Sunday, October 31, 2010

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 11th 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.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

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.

Monday, October 25, 2010

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.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

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. 

Saturday, October 23, 2010

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.

Friday, October 22, 2010

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.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

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.

What constitutes "winning" in the real world?

During our game of Risk, the distinction between winning states and losing states was constantly visible; one merely had to glance at the board to gain a visual synopsis of territorial might, resource wars, and vulnerable enclaves, or refer to the diplomatic standing board for an organized depiction of international relations. The real world, however, does not offer such concise, accessible summaries of the status quo. We lack a giant white board which classifies friends and foes. We cannot glance at a map of the world and recognize how many hostile armies surround our borders or discern where every tenable resource lies. Nation-states do not have to portray the truth; as we learned through our respective objectives, there are moments when deception is a much more valuable strategy to employ than honesty. Fabrications (and the ability to perceive of others' fabrications) are essential to the security of both the state and its objective(s). For example, though the black team's objective emphasized the importance of alliances and peace, the black team still exploited the ability to twist the truth in order to achieve its aim.

The achievement of state goals constitutes winning in the real world; this appears similar to the objective of Risk. Yet as Professor Jackson expressed in class, the aftermath of state action within the actual global community includes more than the movement of pieces of plastic across a board. A state cannot simply roll a pair of dice in order to defeat an opponent or gain additional resources. There are social, political, and economic repercussions to every single policy decision enacted by a government. Wars presage the death of soldiers and civilians, economic strain, political discontent or possible schism, and societal disquiet, whether it comes from likeminded warmongers or radical dissidents. Winning in the real world is not exclusively about the changes in territorial labeling. Domestic and foreign accountability plays a major role; a state's action today is not erased away in memory because of a new playing round. Human beings cling to history because we like to believe it helps us predict or even create our future. A state can only win in the real world if it recognizes this strategy. To win, a nation-state must be mindful of its objectives and how it can achieve them by causing the most negligible disturbance possible. Careful calculation results in a carefully crafted image both at home and abroad, and image is paramount in a world where people constantly seek neat and tidy definitions for the complex workings of the world, especially when we lack the organization of a game of Risk.

"Winning" in World Politics

“Winning” in the real world like that of the board game Risk, is subjective to the presumed identity of a nation. For instance, if a nation, such as Switzerland, has built an identity of neutrality, their version of winning may simply be remaining sovereign. Swiss sovereignty could mean that all the nation wants is a functioning economic system, a stable government structure, and a sound public. In contrast, a nation such as the Untied States may assume the role as a beacon for democracy. The United States seeks to establish footholds of democratic principles in other countries, especially developing nations. For the United States to win, democracy would have to be the sole form of government in the world, or at the very least the dominant form of government.

However, the identity of a nation is subject to change. Citizens are able to change the face and therefore change the doctrine of a nation, which ultimately results in a new set of initiatives. These initiatives can range from a new hunt for resources, a new focus on domestic issues rather then those of international importance, or even going as far as a policy of isolationism. Reasons for isolationism or a prelaunch of domestic focus could range from fear of outside influences or a need to maintain stability in the nation. The change in initiatives brings different extents of action in the international arena and there may not always be a goal to “win” simply because a nation has chosen to not play or sit a round out.

The concept of winning in regards to world politics is subject to each nation. The different nations in the world may all have varying values and therefore have different goals to achieve. To win simply means to achieve these goals, but there can come a time when a nation may seek to change their goals in the “game”. This could be from a realization that the nation lacks a capacity to fulfill their current goals or that their sovereignty is in jeopardy.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Reflection 8

Diplomatic Risk was an excellent “lab experience”. I think that the strategy involved apt use of several theories and collaborative work with other Heads of State, and the transfers of power showed realistic negotiations that would have taken place had it been an actual coup. I was on the red team, and we were really thrown off by the creation of the brown state and the transfers of land and forces that happened when the yellow state was kicked to the lonely island of Papua New Guinea. Because we’ve been learning about all these theories involved in International Relations and the way that a constructivist/realist/liberal would act in certain situations, it was interesting to see that no country really follows any theory to the letter. Often times what I saw was a blend of all three theories and no real general disregard for other nations. The movement from alliance to neutrality to war was very realistic as it was precipitated when the blue state hegemon waged war. Although wars are surely determined by much more than the roll of dice, I believe that so many factors in war are actually left to chance that certainly impact the outcome of a war and how troops are affected.

Salome was also a great experience for me. It’s a little known fact that I’ve sang opera for about 8 years and have performed, so going to the opera and being in the audience was one of the coolest things for a change in perspective. I thought that the story line was a little weird and kind of crazy, because Salome herself seemed to be a little troubled, but other than that, but from a performance perspective- I thought that the entire thing was executed fabulously. The talented actors and actresses were convincing and had beautiful voices, and I stayed engaged the entire time. I was thankful for the great seats we got, right in the orchestra section, because that definitely allowed me to see things that seats further back couldn’t (like the actual blood like substance that kept being flung around from the prophet’s head). Some of the German jokes were lost on me, because I didn’t understand until later the pun between Tetrarch and Tetrarsh...but the dramatic aspects of the opera made it an experience that I never will forget. The Kennedy Center is certainly a gorgeous venue and I will always love attending swank functions that allow me to get really dressed up and join members of society who do this kind of thing on just a regular Tuesday night. I hope to do it again sometime!

Reflection 8

Salome was an entirely new experience for me. Not only was it my first opera, it was also my first journey to the Kennedy Center. However, the greatest part of the night was the chance to further bond with my floor. Since the school year has started, I have felt a strong bond between the individuals on my floor and myself. I have been blessed with the opportunity to meet such wonderful people that have surely made my transition into college a whole lot easier.

I can easily say that my greatest decision in college thus far has been to partake in the University College program. My floor has been a source of intellectual excitement, laughs, and overall joy. This isn’t to say I don’t have friends outside of my floor, I simply mean that my floor is a refresh point. I can rely on Letts 6 South to be a place for me to have fun and learn more then I ever expected to and I am deeply indebted to them for that.

The saddest part of these memories being made is that I may never get the chance to live with these extraordinary human beings again. The idea of living with new people next year makes me a little anxious. However, I am happy to know that my friends are here to stay and no matter where we live or where we end up, I will always be there for them and trust they will always be there for me.

Reflection #8

The events of this week convinced me that I am so incredibly fortunate to attend American and participate in UC World Politics. Of course this had never been a question in my mind; it has now simply become solidified in the aftermath of operatic spectacle, erratic games of Risk, and a visit from a friend back home. My friend Reid has had a much more tumultuous transition to college life than I have, due to a myriad of unfortunate circumstances (rooming with hostile sophomores, a lackluster class schedule, "temporary" friends). Hosting him at American forced me to realize that everyone isn't quite so lucky when it comes to finding a post-secondary school match. Reid was amazed by our floor; I've told him countless stories about Letts 6 (all good things, of course!), but I don't think he quite believed me when I told him what a unique, fantastic dynamic we have. It shocked him that people left their doors open, shared food and ironing boards , and baked cakes to celebrate birthdays. He couldn't believe that we played a board game in class and made it applicable to the workings of the world beyond our campus. He envied the fact that I can hop on the metro to listen to protestors outside the White House, explore the Library of Congress, or hear an opera in German. This may be due to the fact that I'm living in the nation's capital and he's living in upstate New York. However, I also think this wanderlust and constant adventuring is inspired by American's encouragement (and the occasional mandate) that we venture beyond Ward Circle and Tenleytown. Our university, and SIS especially, constantly reminds us that we're not merely students stuck behind book bindings, learning about the way people live and clash and collaborate. We are an integral part of that structure, and will play an even greater role once we relinquish the title of student. I think that mutual recognition between students and faculty at American is my favorite part of life here, and something that other schools may lack.

Reflection 8

This week was a hectic week for all, I am sure. Not only did most of us have midterms in our other classes, we had a paper midterm in World Politics and the UC event at the Kennedy Center. Because of this, it was especially nice to not have homework in WP, and just have a game to play.

The game ended up being so much fun and a lot more challenging than I expected. I had never played Risk before, but my dad and brother are both fervent Risk fans, so I had seen the game played multiple times before. I was most excited about the diplomacy aspect of the game, because it allowed for more people to contribute to the game, other than just the head of state. It is really fascinating to try and figure out the objectives of the other teams, and try and see what IR theory PTJ might have meant by the objectives. Who is the realist? The constructivist? The liberal? Who encompasses multiple theories? It’s nice to be able to use IR theory in a hands-on approach, and to have fun while doing so.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Reflection 7

The simulation was not what I expected it to be. In all of our preparation and talking and brainstorming, I did not anticipate the stressful situation that followed having someone try to break down the basic tenets of our proposition. As part of the Sierra Club, we took a little different approach than what would have normally been expected, because we had a focus on preserving American jobs and preserving the environment at the same time. We were able to back up our claims with actual facts, which adds credibility, but extemporaneously speaking has never been my forte, and probably never will be. The preparation that went into my concluding speech seemed a little lost on me it was pointed out that we took the most unconventional approach possible for the Sierra Club.

However, I enjoyed having the opportunity to apply theory and fact together and come up with a solution to a problem that could actually present itself to the US government. Learning about the diesel and hybrid models out there and comparing/contrasting the two offered insight I didn’t know would be so useful, but I discussed it with my dad (who candidly already knew everything I thought I could teach him) and it was nice to learn about something that I never really took the time to explore before. The president made an interesting comment about “multi-modal literacy”, and how in 2050, if we’d want to know how to present our ideas...we’d have to become completely fluent in multi-modal literacy. I thought this was a really eloquent way of putting something that talks about a constantly mutable and changing society that is garnering different techniques to reach new audiences in different ways. This speaks to our World Politics class, as Skyping via classroom is actually a viable option. All in all, I think that the minor simulation taught me several things; how camera shy I am, what kind of adrenaline rush you get from having exactly 2 minutes to talk about something you know you can ramble on for hours about, and putting yourself in a pressurized situation and coming out just fine. :)

Reflection #7

The simulation on Thursday was not only an appreciated chance to delve into a topical debate; it also forced me to realize the erratic and, at times, perfunctory way in which our government chooses courses of action. For the sake of the simulation, we all adopted our various personas and projected that image onto the issue of domestic content rules. Each group contributed admirable effort to argue its respective point; however, I have to admit that I was disappointed that some groups' opinions did not receive any modification. It would have been interesting to witness how a group responded to a schism within its initial structure. For example, my group members (Elana, Sarah, Priyanka) and I continually stated how our personal opinions were at perpetual odds with our argument as the consumer group. Naturally, we could not afford to display that sentiment; this debate, much like our in-class dissection of Machiavelli and The Prince, purposefully encouraged individuals within our class to adopt a wildly unfamiliar or inconceivable perspective. 

I was also surprised that no one sought to address the matter of campaign finance on Thursday. Realistically, the President could not only consider domestic content rules, but also his own reelection. As consumers, our group belabored this point mercilessly; if the President decided to ignore the opinion of the populace (which he in fact did), then the populace could choose to ignore the President just as effortlessly in the next election. However, while consumers compose the largest demographic of a presidential hopeful's voting base, large corporations and collections of likeminded individuals (with deep pockets) offer just as much appeal to a candidate. As we discovered on Thursday, the President's decisions regarding policy constitute a zero-sum game; his settlement of the matter alienated some while appeasing others. The objective is to discover the most all-encompassing conclusion that addresses the variety of concerns with the appropriate amount of specificity. 

Simulation Reflection

It would be an understatement to say that the United States political system is complicated. The arena that is our domestic politics is full of interest groups, partisan bias, vicious attacks, and individual interests that dilute the democratic ideals we claim to uphold. If nothing else, the class simulation presented to me an interesting side to the fight for political power.

Within our presentations, various groups included the same points regarding the workers/consumers, the environment, the economy, etc. However, there seem to be times when certain groups attacked others- even if they were fighting, to some extent, for the same ends. Is it that our political system has been so focused on the fight, so focused on winning the war for power and money to prove our side is “right”, that we have neglected to focus on the true issue at hand. For example (this is not necessarily the views expressed within their simulation) but within the idea of domestic product protection, Ford fought in order to protect itself as a corporation. Rather then realize the cost and benefits of the issue, altering its corporate structure depending on what could truly benefit the nation and thus go along with change or seeking common ground, they fought for their individual interests. But like all good marketing campaigns, the body involved presents its values/views as common sense and purely the “right way”. The democracy they tell us about as children, the greatness our nation is meant to posses, is one where individuals and collectives can put down their own interests, throw out bias, and bind together to uplift a society entirely. Our nation is meant to seek out the minority, give it a voice, seek out the majority and ensure it isn’t monopolizing power, and openly debate topics in such a way to bring about action.

My argument isn’t that our system is terrible and full of corruption (there is plenty of it though). My argument is that our system has started to see a rise to flaws and it is in the general interest to momentarily suspend individual concerns and fulfill our roles as up-lifters. We should take on the responsibility as Americans, a nation fostered upon change, to alter our system once again.

Reflection 7

To be honest, I have absolutely no interest in cars. I have no interest in driving or buying or researching anything that has to do with the auto industry. Yet, I was very fascinated the entire time I worked on the simulation for class. I was in the AIAM group, the Association of International Auto Manufacturers.

What was interesting to me was the fact that it was a little hard to pinpoint exactly what theory of international relations we were using during the simulation. Our group advocated removing domestic content requirements for cars. This suggests a free market society, which is obviously liberal. Yet, there were strong ideas of constructivism also. Auto manufacturers like Ford, GM, etc. are seen as inherently American because they began in America. But they also have a very large international presence. What is their identity? What is the identity of these foreign auto manufacturers – are they truly foreign if they have such a large presence in America? Finally, realism also played a role, in the idea of a monopoly on the American car industry and the need to regulate the industry to ensure American success.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Reflection 6

Time management: a concept lost upon this nap-obsessed college student. I make list upon list upon list, but the actual act of starting and finishing work within a set period of time is absolutely abstract to me. This week’s lab, and actually seeing my days mapped out (or lack of mapping) showed me how plentiful my naptime is, and how I work in short spurts of time. I really needed a session like this because of how eye opening it was. I rarely find time to just reflect on what my work ethic is and how focused I am in terms of dealing with work and handling my different activities. I also have been to the library a lot since I got there, and I am sort of ashamed to admit that I also thought that they only had research materials so it was fantastic news to hear that they have a fiction section so I can have downtime reading in the library.

As for class, I wanted to comment on the fact that the entire discussion revolved around the points that were made and clarified by students alone. Usually there is some part of the question that is expounded upon Professor Jackson, and that ends up driving most of the discussion because the statements become more controversial as they are more detailed. The fact that the discussion kept going, and everything that was said spurred another comment reflects for itself- we can really discuss anything. The question of why we named hurricanes created so much different schools of thought from pure classification purposes to driving the pathos and ethos associated with donations for relief funds. I thought that the summarization of the theories was helpful because it forced me to think from different points of view, and I needed the opportunity to compare and contrast all the IR theories against each other on the same issue.

The student-run discussion created some really interesting points about the people who are disenfranchised or feel like they have no real say in the government- often times they go to extreme measures to be a recognized entity by the world, and to be viewed as an actual viable threat. Through the end of the class, I was thinking about why this is; how many times does the international community need to be hit with bricks to understand how serious terroristic threats are? The answer would be too complex: thousands of terrorist groups have risen over the years, but only a few can actually become organized and be so intricately woven into a society it becomes a social norm of sorts, and if every threat was taken seriously, no real work would ever be accomplished. I just find it incredibly sad that so many wake-up calls need to happen in order for a terrorist organization to be taken seriously, and more terrorists feel like this “rite of passage” is now an expectation in order to prove themselves as actual threats. I remember the quote from the Spy Museum: What’s the purpose of terrorism? To kill hundreds, injure thousands, scare millions.

Reflection

One thing that seems to be quite important in any political arena is linguistics. Political thinkers tend to refer to other nations with such terms as “third-world” and other movements as “terrorism”. Sociological terms are constantly deemed unacceptable or politically correct, only to be replaced with a new “acceptable” term that will undoubtedly have it’s own expiration date. Where I take issue is the “simplistic” wording because of its purpose, it’s a summarization of a cataclysmically complex scenario. Words are an attempt to simplify a meaningful and complex matter.

The term “third-world” in itself is annoying to me. How is a nation “third world” or underdeveloped? What guidelines can one use to determine such a standing? It appears to be relative to westernization. A nation is deemed “third world” if it does not live up to the expectations or standards of the western world. This notion is in itself, in my opinion, is a step backwards. It is premodern to be so judgmental and unopen to the ideas of other cultures. Any attempt to try and consider our world as one equal playing field is moronic. Individual nations maintain certain cultural ideals over others and therefore should be respected. Who’s to say the west if the forward facing world? Why is there a need to declare a backwards and a forwards? The world is a system of trial and errors; each nation is still attempting perfection.

American revolutionaries would be considered terrorists in the modern day. It is only when you consider the entire situation that one realizes the meaning of it. The revolutionaries were fighting for freedom from tyranny in order to have a chance at something better. Therefore, individuals should be careful in there choice of words. Summarizations of movements disrespect the depth of emotion behind them.

Reflection 6

The class discussion on Thursday brought up a lot of good points about the marginalized population and their function in a state. Do they undermine the existing IR theories? Current IR theories dictate that the state is of supreme importance – even in liberalism and constructivism, where other institutions can play large roles, the state is still the head honcho.


However, I do not believe that recognizing the importance and power of marginalized people contradicts the three prevailing IR theories. Especially in liberalism and constructivism, the marginalized groups can easily fit in with the theories. If one argues that states are the most important entity in international political theory, that argument does not necessary dispute the existence or importance of other institutions or sources of power. It would probably be very hard to argue that marginalized people have never held any power or affected the international political realm, even in the slightest way. It would also be hard to argue these marginalized groups have power over state entities.


Instead, what we need to do is examine the power of all institutions and states and marginalized groups, and recognize that they all play a role in how states deal with each other. This is especially true in the age of technology, when the majority of the planet has access to learn about the groups in America and in other places that have been pushed to the bottom rungs.

Reflection #6

Our focus this week on marginalized demographics--within our classroom, society, and the universe itself--proves how natural it is for humankind to categorize in terms of "us and them." The inclusion of all within any sort of community is paramount for optimum functionality; yet inclusion is the source of conflict. Who do we include? How can we neatly define who is marginalized and who is not? Next, how do we include those who have been forced to the outer realms of society? Our discussion on Thursday produced suggestions for the voiceless and measures that can be taken to "integrate" them into the life of the community as a whole. However, history demonstrates that revolutionary acts of inclusion do not always take immediate effect, or even yield a lasting reform. I am only referencing human history in this reflection; the aftermath of future human-extraterrestrial contact is unfathomable to me. Despite the fact that the United Nations recently created an ambassadorial position for aliens, I cannot express confidence in the endeavor. We cannot even respect the relations among fellow nation-states, among our own species. How can humankind reasonably expect to pursue purely diplomatic relations with beings from another planet or universe when we often fail so miserably at those within the confines of our own? Humans are predetermined to fear that which they do not understand, to classify everything as friend or foe. Extraterrestrials would be the most marginalized group imaginable, and the repercussions of intergalactic relations would further aggravate humans' "us vs. them" mentality.