inform my family around him of the militant Islamic movement taking over secular Turkey. According to him, this corresponded to the Muslim plan to re-populate rapidly and take over the Earth. As I was starting to eat my apple pie, I winced in my seat. No politics. I promised myself, no politics. I just wanted to enjoy my apple pie. However, as the assertions of “truth” became grander and grander, I was unable to stop myself from intervening. This launched me into an hour discussion over Islam, Judeo-Christian prophecies, and Zionism.

As my uncle and I debated events in the Middle East, our perceptions of reality and ways of thinking collided. There was no way for me to convince him of the facts when his world surrounded the literal interpretation of the Bible. My facts meant nothing to him, just as the literal translation of the biblical prophesies did not merit truth in my eyes. As I edged away from the conversation, recognizing that nothing could be gained, I smiled at the irony of the discussion. It seems cross-cultural encounters, similar to the conflict between the colonizers and the Native Americans, can be found at the dinner table on a Thanksgiving holiday centuries later.

Which is a better representation?

This is kinda funny.  Seeing this picture, with the Redskins flag and the museum in the background, reminds me that America has not really remembered all that much about what we did to the native Americans.  The "Redskins" name itself is kind of offensive.  I would say it's time for America to wake up, but people have been saying that for years and it hasn't done any good thus far.

I loved the museum's design.  Seeing the different native American houses outside and having the art all over was very cool and paid a much better tribute to the culture.  Sports teams such as the Indians or the Redskins just ring offensive to me.  This has been a topic of debate for years and I think it will probably just continue.

Reflection - Week Thirteen

While I also saw Harry Potter over the weekend, it is not the movie that most impacted the way I think about international relations this weekend.  I know I'm about a year behind everyone on this one, but I just saw Avatar last night for the first time.  What an appropriate movie to see while we are discussing the discovery of America and the treatment of the native peoples in class!  The movie was horribly sad and pointed out some serious concerns about the environment and the treatment of the "other."

My biggest concern after watching Avatar is the way the native peoples are treated wherever the others go. We seem to think we can just take everything from them and kill them off like they aren't even human.  In the movie, their connection to nature is substantial and beautiful, but the military men don't care.  They plow through to get whatever mineral they want and have no care for what could be someone else's home. In the process, they kill many people and succeed in destroying their home.  Why does the world do this?  Why must it always be about us and never about them (unless it's beneficial to us)?  Why is the world so realist?

Reflection: Week Thirteen

WARNING: Spoiler Alert and Harry Potter geek out.

In light of the premiere of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, I wanted to dedicate my weekly reflection to exploring the Harry Potter series and the politics of the marginalized. Growing up with the Harry Potter series, I never recognized the moral lessons and political commentary that could be drawn from the characters and plot of J.K. Rowling’s fantasy creation. Like the books of the wonderful Dr. Seuss, the Harry Potter series informed my moral and ethical development as a child without conscious recognition. This Tuesday, I attended Professor Jackson’s lecture on politics and popular culture, which prompted me to explore this idea further.

In the film representation and the book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pays specific attention to the vindication of two characters, Hermione and Dobby the House Elf. As Professor Jackson mentioned in the lecture on Tuesday, Hermione serves as a powerful symbol for meritocracy. As a “mud blood” (both wizard and muggle), Hermione was not born with the skill or family history that set most wizards up for success. However, her work ethic, perseverance, and intelligence allow her to become a brilliant wizard. Her true value is revealed in the last book when she plays a key role in finding the horcruxes and is recognized by Bellatrix Lestrange as a formidable threat. In this way, Hermione is an exceptionally strong female character that moves the plot by demonstrating the power of success through merit. Hermione’s successes are vindication for all the feminists out there that lament the limited female archetypes expressed in literature and society today.

The second powerful representative for the marginalized in the Harry Potter series is Dobby the House Elf. Dobby the House Elf plays a crucial role in the last book when he sacrifices his life to save Harry, Ron and Hermione from Lord Voldemort. In the last film, Dobby gets his moment of vindication when he exercises his newly granted freedom to refuse the orders of the Death Eaters and save his friends. Through this, Dobby saves specifically Hermione’s life before he dies from a spell cast by Bellatrix Lestrange. In this way, the lives of Dobby and Hermione become forever intertwined.

Hermione’s political advocacy on behalf of the marginalized House Elves eventually leads to her career in the Ministry of Magic. This relationship between two characters with their own oppression struggles poignantly demonstrates the power of the marginalized collectively. This concept is simply one of thousands of ethical and political concepts explored in the enduring magical world of J.K. Rowling’s brilliant conception.

Week 13 Reflection

This reflection is on the question of if Montezuma really had a choice to make some sort of move against the Spaniards. When I first thought about and answered this question I realized my response was based on my bias. I am so used to thinking that a person always has a choice to do something or at least try to do something. Now when I look back at the question and try to put myself in Montezuma’s shoes, I realize that they believed so much that everything in their lives was predicted because they believed that everything that happens has happened before.

If Montezuma really did have a choice then I think he would have forced the Spaniards to leave. He had many chances but was so confused because the Spanish coming back never happened before and he started to think that it was the Toltec people. The thing is that “he knew” that there was a reason for the Spaniard arrival and was getting frustrated that no one foresaw it coming.

The way I tried to relate to Montezuma was thinking about how at one point everyone knew the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Then we knew the Earth was round, but still, the center of the universe. Then finally we found out and still believe today that the sun is the center of the solar system and we know this through scientific fact. Right now we know the universe goes on forever, what happens when we find an end?

Signs helped the Spanish conquest

Todorov asked a very interesting question regarding the Spanish victory over the natives. "Did the Spanish defeat the Indians by means of signs?" The Spanish did have superior firepower and armor being guns, cannons, metal body armor and horses. What they also had on their side (in their minds) was g-d and a feeling of superiority The Spanish knew they had the upper hand when it came to military technology but they also knew that they were severely out numbered, Montezuma had many opportunities to defeat the conquistadors but didn't. The Spanish used the fact that the Aztecs based decision making and their future off of what soothsayers had to say, along with their faith and/or loyalty to the Kingdom of Spain to do whatever possible to conquer the Indians.

Trying to communicate with the Indians had been a problem since Columbus first arrived in the Caribbean when the locals referred to themselves as the "Cariba" meaning people of the Caribbean, Columbus heard "Caniba" which means people of the Khan. This little misunderstanding made Columbus think he was in Asia rather than the new world. Cortes also experienced a misunderstanding with the Montezuma, leader of the Aztec people. When they met on the shore Montezuma refused to speak and showed this by putting his hand over his mouth and bowing his head. The Spaniards saw this as a gesture of surrender. The Spanish probably figured this isn't surprising we know we're better than them, even though on the inside they were really scared.

In conclusion, my answer to Todorovs question is "Yes, yes signs helped the Spanish defeat the Indians." What I think helped them the most was their advanced technology that the Indians had never seen and their overall more worldly knowledge. My favorite example of how the Spanish demonstrated the superiority over the Indians was when they threatened the Indians that they would take the moon.

Did the Spaniards conquer the Aztecs “by means of signs”?

In The Conquest of America, Todorov introduces an interesting evaluation of the historical encounter between the Spaniards and Aztecs as a clash of signs. Instead of emphasizing the advantage of hard power capability or “firearms and horses”, Todorov directs attention to the advantage of manipulating communication. By providing a thorough analysis of signs and interpretation in Aztec and Spanish culture, Todorov is effective in unearthing the true clash of realities that lies beneath the surface of the “cultural iceberg” as I mentioned in class on Monday.

Todorov proves this notion of “victory by signs” through a historical exposé on how the Spaniards learned to manipulate certain beliefs in Aztec culture to their advantage. At the beginning, the encounter was a messy entanglement of misinterpretation of signs. For example, Montezuma lowering head in front of Cortes symbolized refusal to speak for the Aztec community but was interpreted as surrender by the Spaniards. However, as the encounters progressed, Cortes and the Spaniards learned to use the Aztec’s blind faith in omens and soothsayers to deliver fated results and validate their God-like status. This manipulation also relates to a larger clash of realities presented by divergent views on cosmic order.

The complicating factor Todorov introduces in this confrontation analysis is the two entirely different realities constructed by the determinist Aztec believers and the free will individualist Spaniards. Aztecs believed that constant communication with the land and the gods validated a determinist perspective on life. On Hola Olaam! Elana mention in her blog post on this question “because the natives on the Americas were so in tune with nature and the gods, a small bump would cause a shift.” To pick up on what she was alluding to, the Spaniards in many ways got the upper hand simply by means of philosophical view of life. The obsessive desire to create one’s own destiny drove the Spaniards in their conquest while submission to the determined cosmic world made the Aztecs complacent and easy targets for Spanish manipulability.

Todorov points to conscious manipulation of signs and a motivating philosophical view on life as two distinct Spanish advantages outside the typical weapons and power calculation. With a clear account of this historical encounter, Todorov makes a compelling case for the importance of signs, identity, philosophy, etc. in confrontation between two political and/or cultural entities. I look forward to seeing this constructivist notion played out through out the rest of the book!

Signs?

In the book, Todorov makes the argument (at least in my opinion) that the conquistadors used signs to communicate with the Indians.  Whether they did so intentionally or unintentionally is what still confuses me.

I believe the signs used by the conquistadors were unintentional.  They did not mean to put themselves in a position where they would be seen as gods or anything of that nature.  While it did work to their advantage, it wasn't the entire truth of what the Indians believed of them.  They also seemed to believe that these people were stealing their land and enslaving them purposelessly.  In this light, they are seen as beasts, maybe even uncivilized people.  I think the double label put on the conquistadors made the idea of them using signs quite confusing and lends to a great confusion.

Reflection Week 12:

This week when we were talking about global development and poverty, organizations like "worldfund" and "world vision" came up quite a bit. In my opinion they were receiving some unfair criticism for their advertising techniques and how much money really goes to what you think it’s going to.

We discussed how their advertisement techniques were to make you feel guilty if you didn't donate and better about yourself if you did. We also talked about how in every picture on these websites there was a happy child. Even though sending them a goat or school supplies won't change their life, it's a start. The ASPCA does the same thing, in every one of their commercials there are sad, abused, caged, homeless animals, how can you not want to give them a loving home. This technique worked for my family and now we have our awesome dog Sally. This technique is the best option they’ve got

I also heard that the best way to make a difference is to go to where this poverty and development is and help hands on. I agree this is the best way, but most people can't drop everything and go. People have families and jobs to worry about as well. For most people the only way to help is to send money and/or goods. When it comes to the question “how can I be sure my money goes to a useful cause?” You usually have to do your own research on that because each organization varies. For example I provided a link that says how much of your money World Vision donates. The percentage that doesn’t go is used to keep their organization running.

In conclusion these organizations are needed and do serve a purpose. What I think we really need to focus on is building infrastructure and giving interest free or very low interest loans so that these people can start their own businesses. I never really discussed this topic before I came to AU, would you agree with my proposal?

http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/sponsor/for-sponsors-donation-integrity

Reflection - Week Twelve

The conversations during World Politics about poverty and what should be done were interesting.  It's hard to imagine being in a world where you would be content with a loaf of bread, let alone what we all ask for.  "Rich" and "Poor" are such different statements depending on where you are.  I encountered an interesting instance of this this weekend.

Ari and I had a plan yesterday: go to the Holocaust Museum, then go see I Never Saw Another Butterfly.  After that, we'd watch a movie, maybe Schindler's List or something.  It sounded like a good plan, but that's not how it happened.  Instead we met another couple in the museum named Leslie and Ari and spent the day with them.  We learned how our school and life experiences were different and similar.  Towards the end of the day, we walked with them to Union Station to catch their train.  As Leslie and I were waiting in line for the drinking fountain after a lot of walking, the man in front of us looked up from taking his drink.

"Are you waiting for this?" he asked.  "You're rich, why don't you go in there somewhere and buy a beverage?" he turned back to the fountain muttering something about rich people.

Being a loud mouth, I responded "actually, I'm in college.  I'm pretty poor."  But even as I said it, I wondered how true it was.  I'm sitting here in a beautiful brand new building that cost a lot of money, paying a lot of money to be here, and I can still feed myself and clothe myself and keep a roof over my head.  Could this man?  I don't know.  I know many people in this world can't though.

Do we have an obligation to feel guilty in these kinds of situations, where our seeming wealth is pointed out for us?  I do.  I feel we should feel guilty to a point where we have to help people.  Luxuries in life, as Fr. Augustine mentioned in his homily in mass this morning, are fleeting; we can't take them with us when we go.  But we can prevent others from suffering by simply helping them, donating clothes, food, shelter, etc. to help them live a better life.

Reflection: Week Twelve

The lab with the World Bank, class discussion on Thursday, and a research project in cross-cultural communication this week have forced me to really grapple with the concept of the “post-colonial world.” In political discussions, we talk a lot about “post” societies (post-9/11 society, post-Enlightenment society, etc.). However, there is simply no other comparable event that has truly re-structured the world like colonialism. The more I read post-colonial theorists and even alternative feminist theorists like Ann Tickner, I become convinced that the justice of the current international economic system is ironically enslaved to our past. If we want to make up for the mistakes of the Western World, we have a responsibility to encourage an alternative narrative of empowerment for developing regions of the world.

In our major simulation coming up, we will be debating international development policy. In reality, this ethical obligation or “Western guilt” in many ways provides the crux of institutions like the World Bank. It will be interesting to see how each party in the simulation (European Union, Venezuela, McDonalds, etc.) will reject or address this undeniable force present in all international development negotiations.

Is it fair? What do we do?

I don't think the success or failure of a state under rough circumstances is a fair outcome.  The people living there work just as hard as (probably harder than) those states who are well off.  The governments become corrupt under the pressure, putting the people in even worse a scenario than they started off with.  It isn't fair to those people who are simply trying to live.


The biggest problem with this assertion is how we are going to solve it.  The problem with that is that humans are, by nature, pretty selfish.  Large companies and countries won't help out unless there is an incentive for them.  In the ideal world, there would be debt forgiveness for these countries and help for their development.  This world, however, is not ideal.  I think we can still give money to these countries but we have to provide a proper incentive.  This can come from tax breaks for large corporations to donate money and resources to these countries.  Together, the rest of the world can help develop these countries and give them a fair advantage to compete globally.

Teach a man to fish: and get that MONEY

States are unequally prepared for global economic competition and it is not fair. A solution for this unfairness is if the developed nations of the world who see a country struggling to develop and their people are suffering for it then we should teach them to fish. Look at America and how we developed as a nation. We were born from one of the most powerful empires of all time. We didn’t come into existence by ourselves either; we had a lot of help, if it wasn’t for the rest of Europe especially the French who knows if we would have won our war of independence. When we were born we were the only country on our side of the planet, we had a giant ocean to the east protecting us from the armies or Europe and another giant ocean to the west along with a huge expanse of land. Also after two relatively short wars we have had two friendly neighbors to the North and South. We were able to develop so fast and easily compared to other countries in the world because of these conditions. We never had to devote as much to our military for defense until WWII but we were already industrialized and had been experiencing economic success and failure.

The countries history must also be taken into account when judging the fairness. Earlier I talked about how America was able to develop and succeed much easier compared to a lot of other countries because of the circumstances. Look at countries that are post-colonial. I know there are countries like America, India, and Hong Kong that have been very successful since their former colonial rulers left and either granted them independence or was forced to. Look at Africa, European countries controlled almost the whole continent at one time and except for a select few most countries there aren’t doing well. They have been left with many problems like diseases and political corruption. To be fair to the former colonial rulers some of these colonies were asking for independence when they weren’t ready for it like Algeria, Angola Haiti. Look where they’re at now.

It isn’t fair that some countries are better prepared for global economic success than others. Countries that are successful like the United States and most of Europe should try and help these countries that aren’t as well off. Giving them money hasn’t worked out, their governments have horded the money and aide. A better solution like I stated above would be to teach them how to fish. By helping develop their industries, education systems, agriculture and infrastructure. If we give them some fish they’ll eat for a day, if we teach them how to fish they’ll eat for a lifetime. Also if we teach them how to fish they will buy fishing equipment driving the world economy. Eventually their economy will come full turn when they sell the fish and buy steak.

It isn’t fair that some countries are better suited for global economics and development. As more privileged nations we should help them with their development and economies. Money in the form of short term aide is fine, but money without industry, education, agriculture, infrastructure of the tools to make them is not good. Nothing will come of that country.

Is the economic success or failure of a state a fair outcome?

In examining the justice of a state’s economic success or failure, the microcosm of personal economic success or failure is an important starting point. While there is always the possibility of climbing the social ladder with some hard work and intelligence, the average citizen’s economic fate is determined by their family and environment. Human agency is often no match for lack of resources and forms of oppression. In many ways, the individuals that manage to stumble upon wealth or work their way up the labor chain are very much the exception, not the rule. And yet we often point at these exceptions and exclaim, “See! They did it, you should too.” The next step in that logic is then “If you are still poor, then you must have done something wrong.”

When applying this pathology to world politics, the individual “social ladder” becomes the process of international economic development. When we see emerging economic actors like India, we often point to their success and use them as shining examples of eventual economic justice for the developing world. In the article, “Inayatullah's argument about states having a right to wealth is predicated on the claim that states are unequally prepared for global economic competition.” The unequal preparation comes from two major factors that coincide with an individual’s lack of resources and contact with oppression. Considering the importance of natural resources and exports, a nation’s economic status is largely dependant on their ability to create industries like tourism if they lack natural industries. Because lack of natural resources is geographical, this nation’s economic status is in no way fair. More relevant to justice, however, is the link between colonialism and poverty. After all, economic stratification, illiteracy rates, and lack of industry can all be connected to the effects of European agents who colonized and exploited resources in a certain region. During the first Industrial Revolution, the major European actors actively suppressed industrialization in other parts of the world in fear of more competition. These colonized nations’ economic statuses are in no way fair.

Given that human agency, such as the exploitation of other’s resources, plays a large role in determining future economic success; recognition of the Western world’s responsibility to the developing world is key. However, recognition must be followed by action. Micro-financing and granting debt-relief are both important actions that need to be given more consideration for the creation of more economically just international system. As the Western world becomes more educated about the consequences of our actions in the past, we can become more conscious of the actions that need to be taken to ensure economic justice in the future.

Reflection: Week Eleven

In our fishbowl discussion on Thursday, I mused about the connection between wealth and the do-gooder lifestyle. This is a concept I have struggled with personally for a long time now. On the one hand, I have always held a certain amount of hostility towards wealth because of corruption and materialism. After all, it was Jesus that said, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” But on the other hand, it is precisely my family’s wealth that has allowed me to get a great private education and send me to American University to prepare me for public service. It is precisely my family’s wealth that will allow me to graduate debt-free and work for a poorly paying non-profit or public defense office. It is precisely my family’s wealth that allows me to buy pricey organic vegetarian food and eco-friendly merchandise. In other words, it is my wealth that allows me to pursue the do-gooder lifestyle and live my ideals.

This paradox has made me consider that it could be possible to foster this do-gooder lifestyle within the upper and middle classes in America. You can see this already with the hipster culture that is alive and well on AU campus. Hipsters, myself included, are often rather wealthy kids that shop at Whole Foods, relish in being cultured, wear eco-friendly clothing, etc. Is it possible that our generation will be able to better integrate wealth and this do-gooder lifestyle? I certainly hope that making causes like environmentalism and vegetarianism “cool” will go a long way in producing a more morally conscious upper middle class.

As with many concepts, this trend can be applied to the macro context of American politics. As our nation continues to be among the wealthiest countries in the world, we need to make sure we are using our wealth to tackle the social justice issues that are pervasive in society abroad and at home. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” I try to live my life according to this notion and I can only hope my country does too.

Reflection Week 11:

Thursday’s discussion made me wonder what it means to be wealthy. The definition of wealth is varies from person to person, but we all seemed to agree that being wealthy meant having the opportunity to succeed and the choice to by the coach bag rather than the knock off. We also talked about how the poorest person in America is much better off than poor people in most other countries, some people didn’t agree with that.

Wealth is more than just money, it is an education. In America we may not have the best public school systems but our colleges are the best in the world. Although it is hard and it takes a lot of work which will make it hard for preoccupied people like single moms or parents working two jobs to keep food on the table, it can be done. Colleges are constantly giving out grants, scholarships and loans like it’s their job. Both sides of wealth whether it is monetary or knowledge side of it can be related to the economy. Obviously if the economy isn’t doing well people aren’t going to have as much money as if it was doing good the same goes for knowledge. Sure people can still go to college on grants, scholarships and loans but the schools are feeling the money crunch as well.

If you lose job it’s not just tough luck anymore. There are 46 to 79 weeks of unemployment benefits available in all states and soup kitchens for people who just can’t pull the money together for food anymore. There is another solution… communism, but that didn’t go over well.

Reflection - Week Eleven

Am I wealthy?

That word can have so many meanings.  On one level, wealth can mean money and opportunities it presents.  Money can also mean a couple of different things: gross income, net income, dollar value on your house, etc.  How much you owe.  In that concept, I am not too wealthy in the slightest.  But I am wealthy in other ways.

Wealth can also mean what you know.  Random facts, arguments of logic, how to do something useful (or not so useful) to society.  If one were to measure wealth in these terms, I would be slightly more wealthy.  I think even those who are impoverished can be wealthy if we measure in these terms and not the first.  Anyone can.

Finally, we might associate wealth with life experience and life lessons.  In that way, I think all of us are wealthy, especially people who have been through a lot of hardships.  The unfortunate thing is that wealth won't get one the other ways to be wealthy alone, nor will the other ways do the same with this.  This form of wealth is merely in the mind.  While it helps the impoverished deal with their situation, it doesn't do much else for them.  I think we must not simply discard this enormous wealth, however.  We must listen to these people tell their hard stories and help them.  "It's a learning experience" cannot be used as an excuse unless we make it better after the lesson is learned.  That, my friends, is progress.

Reflection - Week Ten

5:30 AM - phone alarm goes off.  I whisper to Ari that it was just my alarm, and he still has a half hour.

5:45 AM - I'm almost done getting ready and get back into bed, waiting for Ari's alarm to go off.

5:55 AM - five minutes before his alarm, Ari decides that we're going to mobilize.  Uncharacteristic of him, but something I really appreciated.

We get breakfast, get snacks, and get the first Metro out, that's already packed with people.  On a Saturday morning.  Why?  For the greatest Saturday I've had yet out here in DC!!

The Rally to Restore Sanity and/ or Fear was full of funny signs, people, and some awesome acts.  Colbert and Stewart really inspired me to vote (which I already did) and to tell my congresspeople what I think.  It was also inspiring to stand around the people I did and to get the true rally experience, something I think everyone should have at least once.  After all, "those who stand for nothing fall for anything" (Alexander Hamilton)

Reflection: Week Ten

While I was squeezing through the crowd on my way out of the National Mall on Saturday, my mind was marveling at the significance of The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. With the optimistic and celebratory crowds, it had felt eerily similar to Barack Obama’s inauguration. However, there was something distinctly different in the air that day. I have yet to identify the element.

A major purpose of the rally was to publicly recognize the true demographics of America. As Jon Stewart mentioned, when the political, religious, and ideological minorities monopolize the media, the voices of the moderate eighty percent are minimized. But for the day of the rally, "for one moment, the moderates will be the news." The comedic ways that Stewart and Colbert demonstrated this irony were pure genius. In Stewart’s speech, he poignantly reminded the crowds of the difference between healthy concern and irrational fear. At the end of Stewart’s quasi-serious or “sincere” speech, he said that he merely needed our presence to restore his sanity. However, I would argue that it did much more than restore our sense of sanity. The sheer number of diverse average “moderately concerned” Americans gathered on the National Mall to poke fun at ourselves is EXACTLY the image of America I want to be presented to the international community. Like Jon Stewart said, “We are living in hard times, not end times.” Our political rhetoric and our national image should reflect this reality. Given our class discussions on the relationship between irrational fear and national security, the significance of the Rally to Restore Sanity could go even further than sanity and affect Americans’ sense of security as well.

Week 10 reflection:

This week while we were talking about the terrorist threats and security measures we could take against them the TSA and other airport security measures were brought up and deemed pretty much useless. We said that most terrorist attacks are uncoiled by our intelligence agencies before they reach airport security. In that case do we still need airport security measures?

We absolutely need them. Do you want to take the chance? What if someone was going crazy and acted on his or her own accord and decided that they wanted to bring a gun or homemade bomb on a plane. How would you stop them if you had minimal or no security? That’s right you wouldn’t, and you’d have 200+ dead civilians on your hands. Having the massive security measures with the full body scanners and the somewhat impatient TSA agents do cause some fear in people, there would be a lot more fear if you could just walk onto a plane without going through security. Some say that we are legitimizing terrorists with having security check points. I think that they are legitimate to an extent. We take what they say seriously, for example if they say we are going to bomb the Eiffel tower then there is a lot more security at the Eiffel tower. Others think that since we upgraded security at airports after 9/11 we forced the terrorist to upgrade in their attacks and threats. If we didn’t upgrade and the terrorists didn’t try to adapt they would commit the same attacks as we sat back and watched. We’re in a war where we are constantly trying to be more clever than the terrorists the vice versa. The only way to stay secure is to make sure you always have the biggest stick and that you’re swinging it.

Back to the security check points. They are necessary, we need to do everything in our power to try and stop attacks on our country and this is just one step we could take. If the people think that security at airports is getting to extreme and the government takes a step back on it. If an attack happens everyone will look at the government and say “well you should have known better and not listened to us”.

If we are diseased we aren't secure

The greatest threat to security both internationally and nationally other than terrorism and the effects of it, has got to be the spread of diseases. If a disease breaks out in a country and that country has trouble containing and/or fighting it then they could be in for some trouble. Countries bordering them will most likely shut down their borders and if the sickness becomes severe they may possibly militarize their borders as well.

For the country or countries that have this disease this would be horrible. Their government would lose credibility in the eyes of the world for not having adequate health care systems or clean water. Their government wouldn’t just lose credibility; they would lose control of their country if the international community didn’t step in and donate a vaccine or step in with peace keeping troops because there would most likely be looting on a massive scale.

Do you guys remember the swine-flu? It jump and make it to countries like the United States and China but thankfully it kind of died away, but it is still around though so get your flu shot. The swine-flu accomplished what any terrorist group would want to do kill a few, injure some and scare millions. It caused a good amount of panic across the world. I remember someone in China had the swine flu so the government shut down the hotel and locked down everyone in there until the guests were healthy, with Chinas massive population I’m surprised they didn’t have a massive outbreak.

We can't focus on preventing terrorist attacks if we are trying to contain a disease.

What is the next big national security threat after terrorism?

When asked to identify the next big national security threat after terrorism, I would propose that the issue of U.S. education and its lack of investment in science and mathematics looms as an insidious threat to the future of our security as a nation. In class on Monday, several variations of the definition of national security were invoked. When considering a more broad interpretation of the concept of national security, consistent with the Obama Administration’s 2009 national security agenda, it is important to look at the issue that will be most detrimental to our security in the long-term.

American national security and prosperity relies heavily on a steady trend of American scientific and technological innovations. New international challenges in the 21 century such as global warming and energy dependence will require creative solutions from citizens of the world. For the U.S. to maintain its global hegemonic power, our citizens must be at the forefront of this struggle with new science and fresh solutions. As stated in the 2009 White House National Security strategy, “American’s long-term leadership depends on educating and producing future scientists and innovators.” This is precisely why the Obama White House has invested in the STEM program (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) to encourage young Americans pursuing these fields of study.

The statistics on U.S. science and mathematics education are alarming. An international educational assessment in 2006 ranked U.S. students 21st out of 30 nations in science literacy and 25^th in math literacy. Students in other developed nations are very clearly outperforming American students in these fields. If we truly want to look towards future security and prosperity, America should be investing in science and mathematics education for the next generation who will inherit the new international threats of the century.

Other than terrorism, what is the greatest threat to global peace and security?

I think the greatest threat depends on the country.  In my opinion, a threat is a danger to the security of an individual nation.  World security and peace can only be achieved if individual nations are secure.

I think disease is the biggest threat to global security and peace.  If people in one country are diseased, that can affect other nations itself.  It also means they can't join an army, or if they're in an army they will not fight effectively.  The disease can also affect people in other nations as it spreads.  Look at the plague, HIV/ AIDS, cancer, and other infectious diseases society at large has dealt with.  The diseases become an epidemic, and soon a pandemic, as they continue to spread uncontrollably.

While disease can be a huge threat to national and international security, it can also help international peace and communication.  If everyone is forced to pool scientific knowledge to fight disease, it may be beneficial for others by way of getting along for something.

Reflection - Week Nine

I know this isn't exactly relevant to our topic of security this week, but in helping Ari, Ari, and Jose study for their world politics midterm I came up with this creative analogy for the major theories of IR:

The World Is Like Middle School.

Realism: everyone knows about "those girls" - yeah, the popular ones, not a hair out of place, perfect clothes, perfect lives (or so we think).  Their interests are clearly the only ones that matter to them.  This attitude is not only defensive and realist, it can also be constructivist if everyone else acknowledges their standing in the school (see below).  Really everyone in middle school is looking out for their best interests.  It's just a matter of how much you want to do that or how much you want to fit in (again, see constructivism below).

Liberalism: when I was in 7th grade, I made a deal with a couple of the popular girls that I would take a girl in my group for our Toronto trip (a girl they didn't like, nobody did, but they were making a big deal about how it was going to ruin their trip to have them) if they let me sit at their lunch table for the rest of the year.  While this may sound like a stupid trade now, remember that back then sitting at their lunch table meant a lot for me.  They get rid of the "trip ruining" girl, I get a position of power; mutual benefit at its best.

Constructivism: When the aforementioned popular girls set their standards on how to dress, work out, style their hair, etc.; they also set a norm for the rest of the community.  The community that follows them would be the group affected by the social norms they set (in my middle school at least, that meant basically everyone who wanted to be noticed by other kids and those girls, teachers, etc. or so it felt.)  If you violated the standards you were just ignored and deemed unworthy of communication.  Very constructivist.

All in all, coming up with this little model not only helped the guys understand for their midterm, but it helped me apply the concepts back to the world.  I thought you might enjoy it.

Reflection: Week Nine

This weekend I had the honor of attending the Interfaith Leadership Institute at the White House. This was truly a transformative experience for me. Through out the weekend, I couldn’t help but reflect on the close reciprocal relationship between national security and preserving our true American ideals.

I became heavily involved in interfaith youth service organizing in high school through my interest in Middle Eastern politics and U.S. foreign policy. Through studying terrorism tactics, I learned that these small non-state actors can compromise our national security largely because we allow them to divide our society. By planting horrifying, fear-inducing attacks, terrorists force national governments to react strongly by cracking down on individuals in this same marginalized group. Knowing that the government will react in this harsh manner, terrorists can then generate more sympathy for their cause and increase their recruitment pool. Through getting young Muslims, Jews, Christians and many other religious youth involved in high profile projects and fostering mutually beneficial relationships, we are seeking to change the narrative about religious division and anti-Islamic sentiment in America. In this way, we seek to strengthen our national security by refusing to allow our nation to compromise our principles and our long history of religious cooperation and multiculturalism.

With all the anti-Islamic and divisive religious rhetoric in the media lately, there is a serious need for an alternative narrative about not just religious toleration but religious cooperation in our generation. We need to start making the connections between these small movements and their ability to strengthen the security of our nation. Look out for an interfaith campaign coming your way in the next few months. The White House and the Obama administration has asked for our involvement, and I will be making sure that AU is one of the first campuses to answer this call to action.

Reflection week 9: what is security?

What is security? The actual definition of security is freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety, but what does it mean for a nation to possess security? Having the strongest or one of the strongest militaries in the world is definitely a key component to having a secure country before 9/11. Now to have a secure country means not only having one of the best militaries and intelligence agencies like it did last century, but also having a strong economy and base of citizens that support it. This was proven how by the rise of America and the fall of the Soviet Union going into the 1990’s. America had a stronger economy and a population that supported its government, neither of which the Soviet Union had which is why they crumbled.

Today I would like to think that we are completely secure, but I know we aren’t, even though we have the strongest military and economy. The difference is that the people aren’t completely behind this war. The terrorists have done their job well, as every night on CNN and ABC nightly news there are new reports of terrorists attacks all over the world. We are at war with terrorism and sometimes it’s hard to tell who’s winning.

Fighting terrorists is different than fighting a country because they don’t have a home base or a diplomatic status. Now the focus is fighting and containing the spread of terrorism instead of communism, terrorism is harder to fight because no one knows where it’s going to come from compared to the Soviet Union and communism which you knew was coming from the kremlin. Times are changing and to stay or become secure we must adapt to those changes. So are we secure? In my opinion we aren’t, because we are not free from danger, but if we keep up the offensive I think we will get there.

How do you win war?

In the card game we played as kids, winning war meant getting all the cards.  In Risk, winning meant different things to different people.  But what does it mean in the real thing?

In the real world, much like our Risk board, we all have different objectives.  We can all win by a liberal perspective - if all of us accomplishes our different goals, we all can win!  However, some of our goals are conflicting.  Only by compromise can we all "win."  This seems to be less-than-achievable in this world.  It's not as easy as saying who wins and who doesn't - there are centuries-old rivalries and religious fundamentalism to contend with, among other things.  Then there are the people who want to hold all the cards.  We can't all win if we give all of our cards to this nation, so we won't!  But that in itself also means that we can't all win.

Is it even possible to win?  It truly doesn't seem like we can all win, but perhaps one day when one group's objectives are clear enough, someone may.  For now, there doesn't seem to be a way to truly win and keep relations with the rest of the world.

RISK vs Reward in real life

In our game of risk the hegemons groups victory meant that the people in their group were put into a good mood and if they weren’t already a better mood for the rest of the day. Since the red, brown and yellow groups ended with fewer territories than they started with and farther from their goals than they started with as well. Being the head of state of the green team I felt good about the game because we didn’t reach our goal, but we still made progress and needed only one or two more turns to reach our goal.

If our risk board was a screen to what was really happening in the world then our moods would be a bit different. The United States would be in full swing celebration mode after they got over the loss of the massive troop loss they had in China, because they took out the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. The Ukrainian ultra-nationalists wouldn’t be in the Ukraine anymore and would be very sad seeing that the United States took it. The religious movement countries would be upset seeing that they were pushed to the brink of annihilation.

In real life one countries victory can mean the total demise of another. For us in a game of risk it may be a better mood and or grade.

What would a win look like in actual world politics?

After playing out various realist notions on the Risk board and writing my midterm paper in earnest defense of realist motivations, I can finally proclaim with out hesitation that I don’t believe self-interest alone should propel our country’s foreign policy agenda. When asked what would winning look like in actual world politics, I could easily spit out a convincing argument for total U.S. hegemony supported by the lovely simplistic world of realist IR theory. But that would be a disingenuous and unfortunate attempt to sidestep the challenge of advocating the more complicated liberal and constructivist IR theories. These theories are not as black and white largely because, much to the chagrin of ardent realists out there, the political world is a particularly opaque shade of grey.

If I was to rely on my own objective sheet based on my ideals and political values, “winning” would be a Risk board that accurately portrays where I think the international political world will be in a half or full century from now. Naturally, the Risk board would have a significant presence by the United States (perhaps similar to the blue team) in all areas of the world. However, this is not just because I want to sustain U.S. hegemony in the world for my own security. More importantly, this large presence is important because of the effectiveness of our nation’s democratic ideals and values. “Democratic peace liberal” theorists accurately suggest that democracies are inherently more predisposed to peaceful intentions. However, this large U.S. presence would be balanced by the rising power of the European Union in international relations. The presence of two relatively friendly large state or inter-state actors on the Risk board would be a growing “win” as both hegemonic actors share responsibility for the larger global issues of the 21^st century, namely confronting climate change, quelling terrorism by violent non-state actors, and achieving economic stability.

This ideal Risk board would be what I personally consider a win. Call me naïve but I truly think that, given good progressive leadership, the world of international relations will be heading in this direction in the next fifty to hundred years.

Reflection on week 8

This week of class was awesome! Risk was my favorite childhood board game. I remember every Thanksgiving my cousins and I would play it, also I was really excited to go to salome because I’ve never been to an opera before.

When our game of diplomatic Risk first started I never thought it was going to get as serious as it did. I thought people would only focus on it in class, but we have had a lot of little head of state meetings outside of class; discussing and planning what to do to try and meet all of our goals. I’m also glad that I got to be head of state for my team in the game because I’m a really shy person and the position puts me on the spot and forces me to make tough decisions when everyone is watching. All in all I really enjoyed this past week, other than the paper.

Reflection - Week Eight

Wow, it's already October, already midterms, and I've already been to my church weekend AND a Bar Mitzvah this month!  It was nice to kind of slow down, and what an interesting way to do so in World Politics!

I had never played Risk before this class.  I wasn't sure what to expect, other than to be able to chill.  I found myself instead really interested in the game, to the point where I joined discussions about it on the floor, trying to strike deals and work on alliances.  There was a point where Fiona and I had 5 or 6 different people in our room just talking about Risk strategy.  I was amazed at how much people got into the game.

The coolest part about this game of Risk was that everyone has different goals and different methods of accomplishing them.  I was surprised when we allied with yellow (the religious extremists/ New Guinea) because I couldn't see a value in them, but they ended up having a power that helped us tremendously.  Twists like that keep the game interesting and

Reflection: Week Eight

I was thrilled to attend the opera Salome this week at the Kennedy Center largely because I wanted to enjoy something other than politics for a day. When your life is bombarded with politic theory and general election projections, melodramatic theater is sometimes just what the doctor ordered. Ironically, even with all the majestic costumes, haunting music, and larger-than-life performances, I could not seem to shake my political analysis lenses for a night. I appreciated the pure art to be sure, but found myself fixated on one theme throughout the entire production.

Oh Salome, where do I begin with you? You are surely a show designed largely on shock value and the manifestation of hyperbole on stage. When the opera began, I instantly recognized the story of Herodias and her daughter from the Bible. I was immediately transported back in time to my small Catholic high school, where I sat in the back of my theology class rolling my eyes at this story in the Bible. In my opinion, the story of Salome and John the Baptist is a perfect example of religion and society’s preoccupation with the classic "Eve and the apple" projection. In literature, plays, and folklore, woman are often cast as the incarnation of evil, either as uncontrollably passionate young maidens or manipulative temptresses. Salome just takes the sick and twisted nature of women to a whole other level. In the opera, Salome and her mother are portrayed as manipulative and selfish even in their best moments. While Herodias and Salome are cast in this light, the pedophilic King Herod who makes sexual advances on Salome comes out looking more like a buffoon than anything else. John the Baptist of course is the saint that righteously refuses the persistent advances of Salome.

I thoroughly enjoyed the melodramatic night of watching Salome rolling around the floor with John the Baptist’s bloody severed head. It certainly cured my political stupor even if my feminist tendencies surfaced from time to time. After all the tragedy of Salome will always look better on stage at the Kennedy Center than from my shabby old theology classroom back in Frederick, Maryland.

Reflection on week 7

Having no class on Monday and no lab on Wednesday this week was all about the simulation. I was in the AIAM group which represents international auto manufactures which meant we obviously wanted to abolish the tariffs and domestic content requirements. Before my group and I started researching reasons to get rid of the tariffs and content requirements, my personal viewpoint was to keep them. I never had a real reason for wanting to keep them because I didn’t know much about the issue.

Before I started researching for the simulation I thought that keeping the tariffs and content rules would help keep American jobs. After finding information for my group’s presentation my opinion started to change and I realized that getting rid of these tariffs and content rules would actually help to not only keep jobs here but also create jobs and help the economy out as well because it would lower the prices on cars sold and promote innovation which would help the environment.

Going into the project I never thought that my views would change. I thought it was really cool and am glad that a project for class could change my views on something.

Reflection: Week Seven

I was surprised by the challenge presented by the complexities of the auto-manufacturing debate simulation this Thursday. I am admittedly not very well versed in economics, especially concerning auto-manufacturing. So I enjoyed the opportunity to research something completely outside my usual political interests. After studying the issues involved in this domestic v. foreign auto-manufacturing debate, the issue’s relevance to IR theory became increasingly apparent to me. Before participating in this simulation, I would have never made this connection.

At the end of the simulation, the professor standing in as president (I am blanking on his name even though he was fantastic) made a comment that really resonated with me. He mentioned that sometimes students become frustrated with studying strictly IR theory at the beginning of their SIS major because they come in wanting to know the answers to the War in Afghanistan, the economic crisis, and global warming immediately. However, he explained, given that theory is the underlying theme seen throughout all these political issues, a complex understanding of different IR theories is essential to our progress as IR students. As a pragmatist that could study case studies and facts all day, I considered this a really helpful reminder.

Needless to say, I am very excited to move into the next section of World Politics that deals with application of IR theory. However, the recent simulation acted as an important reminder of the omnipresence of IR theory in every nook and cranny of our political discussions.

Reflection - Week Seven

The simulation was pretty fun.  I loved working with my group to develop our position and try to defend Ford.  The issue is really personal to me, as I am from Michigan, therefore most of my friends and family have ties to the auto industry.  My uncle, for example, could be laid off from Ford any day.  The industry IS Michigan's economy.  That's what we know.  It is very important to me.

Also, simulation started in our leadership gateway class this week.  Eventful things in my group, refugees, included Saudi Arabia leaving, Russia arguing to get them back, and a couple of agreements on the side.  It makes me miss model UN in high school and is very fun.

Finally, stay tuned for another post comparing the third Harry Potter movie/ characters to nations in our world.

Reflection of Week Six:

This week we talked about marginal groups and problems they could cause for the establishment. This shows us that the government needs to include everyone’s opinion in their decision and policy making. Marginal groups can become problems anytime they want to. In France and throughout the rest of Europe there have been bomb threats on tourist sites such as the Eiffel tower and other cities throughout Europe. This is thought to be a response to Frances new legislation of the banning of Burqas. There was a similar situation in Moscow Russia when a there was a terrorist attack on the subway system in the form of a bomb by a group known who want Chetznia to break away from Russia. The Chetznians would be considered a marginalized people.
Now the marginalized can become a problem whenever they want, which is a problem. They could and a lot of times do resort to violence as see today and throughout history. There will always be groups of people who will be mad at the governments of the world, but we could help make the problem smaller by keeping their interests in mind when we make our laws and policies.

Reflection - Week Six

Embassy Follow-Up:

Well, Here we are, two weeks later, and Ari and I have still not heard anything from the Israeli Embassy.  We are going to send a paragraph to PTJ so we can get the ball rolling.  We really want to go, but of course I had to pick one of the hardest countries to randomly bump into the ambassador of.  That's just my life.

Class this week and my concerns:

This week we were engaged in some fascinating discussions about IR theory and the alternatives there are. While I listened to everyone else make really bright, interesting points and raise fascinating questions, I felt oddly like I had nothing to say.  I often feel this way in discussion and it really worries me.  It just seems like everyone else is a little more... I don't know, more intelligent, more well-read, more put together than I am.  I think this has to do with some procrastination on my part, and I hope to make it better in the near future.

Reflection: Week Six

In class today, we engaged in a fascinating discussion concerning alternative views of power in world politics, focusing specifically on the potential of marginalized groups. After studying IR theories (liberalism, realism, and constructivism) we have to challenge the assumption of the nation-state as the only power actor in world politics. Professor Jackson asked us to examine when exactly the marginalized become a threat to the power of the nation-state. Upon reflecting, I believe a demonstration of ability to organize and growth are the key factors that make a marginalized group powerful enough to upset the national order. We see this best exemplified in the danger posed by terrorist groups, infamous non-state actors, and the new power they hold over the U.S. and other European countries.

In the 21^st century we will see a substantial rise in power from not just new nation-state actors (i.e. developing countries like India) but also the emergence of non-state actors. Are we prepared as an IR scholarly community to adapt and adjust our traditional theories to include these new actors? Or are these theories so fluid that they can incorporate the relations of non-state actors as well?

I am not sure if anyone today noticed that the organization of the class directly mirrored the content of our discussion. At the beginning of class, Professor Jackson walked into the room and “empowered one of the silent” by handing the light saber to Julie and Dayna. By mixing up the old order, the class was now required to listen to the voices and interjections of Julie and Dayna instead of Professor Jackson. The class still functioned efficiently and allowed for a freer exchange of ideas among equals. Constructivists and other scholars could argue that this small class discussion could serve as a microcosm of the interjection of new power into world politics as it stands today.

The Ambassador to Aliens

Personally, I think it's a little strange that the United Nations would appoint such an ambassador.  As far as I've ever heard, there is no sign of intelligent life anywhere in the universe that would come to our planet for any reason.  However, from a realist perspective...

Appointing an ambassador for the extraterrestrials was a smart move by the UN.  In order to increase the world's security, we should have someone ready to conquer the unknown threat to the world.  My only concern is that we don't have an ambassador from every country.  The nation the ambassador is from could, and probably would, use their ties to the aliens to come and take over our country!  If we don't have ties to them as well, we can't protect against that attack.  Nobody knows what kinds of weapons they have or how to fight them.  What if the ambassador thing doesn't work, and they just kill him?  We would have to go to war, and the country where he's from (or where they land) would be going first.

A constructivis view on a UN ambassador to aliens

It is a good thing that the UN has decided to appoint an ambassador to the aliens from any perspective. You can’t just ignore them, they’re here and no one knows what their intentions are but if they aren’t good maybe we could persuade them.
From a constructivist this could be a very good thing or a very bad thing. We may be able trade and learn a lot from each other. What if they could use some medicine and have clean energy technology to trade? This is something we would want to look into. Or they could be here to wage intergalactic war; this is also something we need to look into. Sure we need to be concerned about their military power if they have any, but that can’t be our only concern. This political ad from the Reagan administration puts into perspective the kind of view we should take on the aliens http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA.
Like everything in life we should prepare for the worst and hope for the best. It’s better to be safe than sorry, that line may be cliché but this could lead to great advances in technology, absolutely nothing (a district 9 scenario) or total annihilation.

From Global to Intergalactic Politics

Politics is a game where short-term decisions often take precedence over long-term foresight. Because of this, we are constantly underprepared when confronted with entirely new global challenges. Establishing an ambassador for extraterrestrial diplomacy would be an easy but bold step in the United Nation’s progressive agenda.

So I’ll admit, I feel ridiculous when asserting such a suggestion. I am sure the majority of politicians in the UN shy away from this platform because it can easily be attacked for its absurdity. However, some brave souls in the UN have indeed proposed the election of a “Space Ambassador for Extraterrestrial Contact Affairs” in a recent General Assembly meeting in New York. The UN could easily direct someone from the already functioning “Office for Outer Space Affairs” to this appointment. Because this office would be entirely contingent on future contact, it would not require a budget or personnel yet. The important thing is the gesture. By appointing a specialized contact ambassador, the United Nation’s would send a clear two-fold message. The UN is serious about foreseeing potential global challenges in the 21^st century and the UN does not shy away from potential extraterrestrial contact.

When developments have not occurred yet, people laugh off progressive proposals such as this one as absurd and wasteful. When these developments do in fact occur, people are then left unprepared and blame each other for lack of foresight. If extraterrestrials do contact the Earth, we need the world to have a system in place to support the historic ambassador that will lead the way into a new era of “intergalactic” politics.

Reflection - Week Five

The class on Thursday about the alien landing was helpful for me.  Sometimes when we talk about the concepts of IR theory in a broad sense in class, it is hard for me to be involved because I just don't do well thinking that way.  It was interesting to see the different ideas on how to handle the aliens, the press, and the public.

The Nationals game was fantastic.  I had forgotten over the years how much I absolutely adore baseball.  I've heard it said that baseball is "10 minutes of excitement packed into 2 hours" but I disagree.  As I was explaining to Ari, the excitement of a game of baseball is in the anticipation.  It's in not knowing how the batter is going to do, who is going to steal, the pitch, the catch... everything is tension.  The stadium keeps up that excitement, and even if the people sitting down the row from you are supporting the Braves, you all have the unity of being American.  And on that note, the seats aren't divided like in football between the teams.  You can sit next to the "enemy" and be perfectly fine!  I like that the stadium is arranged in a circle.  It emphasizes the unity of being American and America's sport.

Reflection of week 5

Our class Thursday taught me how to use the constructivist theory in real life situations when it comes to dealing with other countries or in this case, aliens. Another thing it taught me is that no matter what, constructivism is always an open ended theory. Thursday’s class also made me realize how much we use the constructivist theory in a social setting almost every day. Let’s say you’re at a party and you start talking to someone you’ve never heard of or seen before. You don’t know this persons likes, interest or personality. You don’t necessarily wait for them to make the first move in a conversation because if everyone did that where would we be today? Instead you introduce yourself and start with small talk questions because you don’t know what their reaction and you don’t want to offend them with the harsh topic of politics. This is what we wanted to do with the aliens, start with small talk and not necessarily wait for them to make the first move in case they think our first move would be hostile. We would go ahead and try to establish some sort of outside communication with them by sending up some mixed radio signals. Those first mixed radio signals would be the “Hey, how’s it going? We’re the people of Earth, we’re pretty diverse and our favorite sport is soccer. What’s up with you?
I was thinking about this parallel in class and thought it was cool because I actually thought about it that day at lunch when I met someone for the first time.

Reflection: Week Five

One of the important themes discussed in constructivist theory is this notion of internal v. external identity. This is an issue that I have happened to discuss in both World Politics and Cross Cultural Communication this week. Identity development is complex in that it depends not just on internal perception but the perception of “the other.” This tension between the two images is best exemplified by the concept of Lady Gaga as a nation-state mentioned in class on Monday. In my most recent blog post, I stretched this notion to apply to so-called antagonistic states, North Korea and Iran. It’s up to you guys to tell me whether I justified that parallel or not.

We often hear the phrase “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” I think this notion is extremely applicable to the identity struggle mentioned in constructivist theory. When we develop our own identity as an individual, community, or entire nation, we must define ourselves internally but be conscious of the way we are perceived through out the world. This idea was debated in my Cross Cultural Communication class in a discussion over American culture this week. If the world views us as a largely Christian nation, can we really pat ourselves on the back for being religiously tolerant and diverse? Is this a misperception on their part or ours?

This identity struggle is what truly complicates international relations on a large scale. Constructivism discusses how nations assume certain reactions from another nation based on their perceived identity in the global order. But can we accurately predict reactions from a state if their own identity is inconsistent with the caricature we have developed for them? It is interesting to see the similarities when this identity struggle is applied to individuals on the micro level and entire nations on the macro level.

North Korea and Iran: Lady Gaga Nation-States?

This week is the first time I have been legitimately stumped by a blog question. If Lady Gaga was a nation-state, what would the international system look like? Perhaps the difficulty of this question lies in its abstract nature. It leaves quasi-pragmatists like myself at a loss. So in keeping with the true form of a pragmatist, I am going to apply this notion to reality and audaciously suggest that Lady Gaga states actually exist in the world order today.

If we define a Lady Gaga nation-state as a government that deliberately flaunts conventions to provoke reaction, we could consider North Korea and Iran as manifestations of this distinct way of relating to the international community. Out of protest against certain “Western” practices and ideals, both Iran and North Korea refuse to fully participate in the accepted global order. Their outrageous behavior transforms them into larger-than-life icons for their respective ideologies. In many ways, this gets at the complicated issue of identity. Does it really matter how you define your identity, if other persons or entities don’t recognize this? Take the microcosm of Lady Gaga in popular culture. Lady Gaga views herself as a calculated activist for the GBLT community and thus deliberately produces material that grabs attention and flaunts convention. While Lady Gaga has a substantial fan base, many Americans see her material as outrageous and automatically dismiss it. Many people don’t even recognize her as a GLBT activist. While she may hold popular power, no one in the government would ask her to come to the negotiation table. Now, apply this to the macrocosm of world politics. If you simplify the identity of North Korea and Iran, you essentially get this same identity struggle. While North Korea and Iran view themselves internally as championing resistance to the Western capitalistic status quo, what do we view them as? Crazy. Unpredictable. Not worth consulting.

It is interesting, however, to examine how North Korea and Iran still hold so much weight in an international system that they refuse to fully participate in. Just like the popular power Lady Gaga holds with her following of “Little Monsters,” Iran and North Korea still have their bargaining chips, most importantly nuclear weapons. When this type of power enters the equation, the struggle between internal identity and external identity becomes largely inconsequential. Nevertheless, it makes for a tantalizing debate when a Lady Gaga metaphor is invoked!

Reflection - Week Four

Might I say I just love living in DC?


The trip to the State Department was really interesting and opened up a new possibility for a career path for me.  I like taking these trips because I'm one of those people who really isn't sure what she wants to do yet, and this is like "career day" in high school but BETTER.  The speaker was really interesting and I could see myself in that position in the future, maybe.


As cool as going to the State Department was, it wasn't the coolest part of my week.  As you probably know, my boyfriend is Jewish and this weekend was Yom Kippur.  We went to Kol Nidrei services (for those of you who, like I was, are unfamiliar - Kol Nidrei services are the services the night beginning Yom Kippur.) and at the end of the fascinating service in a beautiful synagogue, we walk to the front to talk to the rabbi.  As we are in line, we see a guy with an earpiece who is clearly armed.  Ari asked aloud who he was protecting and this lady comes up behind us and says "that's the bodyguard."


"The bodyguard for who?" Ari asked.


"That's the ambassador." the woman replies.


We jump out of line.  We walk over and introduce ourselves to Michael Orrin himself, the ambassador of Israel.  He said it's great we're at American, and said to stay in international relations.  "It's a great field with so many exciting possibilities," he said.  Finally, Ari asked him to sign something for us so we could prove for our leadership gateway class that we met him and he explained (to Ari's embarrassment and my great interest) that he can't sign on the holiday but why don't we come down to his embassy sometime this week to get it signed?  We were two starstruck kids just about then, and said we would make the arrangements.  We are going sometime this week for the signature and probably a tour of the embassy. 


If I haven't already said it enough, I love living here.