Horizons sovereignty dilemma

"The only way to keep them safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Horizons, p. 245


I cannot agree holistically with the sentiment described above in Mary Rosenblum's novel, nor can I condone the belief that "sovereignty protects difference." In my opinion, such a way of thinking is dangerous and irresponsible, especially when applied to our discussion of the Other. The separation portrayed by Rosenblum in her fictitious, futuristic narrative mimics actual human history's infatuation with racism, prejudice, segregation, ethnic cleansing, religious crusades, etc. Sovereignty can be utilized as a way of protecting one population's cultural and geographic ties; however, mankind cannot afford to use the physical boundaries of sovereignty to dictate human interaction. A nation may choose "to protect its own", yet that does not necessitate isolation from external influence. Horizons explores this concept through the continual debate within the Platforms regarding trade agreements with Earth. The same discussion occurs within our own political environment, among the First World and the Third, between the East and the West, between communist and democratic forms of governance.  Sovereignty, in this context, has less to do with protecting one's own people and everything to do with solidifying the divide between us and them. Physical borders and separations based upon ideological difference or skin pigmentation (in addition to countless other "sameness" checkpoints) highlight those so-called disparities even further and inspire more suspicion between the two groups. At times sovereignty seems, to me, to be far too easy an excuse to which apprehensive isolationists may cling. And in an increasingly globalized dynamic among "nation-states", the purview of sovereignty becomes all the more ill-defined. 

Reflection 15 :(

College! I can’t believe the first semester of college is over. Everyone wasn’t kidding when they said that these four years will fly by- we’re 1/8 of the way done and it felt like I just got here. I am so grateful for all the experiences and the opportunities that we were given as a UC- to visit great things that really let all of us witness the movers and shakers of Washington. The places we’ve gone are all really amazing collectively; seeing the Pentagon, going into the Newseum and Spy Museum...all just on a regular Wednesday. The discussions have really opened up my eyes to the happenings everywhere that have affected us so greatly on an international scale.

From actually being able to define something so broad as sovereignty to playing Diplomatic Risk and interpreting it as a microcosm for the real world...this has been a great experience overall. The people I’ve met and connected with have also greatly affected my time here- and made it all the more enjoyable. We really have bonded as a floor and I think it is in part due to the hard work of Gunperi and Erin. I have really been surrounded by people who care so much about what happens in the world and are fully capable of discussing world events and politics in a knowledgeable and intelligent manner. This upcoming semester will be even better because of how much we have learned and how strongly we can apply everything to daily life and new classes. Honestly, I cant wait.

Reflection: My First Semester at AU

I am a firm believer that everything in an individual's life happens for a reason and that all things are interrelated. I now know, after only the first semester, that I am where I belong- in D.C., at American University, in UC World Politics.

I am truly thankful that the UC program exists and that I chose to take part in it. It helped make my transition from high school graduate to college student much easier. The program has brought me to a new group of friends that I believe will be around for the long term, and to the doorstep of professional and academic betterment. I now have a strong support network of extraordinary friends to aid me both in my academic and personal journeys, as I am there to help them with the same. The unique aspect of this class bringing a new group of friends extends far beyond my personal life. As a result of living with classmates there was reinforcement of the curriculum, whether it popped up in general conversation or actually was the conversation at the moment. This helped to not only expand upon the information learned but further solidify my knowledge as I had to defend my point and reinforce it.

Furthermore, the combination of knowledgeable PA's (Gunperi and Erin) and access to DC resources (Wednesday lab's) proved to further reinforce my knowledge and expand my horizons as to career opportunities, what is going on in my community, and extent of issues (past, present, and future). Also, the ability to get to know Professor Jackson in greater depth then an average class would allow helped to solidify the curriculum, helping to strengthen and mature both my arguments and knowledge.

I can sincerely say that if I was given the opportunity to do it all over again I would choose the program again (and again). It saddens me to think that I might not be living with these extraordinary people next year or have the same abilities to bond as a group, such as the UC common events.

Reflection 15

It’s hard to believe that this semester is already over. It feels like it has just started, but it is hard to deny that I have learned a lot both in World Politics and in my other classes.

I feel like I learned a lot especially in World Politics. It was helpful not only in learning about IR theory (which will only help me more as I continue at AU, because I’m in SIS) but I also thought the structure of the class provided a good learning environment, too. The discussions were very enlightening, because it allowed me to consider points of view that I had not previously given thought. Despite enjoying this phase of the class, I am very excited that it is over so I can begin working on the research project next semester. I am excited about our group’s topic and I am really looking forward to putting the project together.

Even though I have learned a lot in the class as it has progressed, since receiving the essay topic I keep revisiting our first blog entry. I wrote that the economy is the main issue in world politics. I still agree that it is a very important issue that affects all countries, but I am hesitant to say that it is the most important issue, so I doubt my final essay will be about this topic. I definitely have to do some thinking for the final, and figure out what I believe, because if nothing else this class this class has shown me that there is no one right answer in world politics.

Reflection

In light of the recent discussions about Thanksgiving and its rather cruel origins, I found myself looking a little more closely at where we stand in commemorating the actual meaning behind Thanksgiving. The common consensus at our dinner table on Thursday was that Thanksgiving is only celebrated so popularly because it is not tied in anyway to a religion so people have very few qualms about it. I found it odd that people generally agree that it is such a non-controversial holiday now because of political correctness, but it has foundations as one of the most controversial holidays- the essential wipe out of an entire people as a mechanism of racism and greed.

The setting in Horizons is similar to the feeling of newness that I felt when being brought out of the home I had grown up in. The personality changes that I experienced, the evolution of character I saw as I stayed with different people for different amounts of time and left others was clearly visible as circumstances and settings changed for me. The same is true of Horizons, because I essentially saw a struggle in myself to reform what I had previously identified as bad characteristics and traits in myself and keep the good characteristics. What choice did Ahni have in preserving certain characteristics of the previous life that he had known? Do you hand-pick the parts of humanity that you approve of now? Who is to decide the good characteristics (the keep-able ones) of humankind?

Reflection #14

The timing of Horizons in the semester could not have been more perfect; as I read of Ahni's trials and tribulations on Earth and beyond its atmosphere, I recognized the parallels between the characters' experiences and my own. The feeling of marginalization, or simply of difference, resonated profoundly as I made the nine-hour journey back to Massachusetts via bus, then train, and finally by car. To say that I was anxious would be a gross understatement; the day I left campus with my suitcase, the day that I arrived in Westfield after three and a half months of preoccupied distance, did not pass as quickly as I had hoped as I squirmed in my bus seat and nearly flattened everyone in my path through Grand Central. In retrospect, my agitation was due to my curiosity of what waited for me beyond campus, of what I had left behind and would find again in my hometown. I wondered if things would be as effortless and natural with my friends that I've shared everything with since the third grade, but who I've lived apart from since mid-August. I wondered if I would feel out of place sitting in my solitary bedroom or at an actual table in a non-TDR setting. These were thoughts that plagued my mind as I tried to concentrate on Horizons. My chief concern continually revolved around the concept of then and now, here and there. And I believe that is one of the motifs that haunts the pages of Mary Rosenblum's novel. Ahni, and humanity itself, struggles to preserve the familiar traditions of the past (life on Earth, familial ties, definitions of human) and embrace the progress promised by the future (life on the Platforms, new acquaintances, who is entitled to the parameters of humanity). As college freshmen, we confront the same tension, especially at this time of year when our worries are amplified by final exams and the ghosts of times past that visit us during breaks from school. I'm not certain how to effectively settle this disparity between old and new, or if it is supposed to be managed at all. Until then, I will search for the way to properly integrate both aspects of my life into the present, to cherish both the here and there as components of my here and now.

Reflection 14

I was very excited to come home for Thanksgiving this past weekend. It is not one of my favorite holidays (I enjoy the thought behind it, but I cannot get past the country’s past treatment of the Native Americans and how many people choose to gloss over these events) but I was eager to go home to visit my family and friends.

The discussions in class, during the very appropriate time of the week before Thanksgiving, really articulated different issues I have with the idea of conquest and with the founding of America. However, there was one issue that Todorov brought up in “The Conquest of America” and that we discussed in class that I had never considered. What is the link between understanding and elimination? Is understanding necessary to elimination? Is elimination a natural effect of understanding?

These are very hard concepts to wrestle with. It is hard to disagree with the notion that understanding has a very important role to play in the elimination of a group. It undeniably helped Cortes conquer the Aztecs. This idea has also played out in different genocides throughout time, too, though sometimes in different ways. The Holocaust is one of the more recent and probably the most-often talked about genocide in history, and it probably would not have happened if Adolf Hitler did not have understanding. However, his was not understanding of the people he targeted and ordered to be murdered. This understanding was of the people he manipulated into his way of thinking. Understanding and elimination might have a connection, perhaps in more ways than one.

Horizons Reflection

In Horizons there is a concept posed about the "weight" of the past in regards to the future. That is to say that history does give mankind something to learn from and build upon, however, it neglects the ability to start "fresh". If society were able to start over there is potential to avoid some of the existing issues such as hunger, literacy, etc.

It is the past that makes it difficult to organize for the sake of the future. As a result of prior problems and set laws, there is a difficulty in moving on to new horizons. The idea is that a "clean slate" in regards to sociological organizations allows for new techniques or ideas to be put into practice. Presently, such a clean slate is difficult/ next to impossible, thus policy makers must maneuver around existing issues and legislation to achieve their ultimate goal. For instance, the DC government must reinvigorate the Anacostia area instead of completely starting fresh. This mean that large sums of funding must be poured into the area in order to even have potential. It is easy to say that with a clear chance, in this case undeveloped land, would allow for the government to implement whatever it saw fit (potentially costing substantially less).

However, the "weight" of the past does have substantial value. Without the mistakes and successes of the past, policy makers and society as a whole would not have the current knowledge of what works and what doesnt. These lessons would have to be re/learned if humankind was to start over. As easy a clean slate is, there is beauty in constructing successes out of prior problems. For instance the DC Metro is (arguably) better then the majority of transit systems in America. This is a result of the planners analyzing existing systems and recognizing the faults and positive aspects and using them to create a new system.

Which is a more accurate representation of "Indians"?

In contemporary society, there are many different representations of a Native American, almost all complete stereotypes. As a little girl in elementary school, I learned about them as people who wore feathers in their hair and lived in wigwams. Obviously, this is not an accurate representation of the Native American people, yet this homogenization of Native American culture still persists.

For a lot of different reasons, the Museum of the American Indian is a much more respectful and a much better representation of Native American culture than a sports team. I am from Kansas City, home of the Chiefs football team. On the helmets, there is a white arrowhead, and the team plays in Arrowhead Stadium. The team has essentially co-opted a part of Native American culture – the idea of the tribal leader – to suit their purposes, without ever paying proper respect to the culture. This very much frustrates me about American society – so much Native American culture is constantly co-opted based on stereotypes that do not accurately represent the Native American people. These representations homogenize and ultimately tokenize the cultures of these people.

Reflection 13

The concept of othering is not new to me. I’ve dealt with othering as a minority, dealt with othering as a woman, and dealt with othering as an individual. Todorov’s concept of “othering” is not surprising to me- it explains the very core of why the Natives were separated completely and treated so poorly. The euro-centric view that plagued Columbus and his men is entirely representative of that era. We discussed in class the concept of political correctness, but I stand by my statement that I made during the discussion. The era of political correctness is relatively new. Stepping on people’s toes because of political incorrectness, and a lack of sensitivity shown towards the differences seen in others is an age-old thing because of how commonly accepted it was to view the white/patriarchal/capitalist society as normal. Any deviation from this norm was automatically regarded with caution and some degree of fear. As a Christian, I acknowledge the fact that there is some sort of hubris associated with historic events tied to the religion itself- a stubbornness to accept that other cultures simply have a different way of worship, and may not understand the concepts of a Savior that many Christians are indoctrinated with since birth. However, I feel as though the only reason I truly understand this is because of how politically correct I was raised to be. My parents would never tolerate any kind of bigoted or prejudiced statements, or excuse any sort of biased behavior because it’s simply the way I feel. Our society has moved almost to the opposite side of the spectrum, approaching political correctness almost as a religious rite and great sensitivity with the utmost care. We’d like to think we’ve progressed so far from the time of the conquistadors that we can write books that show utmost disdain for the actions against the Natives.

Reflection 13

This is definitely a very appropriate time to be reading “Conquest of America” and visiting the National Museum of the American Indian. Thanksgiving always gives me very mixed feelings, because although I do have a lot in my life to be thankful for, I cannot help but remember the origins of the holiday and be more than a little outraged at the injustices perpetrated against the Native Americans.

The debate in class made me consider other points of view, however. I was in the group that was in charge of defending Cortes against charges of crimes against humanity. This was a very difficult debate to have, because it is nearly impossible to take the morals and societal norms of contemporary times and transfer them onto events that took place 500 years ago. Things were simply different half of a millennium ago. Yet, it is personally hard to NOT blame Cortes, if only because he realistically could have chosen to not orchestrate the deaths of many Aztec people. Although the times were different, he caused the fall of the Aztec empire. He knew he was doing so. This cannot be forgiven.

I truly do keep on going back and forth on the issue. It is very hard for me to reconcile was Cortes did with what we believe, as a society, to be just. Yet, it is just as hard for me to not recognize that Cortes lived in an age that had very little notion of diplomacy, and an even smaller notion of the idea of difference.

Reflection #13

In The Conquest of America, Todorov examines the individual’s relationship with the Other: how we recognize and react to the surface and internal differences of those around us. Intrinsically, humans exercise caution in the presence of difference, for it forces them to instinctively question which side of difference is the correct? Whose difference is acceptable and whose must be changed to match what is “proper” or “normal”?

I believe that this was the case of the Spanish conquistadors that Todorov seeks to examine, dissect, and condemn in his book. These men arrive in America and encounter beings that are entirely unknown to them, and who also conveniently occupy resource-rich land. Some men, such as Columbus, immediately refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the Indian livelihood could be equivalent (and therefore comparable) to the European way of life. Therefore, the Indian population becomes a resource itself, from which can be gleaned human capital, slave labor, and the confirmation of Spanish superiority. Columbus can confidently say that his side of difference is the correct one, simply because he survives and the Indians do not. He is a God-fearing Christian, and the Indians are not. Yet the perpetual discussion of Christianity throughout Conquest contains a substantial degree of mockery on Todorov’s part. He writes, “Far from the central government, far from royal law, all prohibitions give way, the social link, already loosened, snaps, revealing not a primitive nature, the best sleeping in each of us, but a modern being, one with a great future in fact, restrained by no morality and inflicting death because and when he pleases.” (145). The colonizers involved in the conquest were oceans and continents away from their motherland. Yet what can we say about their remoteness from morality? The conquistadors continually mention their commitment to Christianity and its tenets. Yet their actions display an inherent disrespect for the “love thy neighbor” commandment. Todorov states, “Everything occurs as if the Spaniards were finding an intrinsic pleasure in cruelty, in the fact of exerting their power over others, in the demonstration of their capacity to inflict death.” (143). The exertion of power relates directly to the dilemma of “I” versus “the Other.” The fact that the conquistadors could, in fact, conquer equates (in their minds) to the verification that they are in the right, that they should force the Indians to bow to their demands as a sign of acceptance of the European side of difference. They conduct God’s work, and He facilitates the conquest; therefore, their cause is just. They are in the right.

What I find so frightening is the tenacity of this way of thinking. People wage wars and prolong conflict because of divine right, or because their form of government is the only workable model, or because they simply know best. We still cannot confront our differences honestly, without clinging to accusations and justifications that our side of difference must be right, that we cannot possibly be the ones who will be forced to change. I do not understand why that change is necessary, why this question demands a winner and loser. What would the result be if we sought for understanding and acceptance rather than condemnations and forced compliance?

Reflection: Identity

"The fact is worthy of astonishment, for man is never alone, and would not be what he is without his social dimension. And yet this is the call: for the newborn chid, his world is the world, and growth is an apprenticeship in exteriority and sociality; we might say, somewhat cavalierly, that human life is confined between these two extreme, one were the I invades the world, and one where the world ultimately absorbs the I in the form of a corpse or of ashes." (Todorov 1999, 247)

There is something to be said about the world shaping the individual and the individual shaping their world. On a developmental level, the individual gains a scope of the world through the society they are born into. The lens becomes that of which is sculpted by their societies culture. For example, American citizens have a view fostered by the values the American culture has taken as part of its identity. Contemporary America has an extreme passion for the free market and capitalism, free speech, democracy, social mobility, and various other things. Although the modern world would like to argue that people understand, this understanding of “others” comes through the eyes of the sculpted cultural lense. That is Americans will “understand” other by relating them to their culture/values; free market and capitalism, free speech, democracy, and in some sense social mobility, etc. Therefore there lacks to exist an unbiased understanding because of the fostering development of individuals, their “world” shapes them and ultimately shapes their “understanding” of other “worlds”.

There are instances where an individual shapes the society and culture they are fostered in. Still, this change is done through an underlying value (in society and within the individual) that was not necessarily recognized prior to the individual’s alteration. For example, the Civil Rights Movement occurred because of a mix of societal and individual values. On the societal side, the values of equality and progression existed they were just not utilized to such an extent until the point of the movement. On the individual side, the call for equality amongst neighbors, the call for societal betterment was always within, it just had yet to be recognized and utilized.

Although as humans our species is prone to group organization, we are inherently alone. When an individual retires to their quarters or simply their life ceases to continue it is alone; there is no companion with you. Octavio Paz once wrote; “Solitude is the profoundest fact of the human condition. Man is the only being who knows he is alone”. Thus the question remains which identity is more important or more relevant, that of the individual as a part of society or that of an individual being the sole proprietor of their life?

Blog 11

1492. As children we were taught to memorize this year with pride and joy as the year people began living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America. Actually, people had been living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America for hundreds of years before that. 1492 was simply the year sea pirates began to rob, cheat, and kill them. -Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

“Many Indians were running along the shore with two banners whih they raised and lowered, signaling us to approach; but the captain did not wish to....The Indians sent one of the canoes ahead to find out what we wanted. The interpreter told them we were looking for gold...The captain told them we did not want anything but gold.” Todorov goes on to say that the first interpreters were Indians, and the interpreter ay or may not have been accurately transmitting what he was told- because an issue of trust was undoubtedly a pivotal issue between two completely foreign entities. The Aztecs were not expected to know how to speak or answer, and the shouts by the Spaniards as orders or exclamations would later become a means of subjugation and colonization. Cortes was an incredibly smart conquistador- successfully manipulating the “caciques” and asking them questions about the state of Mexico and the conduct of war. Because of all these questions and extracted information, he was able to get an intimate understanding of the internal dissensions, and was then able to successfully act as conquistador.

The lasting impact of the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs is a source of great heated debate- the methods by which the Spaniards conquered the Aztecs was surely brutal and unwarranted. The welcoming nature with which the Aztecs greeted the Spaniards was purely religious- Queztalcoatl was supposedly a light-skinned god and the Aztecs believed that the visiting Spaniards could be a possible manifestation of this god. I agree with Todorov’s answer to the question of how the Aztecs were conquered by means of signs, because it was essentially through the manipulation of communication that the Spaniards were capable of robbing, cheating, and killing. The lack of communication between the Aztecs and Spaniards may not have been the issue- because they were in constant contact. Leaders of tribes were used as a means of representation for the entire people, but the Spaniards, painted in a negative light, undoubtedly used the miscommunication that happened between the Aztecan people and the Spaniards to their advantage. Unfortunately, the only way that they could effectively communicate with each other was through simple methods of sign language and using almost infant-like means of telling each other what they wanted and needed.

Conquest through Symbols

Todorov asks on page 53, "A mystery concerning the very outcome of the combat stills hovers over the conquest: why this lightninlike victory, when the inhabitants of America are so superior in number to their adversaries and fighting on their own territory as well?" Several answers, somewhat debated, are offered to this question; Montezuma's reaction to the Spaniards, the Spanish alliance with the Tlaxcaltecs, and perhaps most destructive and significant is the destruction of the Indian culture.

Montezuma is presented as an ideal leader; sacrificing his own status of power in order to prevent revolution in his own territory. The way the "great" leader is presented in the text, paints a picture of a ruler with his people as his main concern. "Montezuma tries by ever means in his power to keep war from breaking out in his city: he prefers to abandon his leadership, his privleges, and his wealth. Even during Cortes's breif absence, when the Spaniard has gone to face the punitive expedition sent against him, Montezuma will not attempt to take advantage of the situation in order to get rid of the invaders"(Todorov 56). The Spaniards imposed harsh conditions upon him and still he would not break or defy them, although at his command the people would have revolted. "He seemed to obey injunctions much harsher than the rules of grammar imposed upon little children, and with great patience endured everything in order to prevent an uprising of his subjects and his nobles. Any yoke seemed to him lighter than a revolt of his people" (Todorov 57). However, having the native leader as a subject to the Spaniards does not fully explain the conquest. The Spaniards framed their conquest as one set out for wealth (especially in regards to gold), but much of this wealth had already been taken by the Aztecs when they conquered the natives and furthermore by Montezuma's officials. It is this Aztec conquest that perhaps plays the biggest role in the success of the Spaniards. The Spaniards were originally met with little resistance because the natives had already been conquered. This past domination allowed for the Spaniardsto ally with the Tlaxcaltecs to fight the Aztecs (the Tlaxcaltecs felt oppressed by the Aztecs). The Spaniards were then able to capitalize on the already existing social division and push the split further. As the native society began to divide, the Spaniards used that time to destroy the native culture. In place of the former culture Spanish culture dominated and replaced it. The foreigners placed their cultural ideals, especially that of religion into the bloodstream of the former native culture. As a result, the Spanish did not conquer the natives through physical destruction but rather an abstract ideal; the destruction of a culture.

Reflection 12

The World Bank speaker brought up some interesting talking points to discuss in terms of world necessity and impoverished nations. I think the point that she hit on a lot was the fact that nations who have been brought out of economic depressions by the World Bank funds hopefully circle back and become a donator for other nations in the same situation, kind of a “pay-it-forward” deal. This discussion involving the financial resources comparatively and internationally fit neatly into our class discussion of poverty on a grander scale. The donations to charity that are made from relatively wealthier nations sometimes stem from a feeling of guilt and shame for having better fortune than others, for no real reason. From a personal point of view, there is no real reason as to why I was born into a family that will never (presumably) have the same fears as a family struggling in a third world country.

Unfortunately, the common American ideal is one of equality and justice for all- but how does that coexist peacefully with the image of a starving child in a nation across the globe? How do we, as those who are privileged, explain the discrepancy between income and opportunity gaps and still promote the same concepts of equality and justice? This is where the question of equality of opportunity. I think the better explanation for why we allow this to continue is because we believe in equality of opportunity- the misguided notion that we are all blessed with the same amounts of opportunity if you really, really try (hard enough, and if it doesn’t work, try harder). The reality is, sometimes you can’t work hard enough to pull yourself out of the societal rut that has plagued generations. The discussion of poverty in third-world countries is often accompanied by the discussion of development and the best course of action to remedy the situation that is often connected to (a lack of) infrastructure. Poverty is not an issue that can be remedied by simple guilt, but rather an entirely new perspective on charity and how giving should not be necessarily associated with guilt.

Reflection 12

The issue of poverty this week was very fascinating. I thought, on Thursday especially, we were able to discuss an issue that I have often wondered about and struggled with: the issue of donating. There are so many different issues that need resources and general support, but are they all valid issues that need our help? Do some necessitate more of our support than other issues? These are all tough issues to work past. However, the one point I always question myself on are the merits of the people who donate money to charities, especially the internationally-focused charities, and the motives of the charities themselves.

A lot of the people in our class felt as if, frequently, the people who donated to these charities were doing so in order to feel better about their own personal wealth (a version of “white guilt”, almost) or to look impressive to their neighbors and community members. To an extent, I had to agree. There are obviously many people who care very deeply about the issues they support and give money to, and it would be very inappropriate to generalize the entire population, but giving to charities seems to be almost a fad among the privileged and affluent members of American society. However, do the motives even matter? As long as they’re giving money to causes that need the support, do the motives of the givers matter?

We also questioned the motives behind the charities, and the actual effects they had on the people they were claiming to help. One of the issues that sprung to mind, personally, was Bono, the lead singer of U2. He established the ONE foundation, which was created to help both alleviate poverty and help the AIDS crisis, and gained a great deal of support. The foundation raised £9.6 million, but news sprung up in September that the foundation used £5 million to pay the salaries of the people working for the foundation. Only 1.2% (£118,000) went toward helping the needy (The Daily Mail).

It is very admirable that people want to give money to causes that need the support and resources. To a certain extent, I could care less if they are only doing it to impress their friends, because the money is still going to people who could use it. However, I wish people would investigate very carefully the organizations they are choosing to give money to, if only to make sure that their money is going to where the organization says it is.

Reflection 12: Cultural Relativity

I was glad to see that the majority of my classmates shared the idea that there is not a unilateral path to development, instead development is completely relative to a state's culture. This was especially apparent when our class discussion turned mainly to Africa. Everyone seemed to remember that Africa is not a country but a continent and furthermore each country is wildly different.

This cultural relativity is expressed in The Conquest of America. When Columbus gave needles to the natives thinking it could be used for the clothes they had also provided, the natives instead used it to pick their teeth and tend to wounds. There were also instances where Columbus traded with the natives receiving something of material gain by Western standards while the natives would receive "meaningless" items or things worth comparatively less but find great worth from them. For example Columbus' men traded gloves for land. Cultural relativity and diversity is also exemplified in the instances where the natives would "offer their homes" to the Christians, meaning they would give the Christians whatever they desired. Yet, when the natives returned this practice, the Christians were angered and considered the natives thieves.

The concept and understanding of cultural relativity is important to identity but vital for the understanding of development. This relativity must be kept in mind so that states or organizations seeking to aid other nations don't look to help other states develop with a one-sided view or with the idea of unilateral development. Global actors must recognize and understand differences in order to ensure peace between states and the achievement of goals (in this case aiding in development).

Reflection #12

"To propagate the faith presupposes that the Indians are considered his equals (before God). But what if they are unwilling to give their wealth? Then they must be subdued, in military and political terms, so that it may be taken from them by force..." (Todorov 45)

This quote taken from our reading of The Conquest of America, though its context belongs to centuries-old circumstances, is entirely relevant to our discussion of poverty and the subsequent dynamic between the First World and the Global South. During class on Thursday, we generally accepted the efforts of international aid organizations such as World Vision as honorable in intention, though doubtful in execution. Yet I couldn't stop myself from thinking about the inadvertent hypocrisy in these do-gooder actions. Groups such as World Vision and Heifer International cater to the materially-driven, "socially cognizant", typically Christian First World citizen; this demographic clings desperately to the notions of social activism and world citizenry and believe that they positively contribute to these objectives because they have the capacity to charge their credit cards to buy a few chickens or t-shirts whose partial profits benefit Darfur. It is my belief that these aid initiatives, though honorable in intent, actually exacerbate the divide between the First World and the Global South. The current international aid system allows the First World to know about issues within the Global South and "help" from a safe distance: behind their expensive computer screens or within the cheery ambience of their local mall. Absolutely no emotional, personal, human connection is formed. The idea of "us" and "them", of the inherent existence of "The Other" is perpetuated.

When I consider the numerous international aid organizations that emphasize our common humanity or the moral obligation to help the impoverished, and then when I examine the actual status quo within the Global South, there is no doubt in my mind that the current system of international aid contains inexcusable flaws. It seems to me that citizens within the First World are only willing to give back and adhere to their moral compass when they themselves will benefit. We discussed the spiritual/religion appeal of donating to the less fortunate. However, as the quote above demonstrates, we are not willing to redeem our souls if it equates to sacrificing our comfortable standard of living. The best example of this that I can offer is the lack of response to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite the deplorable, undeniable facts of rape, murder, and child slavery, the world seems content to allow the deadliest conflict since World War II to wage on because their suffering results in our benefit. "The UN Refugee Agency says the war killed 2.5 million people, directly or indirectly, since August 1998, and later a UN panel says the warring parties deliberately prolonged the conflict to plunder gold, diamonds, timber, and coltan in the regions." (http://www.fallingwhistles.com/timeline/) The war in the DRC, though riddled with injustice and atrocities, is too valuable to the First World to be put to an end by international intervention. Moral obligation dissolves in the face of dollar signs. This opinion was true in Columbus' time, and it remains to be so today. The question is when humanity will recognize its dishonor.

Fairness of Economic Success or Failure

I find this economic success/failure to be unfair, especially for developing nations, because there is the misconception of unilateral development. There seems to be a preconceived notion that every state develops along a single path (in the mind of a Western power). The first step is preindustrialziation, that is the state is organized in a way of the past such as a tribe. Then there is a stage of industrialization or development where the state sees technological and societal developments, riding of the "old", and a creation of a stable government. The final state postindustrialization. All of this is done under the current Western definition of development; the state becomes a capitalist democracy. Any form of development that does not fit the Western mold is deemed "backward", "third world", or the "global south".

These "third world" states are on an entirely different playing field and should not be subject to the same expectations as other states. States that have developed in the wake of the colonial era such as Rwanda or South Africa have had to deal with state development, and arguably continue to do so. This puts states at a disadvantage for economic success because they are dealign with stability issues on a grand scale, and are therefore unable to focus on economic prosperity as more "developed" states. Furthermore it is these "developed" states that have put these developing states at a disadvantages. States like Great Britain, arguably the greatest colonial power, instilled western principles into its colonies leaving developmental issues in it's wake. The African states are still trying to battle their African identity and custom while working to develop. Furthermore, to have the same expectations for economic success would mean that all cultures and states are organized homogeneously. This notion lacks respect for the diversity of cultural norms and values amongst different states. For instance, in precolonial Africa many tribes were centralized and worked in a communal form of organization. This value of centralization and community is still, arguably, inherently part of the "African" identity. Western nations, although there is a communal aspect to society, respects the individuals and means of wealth such as private land ownership. Therefore the division of labor and various other capitalist ideals havent fully permeated every state. This means that states are competing on different "scale" on different "fields".

Is the economic failure or success of a state under unequal preparatory conditions a fair outcome? If so, why? If not, what should be done?

The fact that states do not perform equally within the global economic system should not come as a surprise to the international community. Our globalized world praises the institution of free market capitalism; every nation-state is encouraged to participate within the market in order to augment the general level of competition. Yet participation does not equate to equal gains for all. Global economic competition guarantees the emergence of winners and losers, a struggle for the survival of the fittest in international industry. In many ways, this concept mimics our discussion of the college admissions process. As applicants, we could choose to do the best with what we were given in terms of opportunities and resources, or we could seek for supplementary materials that made our candidacy all the more appealing. While applying to universities throughout the country, we faced disheartening acceptance rates and terrifying price tags; we were aware of the inequity that stalked our grandiose dreams of College A. We clung to the words "options" and "safety school," just in case. States take similar precautions when faced with a fiercely competitive global market. They exploit their domestic natural resources, or pursue symbiotic trade agreements as a means of accessing vital materials that can be found beyond their borders. Yet when every state enters the global market, and when every prospective student's application lies in the hands of a selection committee, everything once again revolves around relative competition: how does the output of Nation A compare to that of Nation B? What is the difference in value between the laundry list of extracurriculars of Applicant A and that of Applicant B? From a purely technical perspective, the success or failure of a state merits the blame of that state only.

However, because our world is increasingly interdependent, the question of who's to blame becomes exceedingly tricky. State concerns are no longer purely their own; the perfect topical example of this is the overwhelming foreign criticism of the Fed's $600 billion expansion of the money supply. As an article in today's issue of the New York Times states, government officials abroad are openly criticizing the Fed's recent change in monetary policy. Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble was quoted in the magazine Der Spiegel: "It's inconsistent for the Americans to accuse the Chinese of manipulating exchange rates and then to artificially depress the dollar exchange rate by printing money." The article goes on to say, "Privately, American officials say they were miffed by Mr. Schaeuble's comments, saying it was a breach of protocol for the foreign minister of one country to criticize the central banker of another." This segment of the article reminded me of our conversations pertaining to state sovereignty. Is America's sovereignty at risk because of this "breach of protocol"? Should commentary like this be tolerated within the international community? These are questions that become progressively difficult to answer as our interconnectedness intensifies. Nation-states must be willing to recognize their inherent effects upon one another in order to adequately confront the repercussions of those effects.

Is the economic success or failure of a state a fair outcome? If so, why? If not, what should be done?

To evaluate whether something is fair or unfair, we usually have to look whether or not something is deserved. In this case, it is a country’s success in the global economy. Does any country have an inherent “right” to be successful? True, some states are much more prepared than others to compete in the global economy. Does this mean that, when a country fails because they do not have adequate preparation for this global competition, that it is unfair?

Ultimately, I think no. This is simply because success in the global economy is not about what is fair or unfair. I don’t know if there is anything that can be classified as fair or unfair about a state's success – or lack thereof. Is it fair that the United States, rich in resources and holding a very beneficial geographic location, has had immense success? Is it fair that post-colonial countries, like those in sub-Saharan Africa, have not? Or, that many other states have defied the odds and succeeded when they have not been expected to? It would be fair or unfair if any state had an inherent “right” to success and wealth. But no state does. Thus, “fairness” cannot be adequately applied to this situation.

Blog 10

Inayatullah’s statements are based on the fact that some states are not adequately prepared for the burden of globalism and globalization, and others who have been through an exceptional period of state building and economic recovery are secure enough to be major players in the global arena and acquire wealth. The use of the word fair is subjective, because regardless of if this scenario is fair (presumably unfair for the nations who find themselves without the “upper hand”), the societal system that exists will most likely continue. There are certain instances, surely, when one nation is blessed with an abundance of resources and cannot help but rise to economic high standing because of exceptional exploitation of those resources. However, when deliberate choices are made not to exploit those resources and assist the economy in substantial ways, it becomes time to examine what is fundamentally wrong that prevented a nation from becoming a major player.

Take, for instance, the much debated Middle East. The region is rich in certain resources and allows for definite manipulation of prices in order to further economic pursuits. However, an authoritarian government and a consistently stagnant economy begs the question of if it is fair that a nation that should technically be what we’d consider wealthy because of how highly demanded their resource is, is a nation that is struggling significantly in the global arena. Seen from this point of view, economic success, in some cases, is actually the responsibility of the proprietor nation. Failure to capitalize on certain resources and allot a certain amount of attention to building a stable economy can only be regarded as a failure on the state’s part, and this will unfortunately work to the benefit of the other nations involved in international trade. The notion that a nation is not “adequately prepared” for a transition into a position of power and international recognition is a fair assessment. There are some nations who have not had important historical events that can prepare them for working globally, such as a large industrial boom or a series of stable economic policies that allow for some period of fiscal dominance or erasure of extreme fragility. Those nations who have not had this opportunity are automatically at a disadvantage and cannot be as economically viable.

Life isn’t fair. It’s just fairer than death, that’s all. ~William Goldman.

Reflection #11

Despite the progress we made in our discussion of poverty and wealth in class on Thursday, there are a few points that continue to trouble me. One of the topics we examined was the subdued nature of wealth in America; despite the esteem we bestow upon the American Dream and the material affluence it represents, we are not comfortable publicizing or admitting our personal obtainment of that ideal. It seems to me, in the United States at least, that how one behaves following the acquirement of wealth is just as critical as the acquirement itself. For whatever reason, Americans value discretion and modesty based upon the number of figures in one's salary. Billionaires are expected to give back through philanthropic donations and toss around diffident ideas of "getting by," "having enough," and "living comfortably" as euphemisms that diminish their actual prosperity. I have to wonder if our caution regarding personal wealth is a product of our loyalty to democratic principles, such as those of equality. The founding of our nation fostered a nobility-less environment in which every (white, land-owning) man could pursue his own destiny, regardless of the station into which he was born. The contemporary U.S. preserves that notion, thanks to the editing of the above parameters to include minority demographics. However, the concept of wealth or "comfortable living" questions that premise. Do we offer fair opportunity to all? What does it mean when 12 million children risk going hungry in the U.S. every day? What does it mean when working three jobs doesn't guarantee a rent payment? Is the individual at fault, or are their overlaying forces at work? Americans display such timidity in the face of wealth because of the inequality it embodies. Inequality is not something we like to imagine exists in our modern, democratic, politically correct country. Yet it does. And perhaps if we allocated our time by trying to ameliorate that gap, rather than apologize for its existence, we could cause substantial change.

Reflection

One student brought up the point that the poverty in the post-industrial world (i.e. the Untied States and the Western world), was different then that of the “pre-industrial” nations. In this definition of industrialization a nation is gathering resources, utilizing them, capitalizing on goods, making scientific strides and finding new knowledge and processes with an overall focus on modernization. The goal of this modernization is to eliminate the vices within society and stride for a form of utopia. My argument would then be that our world has yet to see post-industrialization. If a country such as the United States is “post-industrial” then why do problems such as poverty run rampant? When is the last time that an individual has traveled to a major metropolitan area and neglects to see a food bank, a soup kitchen, homeless man? Its impossible. The issue of poverty isn’t solely focused in the urban but also the rural areas of this nation. If poverty exists in all forms and extremes in all areas, how has this nation utilized its resources? This country, much like the rest of the west and arguably the world, has failed to utilize its primary resources human capital.

Furthermore, through the existence of financial poverty in America and lacking any solution to the issue, our nation is becoming poor in another way, democratically. The Untied States is beginning to be poor in democratic principles. Our society upholds the idea of capitalism as synonym for patriotic America yet we are unable to alleviate the systems negative side effects. Why should one individual ultimately have more then another in a democratic society? If our country is founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (in all just pursuits) all under the banner of cooperation, how can we truly be democratic if we are on such an unleveled playing field? Our society is becoming so economically fragmented from our societies sole focus on monetary gains, that we have lost sight on human gains. Our nation should turn to acts more meaningful. Instead of saving money we should save lives, instead of making financial investments we should invest in making new relationships, instead of competing for wages and profits we should compete for the love our neighbors.

Reflection 11

The idea of “wealth” is hard to determine, certainly. Is one person wealthy because they have a big house, a nice car, and fancy clothes? There would probably not be much contention – they would be seen as wealthy. By the same token, a person who does not have these things is probably not seen as wealthy. Yet, this ideology is ultimately flawed. No one can ever truly determine wealth based on appearance alone. Many people choose to distribute their money differently – savings account deposits instead of new cars, investments instead of clothes. Even “hipsters” – who typically spend sizable portions of money in order to look like they don’t spend a lot of money – can be hard to classify as wealthy or poor.

The problem with defining classes in America is that not everything is black and white. True, there are some people that are blatantly rich, or upper class, and blatantly poor, or lower class. But these people do not make up the majority of America. Though it is obviously unfair to judge people based on appearance, most of the time that is all people have to go on. Additionally, classes intermingle now more than ever before. This all begs the question: do classes have any validity? Perhaps not validity, but any importance? The immediate answer for most people would probably be yes, but the more I think about it, the more I am not sure.

Reflection 11

I think the question of wealth is entirely relative. Circumstance, situation, and the surrounding people are entirely responsible for determining whether or not someone can classify himself as “wealthy” or “not wealthy”. Personally, I think that location is the most important factor of relativity. Internationally, surely incomes and definitions are subject to change to extreme degrees, but even domestically, the same thing fares true. The fact that there are so many Americans living below what we consider “the poverty line”, contrasts the issue of what we constitute poverty to be and what it may mean to someone who has grown up without any possibility of an education (public or otherwise) or has extremely limited prospects.

I recently began my new job of teaching with a company based out of Sacramento called Foundations for Education. When I got my handbook, the first rule they talked about revolved around incentives. It was really difficult to determine where the line was in terms of bribing kids and rewarding them for learning, but the first rule was to never, under any circumstances, reward the kids with any candy or food. However, the acceptable incentives that are legitimately allowed by my handbook revolve around tangible items like pencils and stickers. If that doesn’t speak of the materialism used to promote methods of education, I don’t know what will. Because I joined the program later, I became the unfortunate teacher who also doubles as Santa Claus. My kids rarely do any of the worksheets I assign if they don’t receive the promise of some amount of stickers or more break time during recess. Our kids are raised on a mantra of materialism, and a constant obsession with having more of anything, or more than the guy next door- without ever realizing that the wealth we’ve acquired is entirely dependent on the status of everyone around us.

Supernatural Integration

One of the things that the speaker said that stayed with me was “smaller states seek cooperation”. He used the analogy of the United States, and how because there are so many little states, we feel more unified; as opposed to having a large grouping of states together and seeking unity. It is undeniable that we are moving towards a more global society- everything and everyone is somehow connected to neighbors across the globe through technological advances and political agendas. However, integration through supernatural means is not a necessity. It can surely be a useful tool in creating cooperative work and allowing nations to establish common goals as economic markets expand and political missions begin to overlap, but I believe that nations can function as independent entities because they will most likely always seek to protect sovereign interests.

Although it is ideal that a global society would work cooperatively for the betterment of the entire group as a whole, I am not so naive to believe that most nations would sacrifice their best interests for the interests of others, and in many cases, I feel as though that is what supernatural integration would entail. Although economically and politically, nations will essentially be forced to work together as they are now as wars and markets fluctuate, I don’t believe that they will necessarily become integrated. In fact, I would think it would be somewhat abnormal if they did because of how antithetical it would be to a nation’s interest to bow sovereignty in order to work for a common good. The liberal theorist would hate me right now because of my seemingly negative perspective, but I truly believe that although we are moving towards an entirely global community, we may in fact seek to polarize ourselves against “common interests”. Regardless of how universal our world will become one day, I just can’t definitively state that the only way we’ll ever be able to exist as a global society would be through some means of supernatural integration.

Supernational Integration

I hold a "utopian ideal" that one day the world will work as one, meaning we will all live under the same umbrella in every instance- particularly government. Specifically each individual on Earth will be a part of the same civil society, actively partaking in the culture and society which they live in. For this to be accomplished it will take more then just supernational integration, but a destruction of the definition of separate states into one overarching state.

I do argue, however, that before we can reach this civil society there must be supernational integration. This integration brings about a human culture of cooperation, understanding, tolerance, and an overall "togetherness". Creating a pattern of united forces will bridge the gap between continents, cultures, and governments. With this pattern becoming customary, the transition to a unified state for the entire globe will be seamless.

The beasts our world faces with each new day grow in severity and complexity. It takes more then just one state or "benevolent hegemon" to conquer these beasts. Therefore it is absolutely necessary for state to state cooperation and integration in order to achieve large scale tasks, especially in the name of the citizens of the world. With this in mind, I see the unilateral evolution of humanity to be one under a single state.

Reflection 10

Why do we fear the culture of fear? The notion that our country is safer, that security is tighter...is overshadowed by the concept of a growing paternal government. The rights of state versus the rights of men can be an argument that lasts for ages, but when talking about terrorism and natural state conditions, the prioritization of the rights of state is second nature. I always go back to the same definition of terrorism and the intention of terrorizing a nation: kill few, harm more, scare thousands. I wanted to discuss a question that was brought up in class...what is the difference between terrorism and homicide? The recent death of Professor Marcum didn’t stop me from feeling safe walking around Tenleytown at night or making a late night CVS run alone. However, the metro terrorism threat did make me think twice (but didn’t stop me) when I went to the Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive. I was more aware of the surrounding atmosphere that was relatively fresh, and I did bear in mind that such a large gathering of people could be an ideal place for a terroristic act to take place.

I can’t believe that the difference in attitudes just stems from intention of the two, but I do think that it is a large part of the reason why we don’t feel threatened by the same things. However, I think that the main reason we don’t equate the two is primarily because of the priority we give it- we “know” it won’t happen to us. But wait- did those passengers on September 11^th ever think they would be the victims of one of the most historic terrorist attacks? We can’t know it won’t happen to us...and that is why a culture of fear is our greatest asset. Aware people, aware security, better and more thorough checks...there’s no reason to not feel safe (because it’ll never happen to you...).

Reflection #10

The nature of terrorism is designed to be simultaneously covert and incendiary; terrorists seek to instill fear and suspicion while maintaining their personal obscurity. It is this covert tendency that makes the concept of terrorism so foreboding. As "the other side," we cannot cling to the solidity of an opposing ideology, or the face of an oppressive dictator, or the geographical confines of a region and classify them as aggressors. When it comes to terrorism and/or violent extremism, uncertainty is the only guarantee. The enemy is faceless, nameless, nation-less. It is a force that constantly defies our predictions and avoids normal means of battle. Our discussion in class on Thursday reminded me of a book I read over the summer, American Taliban. Fictitious John Jude Parish (strikingly similar to real-life John Walker Lindh, the 29-year-old American citizen who was captured in 2001 in Afghanistan and is currently serving time in prison because of his affiliation with Al-Qaeda) is a teenage male who defers admission to Brown University and ultimately moves to Pakistan where he joins the Taliban. Our discussion also fit perfectly with the final showcase of the Human Rights Film Series, The Oath, which describes the lives of Salim Hamdan and "Abu Jandal", two men affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Jandal was Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and recruiter, who hired his brother-in-law, Hamdan, as a driver. Hamdan never took the "oath", the requirement for admittance to Al-Qaeda. Jandal did. Hamdan was imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for seven years and was the first detainee to undergo the military tribunals. Jandal was imprisoned for two years and was released after attending "The Dialogue", a reformatory program that seeks to show former jihadi the error of their ways. These works, both fictitious and real, force me to question the exact parameters of our definition of terrorist, extremist, rebel, etc. It is just as difficult to categorize terrorists as it is to define the institution itself, which makes it all the more tenable.

Reflection: Security/ Sanity Week

This week was paired with a heightened sense of caution amongst the citizens. There was a plot thwarted to bomb the Metro system, a flight from Yemen carrying "suspicious" cargo escorted by fighter jets to JFK, and a slight sense of anxiety from the high influx of people for the Rally to Restore Sanity. These events have led some to be more cautious in their day to day activities across the country, but D.C. in particular.

This heightened caution relates to our class discussion on security. The question I raise from these events is; what is a greater security threat, the events themselves (the thwarted plot, the flight, the large quantity of people) or the response to these potential threats? My argument would be toward the latter. For although these security risks may be great, our society's response may trigger a amplification of threat. Take for example the Rally to Restore Sanity. In hindsight, there was no meaningful damage done to the citizens or to the area. However, if individuals became frightened by the influx of people, the overcrowding of the metro, or the crowd in general, there could have been mass hysteria. This could ultimately lead people to feel uncomfortable in their homes, stray away from stores, or possibly suspect other individuals as threats to individual security. The actions taken, such as preemptive self-defesne could result in damage to other individuals and their property.

My argument is not that society should let security risks go unattended, but rather asses the threat. This assessment an analysis of potential damages, financial costs of said damages, potential courses of action to avoid threat (including inaction), and weighing of importance in regards to other threats. If individual, groups, or society misinterpret a threat or neglect to properly analyze it, the consequences could be more dire then the original threat. Therefore, threat assessment is vital in ensuring security for all.

Reflection 10

This weekend was certainly an exciting weekend for many people, myself included. I’m not a big Halloween-celebrating person, but I very much enjoyed trick or treating on Embassy Row. It was fun to participate in a tradition that is distinctly DC. I liked that some embassies invited the trick-or-treaters in, but I wish that more embassies had given out candy from their country, or had some information about their country. Korea was the only embassy I went to that had international candy, and they paired it with music and an exhibit. Overall, it was a fun couple of hours to spend in the city.

The other (probably more exciting, in my opinion) event this weekend was the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. The fact is, I am such a huge fan of those two that I would have loved the rally regardless of what happened. But, having also gone to Glenn Beck’s Rally to Restore Honor in August, it was extra fun to see Stewart and Colbert openly parody Beck’s gathering. However, I think the crowd was my favorite part. When looking back on my pictures from Beck’s rally, I honestly saw nothing except for white people. Beck’s rally focused on a specific demographic, for better or for worse. The Stewart/Colbert rally, however, had a more diverse mixture of people. It was nice to see a variety of people come together for a fun event.

Basically, I loved this weekend.

Blog 8

I think it would be unwise to pinpoint one specific source as a threat to national security. Because of the nature of a global world, everything is constantly mutable and issues are changing at the rate society is growing and learning. The fact stimulus package created high and low expectations from both political parties that eventually divided the nation into many different party lines allowed for a growing dissatisfaction to take root. The greatest threat to national security is a lack of unified acting, and the fact that if a society ever does come under a physical act of terrorism, they will be unable to come to a decision because they have become so accustomed to a general atmosphere of constant contention.

The biggest threat to national security would be the discord associated with society. “It’s the economy, stupid” is undoubtedly one of the most remembered and famous adages in the realm of political campaigning. The fact that there is a general dissatisfaction with every political action taken in order to further the agendas of the politicians in power creates a fragmented population that essentially self divides. The different factions that arise in such a disturbed population doesn’t allow for any cohesiveness amongst those who seek to weed out the harmful and sometimes fatal aspects of our society.

The greatest source of insecurity in a nation arises from the variable that is the source of the greatest “distraction” from a unified nation, and can be subject to change over several decades. Sometimes the economy performs in a boom-bust cycle that allows attention to the economy to recede or amplify depending on the focus placed on the current economy. As the closest issue to home often revolves around the economy and the household incomes affected, the growing dissatisfaction makes separation the norm instead of the abnormal, and suddenly a disaccorded society is unable to act as a unitary actor in the face of conflict.

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

Global peace and security hinges on public health. The poor public health in the world is currently the biggest threat to the peace and security that is being striven for on a global level.

The health of the world’s citizens is necessary to maintain peace and security. For individual countries, their security is very much threatened when their population becomes sick. Sickness has the obvious possible result in death (and thus a smaller population) but it can also lead to a lack of efficiency in the country, threatening security. In addition, there is the threat of people traveling into individual countries and infecting populations, which can radically alter the way that individual states conduct international relations.

Public health problems are prevalent in the world and greatly effect the relations between states. In America, the government sees obesity as one of the major national security threats, because it threatens the country’s ability to recruit for the military and thus hampers defense. In Haiti, a cholera outbreak threatens the progress the nation has made in the past year. Africa is also overwhelmed with public health concerns. Not only are various states grappling with HIV/AIDS and malaria, they are also forced to deal with the health effects from a lack of clean water and proper nutrition. The world will need to deal with these and a plethora of other public health problems before they can truly become secure.

What is the greatest threat to global peace and security? What constitutes a threat?

A threat to global peace and security represents any divisive issue that provokes an adverse reaction within the realm of inter-state conduct. This issue could plague the entire globe, such as climate change, or it could simply be a disagreement between two states, such as the he-said, she-said between the United States and Afghanistan regarding President Karzai's acceptance of Iranian "bags of money." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/world/asia/26afghan.html_r=1&scp=1&sq=Karzai%20confirms%20that%20Iran%20gives%20bags%20of%20money&st=cse). For even when conflict begins by surfacing between two nations (in this case, the U.S. and Afghanistan), it inevitably encompasses secondary actors (Iran, NATO nations) by categorizing them as an ally of either primary actor.

While I do not believe that ideological threats are obsolete in today's world, the globalized nature of our planet supports the fact that human beings are rapidly becoming consumers first and citizens second. Ideology is consistently overshadowed by the insatiable need to protect access to natural resources and therefore, to perpetuate materialism. Global peace and security are now inherently fused with economic stability and growth, which is not possible without the constant accumulation and utilization of natural resources, especially for industrial and post-industrial nations. And, due to the effects of globalization, states throughout the global system are industrializing at a rapid rate, leading to a growing worldwide increase in personal wealth and consumerism. As Michael T. Klare, international security expert and the director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, states in his book Resource Wars, "Without a steady and reliable flow of essential materials, the American economy cannot expand and generate the products needed to ensure continued U.S. competitiveness in global markets...the United States must retain access to overseas supplies or its entire economy will face collapse." This is true of all states, not just current superpowers; we live in a world of escalating demand for resources of all types (namely oil, water, minerals, and timber), limited resources, and recurring, reinvented disagreements over who owns these resources. It has now become the socially acceptable and virtually required norm that states protect their claims to resources through military might. And while some may argue that this defensive strategy is merely for show, that actual violence will not be seen due to the liberal nature of global market forces ("the perceived economic benefits of compromise are generally much greater than the likely costs of war", Klare), national security is of the utmost importance when it comes to the preponderance of vital natural interests, i.e. access to natural resources. These so-called "resource wars" are the most threatening issue in the sphere of global peace and security, and they will only continue to be exacerbated as states compete for distinction and superiority within the globalized machine.

The Greatest Threat to Global Peace and Security

The greatest threat to global peace and security is the suppression of free thought and lack of acceptance socially and culturally. The ignorance that causes states, citizens, and non-state actors to oppress free thought and reject 'others" leads to other threats such as; nuclear war, terrorist attacks, wars, genocide, catastrophic climate change, economic crisis, etc. Threat in this scope is anything that can disrupt civil society that is to say a voluntary society with collective action.

When an individual or group (state and otherwise) attempts to suppress free thought/expression they impede any natural form of progress within society. For example, suppressing a dissenting voice against a leader might lead to a totalitarian society where this leader then controls almost every action made by a citizen. The suppression destroys any chance at civil society because individuals are coerced into action. As for a lack of acceptance, it is this form of neglect that ultimately leads to further aggression. Those who are not accepted or cast as “others” will seek vengeance against the society that failed to accept them. The other opportunity for threat is for the “others” to be attacked by the non-accepting group/individual. For instance, Al Qaeda is unaccepting of the Untied States way of life and thus seeks to bring its western tradition down.

The greatest way for our world as a whole to see less conflict and therefore a lack of threat to security and global peace is to be more accepting of those seen as different, as well as allowing for expression by individuals and groups. This way the true landscape of the globe is painted; flaws can be pinpointed and fixed, ultimately leading to further progression for mankind.

Reflection 9

The work we did in the groups was really insightful and useful for application to the documents we had read on American national security. One of the largest problems that we faced in the 1950’s was the concept of the “rising tide”, or an uncontrollable communist rage that would eventually overtake the heroic democratic society. Francis Fukuyama wrote about “The End of History”, which follows the question and concept of liberal triumph and it was common for nations who had been successful to think that they have the greatest ability. Power, in essence, entails a subordination of others that is not self-critical or openly reflective. Russia was the source of the Cold War, so when FDR died and Truman entered, Russia could then have spheres of influence and create : a demand for friendships/trade, foreign policy support, no alliances with enemies. NSC invokes the concept of George Kennan’s “containment” and a very realist application of the containment doctrine (which differed from the Truman doctrine- talked about the need to scare US people and not wanting to spend money on foreign affairs).

The difference between the Truman and containment doctrine comes with the question of how humanitarian it was...but that’s a whole other discussion. When the document that is surrounded by such a large controversy is held up in comparison to the Obama document, there are issues raised in the latter (education, green technology) that aren’t mentioned in the first. One of the group discussion questions asked about the concept of “others”. Essentially, the “others” changed to any nation anti-war, anti-American. The War on Terror was far too broad of a topic to create any specific other, but the enemy definitely changed. The comparison of these documents was something that I needed to ground me in the middle of the furor raised by the midterm elections and all the different historical comparisons that happen during campaigns. It was important for me to remember the hysteria raised and remember that it was bred out of hysteria, and apply this knowledge to my voting in the upcoming elections.

Reflection #9

Security is not merely a state objective; it is a term whose universality guarantees that anything can be neatly denoted within its scope. Everything can be transformed into an issue of security, and if a state seeks to bolster its national stability, it will seek not only for scapegoats such as defense spending or rogue nations, but also for more obscure culprits. The Obama administration’s national security summary accomplishes this masterfully; while I do not intend to accuse the President of fear-mongering, there is a prominent difference between the confidentiality of the NSC-68 document and the downloadable transparency of the current national strategy for security. In the 2010 document, President Obama not only cites foreign threats such as Al-Qaeda, but he also suggests that Americans disadvantage themselves because of a series of domestic shortcomings: our dependent and lagging economy, lackluster sustainability projects, subpar educational standards, insufficient investment in technology and the sciences, among others. The document states: “Our strategy starts by recognizing that our strength and influence abroad begins with the steps we take at home.” Unlike the NSC-68 document, which warns of the inevitable, ambiguous, almost supernatural force of communism, the 2010 document on security strategy blatantly identifies the American status quo as a foe just as portentous as terrorist organizations. Additionally, the 2010 document is not meant for the behind-the-scenes eyes of government officials or policymakers. Anyone with access to Google can retrieve the 2010 security strategy. In my opinion, the blunt finger-pointing of the Obama document and its attainability work in tandem. Upon reading this document, the average American is supposed to feel fear and the appropriate amount of culpability. During the Cold War, the last emotion the government wished to incite within its citizens was alarm. Now, however, it seems almost patriotic to search for the weaknesses that we allowed to form within our society, to detect our ailing Achilles’ heel(s). President Obama’s words encourage the reader to acknowledge those vulnerabilities and approach them with the old-fashioned can-do attitude of our predecessors.  In this case, the bullet points of national security strategy seek to mold the perception of security itself in the eyes of citizens. 

Reflection 9

Our class spent a large amount of time discussing the security foci of the NSC 68 and the Obama document. The NSC 68's main scope was the Soviet Union and communism, in regards to their affect on the United States and democracy. The Obama document evolved security to focus on the environment, education Al-Qaeda, economic strength, global cooperation, US technological and scientific innovation, alliances, and advancement of democracy in the Middle East. The definition of US security expanded greatly under the Obama document, leading one to wonder what security is.

In my opinion, the Obama document expanded the definition of security in an effort to not leave anything out in the case that circumstances change in the world. That is to say, the United States' resources may no longer be focused on AL-Qaeda or another organization and therefore there must be another scope of focus. However, the expansion of the definition also shows that the administration realizes that US resources cannot be solely focused in one area.

I see security threats to be anything that can make a dent to the US and Western way of life. This gives a great scope of security because the western way of life is so broad; economics, the business sector, media, education, technology, medicine/health, democratic ideals, etc. Therefore it is up to the government and the citizens to realize the great source of threat in the world and seek to secure their way of life. This, in my opinion, means a focus on the expansion on education, technology, "green" products/ values, the spread of democracy, economic stability, cooperation with global actors (states and institutions), and helping citizens in nations that are unable to provide for their people. Security means carefully watching each section of life and maintaining stability within it, either through government or civic in/action.

Reflection 9

This week focused on security, which we dealt with through playing Diplomatic Risk and discussing the different aspects of the definition of security. Thinking back on the game, so much of it involved security. Some teams placed a large number of troops in a territory they did not want to lose, and that was their security. Some teams forged alliances. Other teams simply tried to seize every territory possible, in order to expand their influence. Security played into almost every aspect of that game, because no one wanted to be eliminated.

Prof. Jackson stated in class that, if we had wrapped up the game last Thursday, then the blog topic for this past week would have discussed if there was anything that was not security. Personally, in thinking about it, I have a hard time coming up with anything that could not be labeled security. Depending on the country (and the IR theory that one personally adheres to) almost anything could be considered security. Security is the military strength and capability that we possess, both in resources and in people. That is probably the most obvious one. It is also the countries we choose to align with, and the countries that we have no business with. Alliances make up a very important part, both because they contribute money and resources when we are threatened, but also because it spreads the influence of the country over a wider realm, and could have many other benefits, including legitimizing a country and gaining soft power, another form of security.

Not everything is security in every situation, but I could not think of anything that is never security. This week really broadened my understanding of security as a whole, as well as the many different forms it takes.

What constitutes winning?

What does it mean for a nation to win? Life isn’t a board game, but it can be indicative of the challenges that the international community faces when several nations try to “win”. International recognition is important to most nations, as the way a country is portrayed in the global arena and the standing a nation has with others can be telling of how much a country has won. Economically, having a stable and functioning system that allows for competition and free markets can be beneficial and opening trade can create a surplus that can mandate “winning”. I think the basis of any nation being able to claim that they have “won” revolves around the concept of having a solid foundation and balance throughout all aspects of the social, political, and economic areas. There is no substantive way to measure if a nation has won, but numbers and figures like GDPs and growth rates create a numerical calculation to determine the degree to which an economy is thriving.

I find it hard to say anything definitively in terms of a nation winning because whether or not a nation wants to be received well in the international community is entirely their prerogative. The most ironic thing is if a nation feels as though it is “winning”, sometimes that is the highest peak of a nation’s “winning streak”.

What else, except ignorant bliss, does a nation need to believe in except itself? The nation I’m thinking of here is North Korea..who I’m sure understands the weaknesses it has and surely the little international recognition it receives. However, the way they function is truly indicative of a nation that believes that they are doing the best thing possible for itself, and accepts little to no criticism. Surely they don’t consider themselves a losing nation, but does the fact that few nations agree with that premise matter to them? Or is it just a matter of how confident a nation is within itself to pursue international goals? Influence surely plays a part in the role of a nation “winning”, because there is no way a nation can be forceful internationally without having some sway over the decisions of others, and the capability to back itself up if it decides to go against what other nations feel. So my definition of winning has clauses sucha s this: a nation has “won” so long as it believes in full faith that it can have some form of persuasion and respectable opinion in the eyes of the global arena.