Happy Holidays!!

So, because Facebook will not let me post pictures to any degree of success (which is probably a great thing if it hinders my procrastination), I figured I would finally give Fiona the picture she deserves.  If anyone has been lucky enough to see Fiona's post, you will understand how much it is a tribute to our WP class:
 


Welcome to the Dark Side UC World Politics.

 

As Todorov and Wendt could be besties, I am glad that we have all come together --- with our love of World Politics, gingerbread cookies, and toys meant for five year-olds (i.e. play dough, nerf guns, Silly Bandz).

I hope that everyone has a very merry holiday season and enjoys the winter break!!

(And if you're in D.C. right now, just :) and look out the window...)

IR: the Stuff of "Smoke and Heat of Epistemology" (Wendt)

15 weeks.  105 days.  6,300 minutes.  (Approximately.)  And the semester is over!!  Though we can measure time, it is always amazing by the speed at which it flies.

Its outcomes are pretty unpredictable, too.  Our last world politics class was not what I was expecting (at the beginning of the year, or even a few weeks ago).  Presumptuously, I think I envisioned that our class would know a good deal about World Politics.  Maybe on the last day we would go over the merits of the different themes we discussd, speculate about the future, and eat some Georgetown cupcakes.  Instead, we spent the last day as most IR scholars, politicans, and theorists do:  debating, which is a completely valid ending to the semester because it just shows that IR waits for no agenda and its "problems" never end, especially because the answers are debatable.

The simulation itself was challenging, but a good challenge, nevertheless.  I had never participated in simulations or much debate-style learning before this class, but it was an enjoyable (and at times frustrating) way to put opinions on the "table."  Though I would have favored being a different interest group, it was rather self-reflective to be the United States.  Though some groups groaned that our topic was "easier," there was a lot of research to delve into why the U.S. acts as it does and what actions have (not) upheld such policies.  Because the goals of the development conference were based on the Washington consensus, it became difficult to priortize and validate which were the U.S.'s most sound objectives.  We also had to determine how much to act in our own interests or how much to compromise for the interest of developing countries.  Ironically, for being a country of "free speech," our group did notice its lack of "loudness," per say.  This put us in an interesting position because the U.S. as hegemon typically is regarded for an opinion on important matters, as happened during the simulation.  Yet, our group learned to collaborate, each becoming an expert in his/her own policy.  Without a "spokesman," we were forced to synthesize our information, speak, and become more actively involved in the debate.

Consequently, I do regret that I did not always express my opinions in class... because that is all they are, opinions.  Whether tangents or completely valid, it is always good to add new voices to a discussion because if not, it has a tendency to circumlocute.  However, this class definitely helped me re-think how I structure arguments and their accompanying logic.

Though I am no expert in the field of IR, I guess none of us are.  Some have more political backgrounds or are better tuned into current events, but as a few of us lamented in the beginning of the semester, we were taking the course in order to learn.  And we did.  Through the living-learning community, labs, and class discussions, again, World Politics = Life.

Concluding, World Politics did become a great introduction to SIS and AU in general.  Its overview of many topics (development, poverty, sovereignty, terrorism) made me question current issues as well as which aspects I might want to pursue in the future.  Though I cannot definitely tell you whether I am a realist, liberal, or constructivst (but hey, at least I know what those things are [though, I may side with a more constructivist/realist mix], I can side with the constructivist doctrine of change.  Thanks to World Politics, my social reality is no longer the same.

No Place Like "Home"

The 2003 Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines home as:

1. one's place of residence

2. the social unit formed by a family living together

3. familiar or usual setting

4. place of origin 

6. the objective in various games: home plate

Excluding number six, I suppose that the concept of home typically represents itself in those ways.  Yet, the phrases seem so simple.  When I started this post, I could not even describe home, possibly because emotions are stronger than words. . . . or, maybe home is not a physical place.  Maybe we construct home and make it our own by circumstance.

Though I appreciated the love, the reprieve, the familiar details, and the abundance of memories attached to the home I returned to this past weekend, at the same time, something felt right about returning to AU.  It is a terrible thing, but whenever I travel somewhere else, I usually do not become home-sick because the new place becomes home, and I cannot imagaine living anywhere else.

So, in particular, what makes D.C. special?  Over the weekend, I constantly receieved the approving, knowing, silent nod from family to my student status as a D.C. "wonk" (just kidding, "wonk" wasn't mentioned, except for the time my grandma and I discussed Erin's article on marketing colleges in AWOL, but that's another story . . .).  Yet, it not just about D.C. with the monuments, Georgetown, and some little white house at the center of it all.  It's about D.C. and the crowded Metro, wide sidewalks, people selling roses in traffic, and our own TDR jams.

I guess stereotyping has its purpose; categories are always easier to digest.  Yet, the details and aspects that defy the stereotype are what make the world interesting.  Look at cultures (i.e. Native American, sound familiar?).  Look at whole countries.  Though we have the tendency to be proud of our differences, in this way, we are all the same.  The concept of "self"/"other" has come up numerous times this semester, but maybe the divide is only as bold as we construct it to be.



(GOOGLE wizard of oz home . . . makes you wonder what Dorothy could have meant.)



Blogging my Subjective Thoughts Away

Class topics that I was itching to get a piece of at, of course, 12:35 (darn it):
We were seeming to come to the consensus that Cortés was more objective than Columbus in his treatment of the Native Americans.  I do not believe this is the case.  Given their historical European backgrounds, their assessements on the indigenous populations could only be subjective because all labeling was grounded in previous context.  For example, the Europeans firmly believed in mythology, superstition, and religious consequences (i.e. Sirens, Grand Khan, Moors).  Thus, although Cortés seemed to "understand" the Native Americans more, he did not "understand" them in the compassionate, globalized way we use that word today.  Instead, his "understanding" was to fulfill this own aims.  Maybe the reason Cortés is seen as a smarter explorer than Columbus was becuase he had concerte goals, and he knew how to accomplish them by using culture as a strategy.  In Todorov, it was perfect that he was likened to a realist:  "discourse is not determined by the object it describes, but is constructed solely as a function of the goal it seeks to achieve" (116).

Additionally, I want to address an earlier notion that these conquistadors did not see the Native Americans as people.  To a certain extent, they did label them and compare them to "objects" (i.e. the land) out of convenience or out of uncertaintity (i.e. Columbus could not reconcile whether they were a tainted self or an "other" to be rejected).  Still, even more, the explorers saw the Natives as inferior beings first, which then further debased their humanity.  He could compare "people to the Indians I have already spoken of," and that typified them "with astonishment . . . closer to men than animals" (35-6).
** Thus, whether the above perspectives are the most accurate or are up to debate, I am loving our analysis on The Conquest of America, in both the contemporary and past tense.  By analyzing the construction of the self/other, identities in general, the power of language, finalist doctrine, and the (lack of) responsibility, the story of colonization has become much more interesting than in the past and an extreme warning of our policies for the future.

Reflections on World Politics and the Real World
Also one of the highlights of this past week was participating in Oxfam's Hunger Banquet (here's what you missed:  http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/event.php?eid=109134769152565&index=1).  Though the experience was not as intimiate as a banquet in which I participated in the past, partially due to a lack of people (i.e. the poor eating rice on the floor were proportionally more than the other classes, but not an overwhelming presence), it was really eye-opening when the speaker from Oxfam explained development in relation to the Haitian crisis.  A nation that once could support itself, now has to import 80 percent of its rice.  The series of unfortuante events in Haiti (i.e. widespread poverty, further destruction after the earthquake, cholera) stem from its lack of self-sufficiency.  Yet, this is not the Haitian people's fault.  The aid many countries pump into Haiti is only temporary (i.e. food that undermines local businesses).  The NGOs offer short-term services that are un-coordinated.  The government lacks infrastructure.  Haiti's recovery could be simple if it considered its people, in all their potential, first.  (For more information on Haiti, see  http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2010-03-30/haitians-say-jobs-key-recovery).

Discovering Gold, God, and Generalization

In all honesty, I like to blame Columbus for what happend to the Native Americans.  In elementary school, "sailing the ocean blue in 1492" was quite a heroic task, but then in high school, it seemed that hating him for all the rape, diseases, and repression was a good way to take avengeance for the genocide.

Yet, Todorov's remarks on the "self" and "other," as well as his portrayal of Columbus, make me realize that the blame has many dimensions.  Though Columbus was the catalyst of the many horrible outcomes of conquest, he really was a participant of a greater social context and a slave to human nature.  In terms of social context, Columbus is the quintessential man from the Age of Exploration.  He had the courage and ambition to finanace a trip across unchartered territory.  He wanted to be considered a pious Christian figure, with the Spanish version of his name meaning "bearer of Christ" (Cristobal) and "repopulator" (Colón) (26).  Yet, his monetary "means" replaced this "end."  Like most human beings, Columbus became greedy. . . .

Or, for a more exact emotion, Columbus was too proud.  This pride was most dangerous because it was rooted in ignorance.  Believing his own culture and ways to communicate to be right, the "conquest of knowledge" became a "conquest of power" (Pagden qtd. xii).  Thus, ignorance was bliss because he usurped unlimited authority over the Native Americans.  They could not resist his orders because the whole theme of conquest from an outsider was unprecedented. 

Consequently, we cannot "blame" Columbus in the sense that he mirrors Caesar, the notion of U.S. paternalism, or our own inward human instincts.  It is difficult to blame blindness and narrow-mindedness.  If we do wish to "blame" Columbus, it can only because he was the performer of unjustly acts which did cause destruction.  All actions have consequences.  "Taking the fifth" because of cultural ignorance cannot erase the guilt and his decision to perpetuate those norms.  Columbus's thinking could have been a product of both the conscious and un-conscious, but if supposing the conscious, remember that Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out against slavery.

Why I Love Letts 6

     Last night, in my little corner of the room, I attempted to dive into the ocean of homework that will eventually drown me.  Yet, said homework was more of a background statement among the chattering of friends and the sound effects of Harry Potter 5.  Though I had never seen the movie, I soon realized that the true magic was not on the television screen, but permeated in the minds and thoughts of the people surrounding me. 
      Only on Letts 6 can we turn a conversation about Draco Malfoy and the Hogwarts houses
      into a full-fledged debate on prosperity and poverty.
     I have always realized that these are tricky subjects, but for some reason, it is too easy to think of them as "outside."  Over there they are starving.  Over there they do not have shelter.  What should we do about it?  What about dignity? 
     These questions are important, but furthermore, we must question how they pertain to us, right here and right now, as U.S. citizens, as individuals with our own stories and backgrounds, and as human beings.  That is when our voices truly explode like fireworks.  Their powder is our passion.
     One of the can of worms openened was the "rights" v. "needs" debate.  It is so interesting that we feel the need to separate issues on a philosophical and biological/practical level, but I think it has roots in church/state or even religion/logic divides.  On the surface, nobody has a right to anything.  As Social Darwinsim outlined, it is all about competition and survival.  Yet, humans are more than "animals."  We unite as a race not necessarily because we always agree, but because we realize our need to survive is better done collectively and that the needs for survival are the same (i.e. food, water, probably shelter).  On a moral level, those needs equal rights.  For example, following the Catholic Preferential Option for the Poor, the poor should be cared for not just out of sympathy, but out of practicality.
     The other can was on whether the "American dream" was practical.  As an optimist, I would like to believe so, but in reality, I have to agree with that chance of randomness (i.e. luck/fate).  For example, higher education in America is expensive and selective.  Despite ambition, talent, and financial need, not all students are going to be lucky and land in their "dream schools" (or even "safety schools").
     In the end, we all agreed that it was unfair that some people started with more than others.  For that reason, many hypotheical scenarios become skewed because society is not "equal."  This was one point that Inayatullah was making:  many "quasi-states" are disadvantaged because of colonization, and such a force was out of their control.  Humans are creatures of circumstance, too.  Yet, if we clearly defined the tools to succeed in life as "rights," maybe societies would feel more pressure to grant them.  Maybe it would be for the greater good of humanity.

History Vs. Tickner-ing Clock

Of course it is valuable to look at the world from multiple perspectives.  Diversity is beautiful because it not only highlights the ways we are the same, but it shows the ways we are different.  Different does not always have to be bad, as it is useful to construct the "self" and  to see where lie personal priorties.  Debates and international coalitions exist as ways to faciliate helpful dialogues. 
     In the same manner, Ms. Silvero noted in her World Bank talk today that identity extends to countries.  Policies cannot be universal because countries are bound to their past experiences and their current relationships.  Thus, policy-makers must be sensitive to cultures and their inherent values.

However, the real question regards the value of alternative IR viewpoints.  Scholars such as Enloe and Tickner have shed much light on the stories of marginalized populations, and this is helpful if we need to re-consider the mainstream theories of realism, liberalism, and constructivism.  Yet, realistically, it is impossible to consider all the IR perspectives existing in the world.  They make for great reading, awesome thinking/dialogues, and notable re-analyzing of our current state of affairs, but having so many perspectives are also inefficient.  The purpose of a theory is to make sense of a disorganized world, but if we consider every thought out there, theory slowly disintegrates.

A re-writing of the history of world politics is a concept that has been explored in the micro level debate of re-writing U.S. history.  It proposes that time is not a line, but branches out in circles.  To a certain extent, I agree that history should not be solely focused on the "great white men" because every cause has an effect, every conqueror has its conquered.  Voices of the marginalized would create more depth to the "white" backbone.  Still, history can only be re-written so much.  Again, we cannot consider all groups and micro events equally because there is not enough time.  If students learned about every role of every citizen during the American Revolution, for instance, it would be a while before they learned who actually won the battle . . . and is that not the main point?

Tickner argues that that is the problem, we are running out of time to re-write history.  Yet, history has been and always will be there.  If individuals want to pursue a subject more in depth, they can do so, but for the general population, maybe a few embellishments here and there would suffice.

We Will Always be Afraid of the Dark

*  This reflection builds off of Holly's substantive post from earlier this week (http://andorranatmosphere.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-i-feel-secure.html).

This post was very interesting regarding the matter of fear.  There are the famous, if not trite, words of FDR, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” which cannot be truer regarding terrorism.  Terrorism is an ongoing problem, comparable to disease or crime.  It cannot be suppressed because fear, too, is a natural phenomenon; therefore, as long as fear (which breeds hatred, which breeds violence) exists, there will always be such acts. 

Yet, “If . . . [we] redirect our resources away from sensible programs and future growth, in order to pursue unachievable but politically popular levels of domestic security, then they have won. . . .” (Mueller 17). 

It is funny how (in)security of the nation translates into (in)security of economics, but I suppose that both are closely related.  “Time is money,” and it is the driving force of many of our actions.  It may (sadly) even take dominance over morals.  Yet, even from an economic point of view, we must be wary of our materialism.  As Wolfers noted, security follows the “law of diminishing returns.”  That is, each time we increase security, we sacrifice something else in our society, and eventually, the opportunities of security will not be worth their cost (15).  Consequently, the want for security, like wealth, is never satisfied.

However, we can try to control the inevitable, with categories, labeling, and any actions that will make sense of the world and give us a peace of mind.  I was surprised by the accessibility of the Pentagon, for instance.  On the one hand, it aimed to be more like the Spy Museum than the DIA.  There were large windows, wide hallways, exhibits, a garden (hello, hotdog shack), and a gift shop.  The tourism was rampant, and it seemed like the government was assuring us that their work was justified.  Then, on the other hand, I cannot imagine the employees looking at the glass displays on any given day.  They are too busy constructing their covert and vast tasks into “everyday work,” and it only becomes easier when the corridors are systematically labeled and are lined with commercialized shops.

Is it bad to adapt to chaos?  To construct normalcy?  Happiness?  Not necessarily.  It makes us efficient and literally keeps us sane.  It is just imperative to draw the line between perspective and reality.  Dreams, nightmares, probabilites . . . and truth.  For example, a person of a lower class may be content with his/her life and wealth, but that does not make him/her financially secure.

Sources: 

Mueller’s Simplicity and Spook: Terrorism and the Dynamism of Threat Exaggeration

Wolfers’ National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol

Is Afghanistan as Important as MJ?

On a surface level, the War in Afghanistan makes me feel more secure.  If national security can be considered actions that protect a country's best interests, values, and being, then having troops that defend America's (and the world's) freedom is naturally a good thing. 

However, what is interesting to consider about the war effort is its time frame.  The Council on Foreign Relations pegs the "War in Afghanistan" all the way back to 1999.  One would think that news on Afghanistan would be exhausted by now, but in reality, it is finally increasing.  NPR reported that in January-August 2009, Afghanistan received 2% of media coverage, about as much as the death of Michael Jackson.

The media blames clandestine information, potential danger, and cost as limits on why the story was not covered (note: these are the thrills and risks of journalism!).  The real reason for the surged interest in Afghanistan (no pun intended), is Obama's emphasis on the matter.  It is his war (Liz Spayd, Washington Post managing editor, qtd. on NPR).  This makes me question the subjectivity of security.  Krebs and Lobasz certaintly believed that "rhetorical coercion" could limit dialogue:  "While the attacks were real, the insecurity was a cultural production" (6).

So then, the morphing of security makes me feel insecure.  There is a famous cartoon* that depicts a president choosing the color threat via M&Ms.  Obviously, he has a preference.  In the same way, Al-Qaeda is directly related to U.S. foreign policy/the War on Terror because of the 9/11, so it makes sense that Afghanistan is a target.

Still, as discussed in class, terrorism is terrorous because of its unpredictability.  The War in Afghanistan will not stop the other 46 Foregin Terrorist Organizations on the State Department's watch list.  The War may not even deter attacks from al-Qaeda; it may encourage them. 

Maybe this substantive question should be analyzed Devil's Advocate style:  "If the the United States did not have troops deployed in Afghanistan at the present time, would that make you more or less secure?"  On the whole, I might feel more secure if the U.S. allocated its resources more evenly towards various threats.



*or maybe not so famous because I couldn't find it on Google for the life of me... Try this instead (yes, I realize the last few colors are out of order).

References:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/20018/us_war_in_afghanistan.html 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112030088
Krebs, Lobasz on Fixing the Meaning of 9/11:  Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
May 2010 National Security Strategy for the United States of America

How Secure? (a reflection)

This week definitely broadened my understanding on the concept of security.  More than military objectives, security can be surprisingly subjective, as evidenced by the laundry list of goals of the 2010 National Security Strategy.  Though it seemed less one track-minded than the NSC-68, which had a realist slant of outlining and comparing the USSR's and the U.S.'s strengths and capabilities (i.e. power, nuclear weapons), at the same time, both were created to direct opinion.  The plans, whether reasonable or illogical, became credible by appealing to emotion.  It was no accident that the U.S. was personified as the "good" superhero at war with an "evil" power.  Nationalism is a powerful tool.  Its influence can best be demonstrated by the "Duck and Cover" campaign, which my World Politics group jokingly loved to reference during last Tuesday's class.  As one ardent blogger/fervent history buff noted, "Duck and Cover become universal shorthand for the paranoid excesses of the Cold War and for every geo-political panic attack since."  The private sector was utilized to widely spread a pacifying message.¹  Though the plan was ridiculous, anything goes with public morale. If society generally feels secure, is that enough of a security policy?

Anything to calm the youth of tomorrow...²

No.  Beyond the random bouts of public catharsis, there remains the question of what security currently is and what is should be.  How much is the U.S. overextending its security policy?  How much is the "War on Terror" impractical?  Can anything (anything, even fashion for instance, since it shapes morals, cultural perception, and formality of dress/negotiations) be a form of security policy?  A better perspective on U.S. security policy may be analyzed by looking at the perspecitives of other nations.  Countires such as New Zealand and the UK actually have plans to scale down airport security measures.³ This is not to say that the U.S. should not put up a strong front regarding travel security, but its emphasis may be overrated.

It was perfect timing for this week's lab to be at Christ House.  Although it was meant to frame upcoming discussions on insecurity, prosperity, etcetera, it really represents the dust hidden in the corner of the American security debate.  Though the U.S. has a hegemonic obligation to protect internationally, it must not forget its domestic underpinnings.  If enough of Americans fall below the poverty line, precautions against external threats are not going to supply food, healthcare, and a newfound sense of trust in the government.

Sources
¹ http://www.conelrad.com/duckandcover/cover.php?turtle=01
² http://www.mcalcio.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/duck_and_cover_fallout.gif
³ http://tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/airlines-question-flight-security-measures-3861072

I Don't Even Know Where This Week Wendt

Our main academic endeavor this past week focused on the game of Risk.  As in true war, friends were made, alliances were broken, and strategy triumphed over emotions and ethics.  Interestingly enough, although the game was framed around a realist and liberal picture, members of the teams added a constructivist element by bringing their Letts identities with them.  I had to chuckle when Erin commented, "It's not personal, guys."  Yet, politics is not contained and un-biased.  It makes me wonder how world leaders form relationships.  To what extent are leaders "friends," and to what extent are they acting out of their own interests?  Can warring states be "friends" (i.e. "Oh, good job State B on destroying our resource centers.  That was very strategic!  Now, I'm going to target your population center, if that's okay")?


Why can't we be friends?

A nice break from all the work and planning (until it was over) was Family Weekend.  It was rather re-energizing to have the support and nice to see AU in the light of a Prosbie (what a sunny day walking around campus, instead of running to an 8:30 in the rain).

Yet, coupled with spring course selection, I was reminded of my future.  What a vast concept!  To a constructivist end, it seems like my goals change with the times.  To a realist point of view, I want to do something at which I excel.  To a liberal perspective, by doing what I love, I also want to help "human"-kind.  I guess SIS may be a good fit because its focus of study is the world (everything!)  Now, I realize why there are so many specializations/concentrations within the major.  One cannot master the whole world.

... Now, to somewhat connect this post to its catchy title, let's just go with Wendt's main theme of "Anarchy is what states make of it."  Out of a blank world that leans towards chaos, with our schedules, goals, relationships, and identities, anarchy is what we make of it.  Sort of like college...

Risky Business

Some claim that, "all is fair in love and war."  In the game of Diplomatic Risk, I felt that this could not have been more true.  Though general, "constructed" norms and rules existed (i.e. directions of gameplay, verbal rather than physical duels), teams were free to achieve their objectives by various means.  On a micro scale, many features of world politics had to be factored into decisions:  economic resources, military capacity, population, etc.  Teams could not isolate themselves from the "real world" and expect to "win."

One of the most important and most impressive features of the simulation was the fervor with which diplomatic relations were formed.  Although the diplomats had the power to formally announce negotiations, it seemed like all members of a group entity had the capacity to influence the decision.  It was not uncommon for random members to schmooze on the side, for members of one team to eavesdrop on another's conversation, or for the heads of state to talk on their own time.  What was perplexing was when to determine how much information was sufficient to make a decision.  Gathering information took time for the game's rounds, even without the help of bureaucracy and other institutions.  Yet, if a head of state made a snap decision, for more than one team he/she was accused of acting in his/her own personal interests.  For me, this changing atmosphere had a realist mood.  It was essential to have trust in other teams as well as the members of your team, but promises can be broken so easily.  Alliances themselves are risks, so it was surprising that other teams agreed to Blue's for so long.

Thus, Diplomatic Risk has proven that the sphere of world politics is not bound by IR theories, but the social relations framing them.

However, what our Diplomatic Risk failed to consider was the indefiteness of world politics.  Diplomatic Risk is a nice, simulated game because each team has clear objectives and "super powers."  Yet, the goals of a country may change over time.  Additionally, this Risk took a liberal agenda for granted.  All teams participated with an essentially equal voice to better themselves and therefore the whole.  Now, not all countries have the same authority or interest to bargain. 

Risk, as well as world politics, is socio/economically/politically/everything constructed.  With a statement like this:
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided.  It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny.  ~Napoleon Bonaparte
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would not IR theorists have different opinions?  Countries?

World Politics = LIFE?

This week was a whirlwind for SIS-105-081 UC.  Not only were there pancakes (physical and moral support) with our essays, but there was also an opera and a game as real as Jumanji.

Going to the opera was very exciting.  Interested in theater/Broadway (maybe not as much as some people on our floor, but that is going to change), I was in awe as I stepped into the Kennedy Center.  As PTJ noted, it definitely was "red-carpet"-ed.  Yet, despite its glamour, it stood out because of its D.C. prestige:  the international array of flags and Kennedy's bronze head in the lobby.  The atmosphere was exhilarating.  However, what made me stop and question this "bubble" was a UC friend, "What is this?  Is this just the thing old, white people do?"  Indeed, there were many "white" Tuesday theater-goers (some more impolite/snobby than others) strutting into the theather, and the previous night, my "white" grandmother was ecstatic for my opportunity to see an opera.  However, I almost think this was because of circumstance.  Though operas can be expensive and "high culture," Salome depended on its location (What part of D.C. is the Kennedy Center located?) and audience (biblically rooted performance).  Looking at history, operas or performances-like-operas have spanned across cultures (i.e. Japan's "No" [Noh? sp.]).  Though sometimes inclusive because of their language, their universal truths are not only meant for the elite.
     Needless to say, I enjoyed the opera, not necessarily for the acting (for I am even more graceful than Salome!), but for the music and pretense of it all.  One can be critical about art, but the best way to judge it is simply by seeing if one can enter its "unwilling suspension of disbelief."  I went there, so the opera had to be at least decent.

Then, in other news, Diplomatic Risk was quite the game.  I had never played regular, realist Risk before, so it took me a bit to adjust to the "diplomatic" aspect as well as the game itself.  However, I think it has proven that many in our class were born to be diplomats.  I did not realize how much one had to see the future of events (consequences) and how much bargaining had to be done to get goals accomplished.  There cannot only be a Plan A, but also B, C, and D.  In future class periods, I look forward to making some sly negotiaions myself.

It's A Beautiful Day... in the Debating World

These past two weeks have definitely looked most college students in the face and dared them to test their character.  With midterms, essays, and simulations being thrown as a whirlwind, it is crucial to take cramming, caffine, and the unexpectedly warm D.C. weather as refuge.
     In my case, sometimes the brain takes a break by trying to find upbeat, if not positive, songs.  Hence, U2's signature was floating through my head during cross country practice last Tuesday, as well as when I was working on assignments various nights.
    
Yet, despite the antagonizing work, it is always ironically interesting...

In the case of our WP Simulation, I was so excited because I had never really participated in a debate/simulation before.  The 8-minute presentation period seemed intimidating at first.  Could an argument really be sustained for that long period of time?  However, as evidenced during the simulation, all groups were very creative in their arguments.  I definitely was impressed by the amount of Sierra Club's logic, rather than appealing to Mother Earth.  Although I knew in advance GM's position, it was still impressive that it favored globalizaton, despite its domestic roots.

What was most difficult about the debate was probably connecting logic.  It is one thing to give a presentation about a memorized topic that is completed within itself, but it is another when all are debating on the same topic, and their points need to be considered.  I admit that I felt a little overhelmed when I first listened to the Sierra Club/UAW proposals because they were so sound.  It was important to concentrate on the fortitude of my own group's stance.

It was a little dissappointing that Ambassador Quainton did not make a firm decision because everyone and nobody won.  Yet, I suppose that is possibly why policy seems "slow" in the real world.  Opposing views have to consider the consequences of their arguments, but the consequences are difficult to predict in our fast-paced world.  In relation, I had a Leadership Gateway Simulation the same day as the WP Simulation, except it was on an international scale.  The theme of consequence remained the same.  As a member of the BBC media group, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment about the soundness of policy when many areas affect a certain policy (i.e. WP:  auto industry, job industry, technological sector, environmentalists, etc.), and all must be considered before a final report.

Micro Minorities (and a State Dept. tangent)

(I felt like writing something a bit more substantial than my recent posts.  This attempt may prove illogical and circuitous, but here goes . . .)

Last Thursday, we discussed human rights in relation to IR.
For some theorists, this statement would be non-sensical.  Human rights?  Minorities?  How much do they affect a nation state's politics, economics, and culture?  After all, Machiavelli uplifted the power of the state and security (military) were preeminent.

On the other hand, Machiavelli recognized the stability behind glory, which came from the respect of the populace.

To that extent, it seems that human rights are crucial to IR theory.  More than a bullet point on an agenda, their credibility dervies from the people themselves.  As discussed in class, a "silent majority" is dangerous because it catalyzes revolt.  Yet, these revolts (domestic, especially) may be ignored beause they inhibit the efficiency of the political process.  While this may be true, IR theories should recognize the "butterfly effect."  All problems cannot be analyzed, but it is realistic to turn inward to the micro scale when there is a macro problem such as poverty/unequal distribution of wealth.

This may seem that minorities are a means then, rather than an ends.  Minorities serve political purposes and their relation to the philanthropist.  However, it almost seems too cruel to think of human rights as an additional way to serve those who have the potential of power.  Yet, why are there minorities?  Who constitutes the "marginalized"?  Are they labels we impose?  Are they created because if one is not "self," he/she is "other"?  Identity is created and subjective.

Because of last Tuesday's buzzword, "institutions," it makes me wonder whether we can consider minorities or general human rights an instution.  Based on Princeton U's definiton, an instituion is "a custom that for a long time has been an important feature of some group or society."  Institutions are created and change the (power) structure of IR.  Per courtesy of WP class, instituions are inefficient to realists, physical and efficient bodies that facilitate interaction to liberals, and identity dependent with moral implications for constructivists.  Human rights may be all three (and more) if we follow Enloe's advice not to "underestimate their power".

(P.S.  Also, I really enjoyed our little chat with Dr. Howard on Wednesday [what an insightful and candid man!]  His claim about the lack of daily application of IR theory was interesting, however.  I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing.  The world has to be approached holistically.  As economists need to stop relying on the "scientific" and "logical" reasoning behind their polarized theories (Wisman 1-15),  we cannot strip the world's needs down to three ideologies.  It is important to actively participate in IR, not just contemplate on what shapes it.)

Sources:
Miller, George. WordNet. Princeton University, 20 Sep 2010. Web. 5 Oct 2010.
     <http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=institution>.
Wisman, Jon. "Keynesian Economics and Economists' Views on the State." Forum for Social Economics .
     16. (1986): 1-15

I Like Realism, I Like Liberalism...

As we pitted realism against liberalism, liberalism against constructivism, and constructivism against realism, Professor Jackson likened the excercise to learning vocabulary: 

At the time, it seemed as if the theories contradicted one another.  However, they may not contradict each other as much as complement each other.  In essence, a theory is "necessarily partial . . . it highlights some things, while leaving others out" (PTJ podcast reference, Realism).  Thus, all three perspectives should be considered because they analyze different parts of a whole.

However, if all three schools of thought were interconnected, why is there this debate as to which is right?  Possibly, not all the theories can be applied at once or as strongly at a time.  "Accuracy" is dependent on every type of context (i.e. social, economic, historical, cultural), especially the state's/people's goals. 

However, in general, a state may find it advantageous to do the following:  take a constructivist mentality and assume that history changes --> to exchange in its best interests (liberalism) --> in order to sustain power and influence world order (realism).  Yet, as stated, this scenario always is dependent on context.  A state (and its people) must be comfortable with applying the different theories for them to be effective, and the worldly scenario must be in accordance with theory.

In the Brenton Woods example, as discussed, all the theories aligned to form a fairly successful sytem . . .

So, like in the video posted above, it is possible to say, "I like broccoli" and "I like potatoes."  In fact, both become part of a well-balanced diet.

Parlez-vous français?

I was ecstatic to go to the French embassy this past week, not because I particularly favor the French (though their baguettes, Tour de France, and history in relation to the U.S. is pretty cool), but because it was a chance to get into the mind of another country.  As the speaker M. Manuel noted, we can see the "glass as half-empty or half-full." 

This definitely seemed to apply to identity.  I was shocked when the diplomat bluntly stated, "There are no minorities in France."  This underscored their ruling on the burqa.  After I (a too optimistic and "liberal American") took a poll on a website against banning the burqa, I realized I was out of favor.  Apparently, homogeneity is good.  Though some may chuckle about the French diplomatic tradition to conduct business in their native tongue, there may be some admiration of their pride as well.  If a nation has so much pride in itself, can we not help but be in awe of it?  Such is a powerful country.  If, according to Wendt, we take anarchy/self-help as institutions, strong relationships may occur that are not necessarily egoistic (i.e. alliances).

I suppose that a little patriotism goes a long way.  Though we are free to choose how much we focus on our country, to a certain extent, it seems like a civic duty... grounded in reality.  Yes, we should "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" on that personal level, as blandished during the Nats game.  Still, we should not overlook the issues in America, as masked by the Customs service ads.  In contrast to the French, how does the U.S. truly feel about minorities?  How much does it act upon those feelings?  To what extent is the American language English?  Then, is integration sparse because of society's limits or our own expectations?

Constructivist Say: What a Respectful World

In Tuesday's class, Erin, PA in teal heels with a suit, transformed into Erin Lockwood, teacher, in teal heels and a SUIT.  Although the greater authority of PTJ hovered like a ghost in the background, Erin was respected because PTJ gave her authority, and she did not transgress such powers of authority.

Consequently, on a macro scale, states act in a balance of power.  They are given authority when their actions are seen as legitimate.  What constitutes legitimacy?  It is shaped by the idea that states are bound by ideas rather than contracts.  Ideas are embodied by domestic/national ideologies and international trust (alliances).

Yet, with such a busy, “thick” anarchy, would one state notice if another transgressed international law?  In Orwell's book, Animal Farm, the nation-state of the farm is usurped by pigs.  There is no limit to their totaltarian rule:  excessive labor without compensation, false confessions, murdering the elderly, and changing laws.  Neighboring farms conspire with/attack against the regime, but it remains, though miserly. 

Absolute power? (1)

Though a satire on the Russian Revolution, Animal Farm was contained.  The people were not strong enough to resist the order and there was no international system.  Contemporary times pose new norms.  Aiming for the "goodness of humanity," states are chided if they are caught in opposing acts by international organizations (i.e. E.U., U.N.), NGOs, and war laws.

Still, what prevents states from acting like Animal Farm?  Although states are run by humans who sympathize with their fellow humans (i.e. the Holocaust was bad), as Machiavelli presumed, humans are creatures driven by power and self-interest (i.e. the competition of capitalism).  These two concepts find a medium in international respect.  As Machiavelli stated, states want more than the fragile and fleeting authority.  They crave glory.  For example, Mr. Bame, Director of Public Affairs and Outreach for the State Department’s Bureau of International Organizations, stated that “Iran likes to see itself as a leader.”  Thus, it reconsidered keeping American hikers hostage not because of ethics but because of politics.  Farideh Farhi, from the University of Hawaii, observed,“He loves publicity and thinks what he is doing is a very effective public diplomacy” (2).  States care about how others perceive them, which may limit their power.

1. http://www.audiobooksonline.com/0786102535.html   (for more info:   http://www.theorwellreader.com/essays/yemenici.html)

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/world/middleeast/20hiker.html

Got Liberalism?

After last week’s Machiavellian reasoning behind realism, I was very much looking forward to our discussions about liberalism.  My mind rang bells of life, liberty, and opportunity!  Yet, by the end of the week, I realized that the liberalist notion of a “new imaginary of sovereignty as inhering in the people” is anything but simple (O&R, 99).

When a nation has faith in the people, it trusts humanity’s strengths and weaknesses.  When the class ticked off some drawbacks of liberalism on Tuesday, they pointed to our faults:  fickleness (i.e. acceptance/rejection of laws), stubbornness (i.e. “slowness” in passing a bill), and dissatisfaction (i.e. freedom of speech).  Despite these characteristics, the mere fact that they are essentially human may strengthen a country’s character.  If it makes any sense, the noise of media sources is truer than any one imposed truth.  Freedom of expression lets the populace agree to disagree.  Yet, when the majority does harmonize, it is powerful.  Take for instance, the in-class mentioned example of America’s speedy reaction to 9/11.  Though Bush may/may not have had his own motives for entering Iraq, it was a liberal act because most people were united by fear and pride.

What does it take to hold up the world?

Cooperation pulled through garnering at least some (maybe not the best) solution, and the collaboration of many cultures, opinions, etc. has worked well for America over the years.  Yet, after we discussed the uninformed/informed voting issue, I realized that we are biased by history.  As Alyssa M. pointed out, “we all know why poll taxes and literacy tests make us jumpy; they have long been instruments used to serve racist purposes,” in the same way, well-to-do citizens like liberalism because it is America’s system.

It makes me question whether we would feel the same way if we were from another country, and if liberalism is the best state for all countries.  If certain nation-states had the capacity to develop, would liberalism still work?  How about nation-states which are not used to liberalism and states with different cultural norms?  Mr. Bame noted China’s growing influence in the world.  Though it has some capitalist tendencies, by no means is it referred to as “liberal.”  If China rose using a different path than liberalism, then who is to say that liberalism is the only way?  Even more, what measures “success”?  Happiness?

~ Image at http://americasvoiceonline.org/page/-/americasvoice/images/HandsWorld.jpg

~ See some of Alyssa's points at http://bro-eignpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/09/reflection-week-4.html

To Vote or Not to Vote?

A liberal nation follows a "for the people, by the people" mentaility.  To this extent, a populace should not be denied the right to vote.  However, the argument for an "enlightened" group of leaders reminds me of the age-old term, "universal manhood suffrage," which of course, excluded un-landed men/farmers, women, African Americans, and other minorities.

Although many proponents of the "educated" vote deny their favoritism of the gentry, this is a complex argument in what determines "representation" and what determines "educated."  To me, representation is the whole populace, from the TV-trailer man to the Harvard graduate.  All have the right to voice their opinions, even if they lack substantial evidence.  For example, consider students in a classroom:  if a student is not as informed as the others, should he/she still speak?  Is there such thing as a stupid question . . . stupid vote?  Arguably, yes, but does he/she hold that right to speak?  Furthermore, this leads to the question of education:  should it be determined by its cost, life experiences (logic), intution, or a combination of the three?

All Americans have to deal with the consequences of the vote.  It is a collateral decision of the nation.  Yet, it is also a duty for the common citizen to be "knowledgeable" about the political process for the most effective government.  Going back to the classroom example, all students have the right to learn.  There should be less blame and more responsibility in educating our neighbors. 

On the extreme end, when people favor the "elitist" vote, they may favor "popular sovereignty," which is not always the answer.  Consider the political parties with their "correct," popular possibilites.  Meanwhile, there is always a place for more representation, as America musters patience for that third-party candidate. . . .

Links:
~  interesting consideration about the "mentally challenged": http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1320290/is_an_uninformed_vote_better_than_a.html
~  it may be a natural phenomenon that we all make judgements:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100615105330.htm (NOTE:  this article reminded me of the book, Blink)
~  consequences without education:  "Get-out-the-vote efforts have admirable goals of involving more people in the democratic process, but they neglect to follow up by educating voters, in addition to encouraging voters.  Encouragement is good, but without education, it turns get out the vote into a pissing contest between the political parties to see who can sign up the most people." Get-out-the-vote efforts have admirable goals of involving more people in the democratic process, but they neglect to follow up by educating voters, in addition to encouraging voters." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/25/politics/uwire/main4545361.shtml)