UN Alien Appointment

The vast size of the universe leads a large number of individuals to believe that that there is in no way a possibility of Earth being the only planet with life forms. If there is other life somewhere out “there”, then it is only a matter of time before our world make contact. Under constructivism, the idea of relations with an alien species (leading to the ultimate appointment of a UN ambassador) is a difficult issue to tackle.
Constructivists are about the constant evaluation of the current field of identities. States create an identity of themselves in relation to others, yet there identity is different depending on the “other” they are dealing with. So an ultimate expectation by a constructivist is that the UN as a whole would deal with this situation in one way, yet individual nations might have their own reservations towards the alien species and therefore have stipulations within the relationship. For instance, the United Nations as a whole may simply decide to allow them to join the General Assembly and exist within the market. However, a nation such Russia might decide that they don’t want to freely trade with this alien nation and ultimately have a different relationship with the aliens outside of the UN. Yet, this relationship at any time could change, with Russia or the UN, through such methods as altercasting. More important than simply trade, though, is our world’s security. This alien force poses an additional state to add to our security/defense force within the UN or a potential threat to our world, which could ultimately lead to a complete change in the identities of the globe- where every nation bonds together to ward off this unitary enemy. However, before it gets to any point of changes in relationships, the UN (through the eyes of constructivism) should treat the alien force the way in which the nations within the UN would want to be treated by the aliens.
Under the idea of constructivism, international institutions set standards to which states can legitimately be held. The alien force would ultimately have to live up to these standards if it wishes to continue have a legitimized existence within the UN.

UN Alien Appointment

The vast size of the universe leads a large number of individuals to believe that that there is in no way a possibility of Earth being the only planet with life forms. If there is other life somewhere out “there”, then it is only a matter of time before our world make contact. Under constructivism, the idea of relations with an alien species (leading to the ultimate appointment of a UN ambassador) is a difficult issue to tackle.
Constructivists are about the constant evaluation of the current field of identities. States create an identity of themselves in relation to others, yet there identity is different depending on the “other” they are dealing with. So an ultimate expectation by a constructivist is that the UN as a whole would deal with this situation in one way, yet individual nations might have their own reservations towards the alien species and therefore have stipulations within the relationship. For instance, the United Nations as a whole may simply decide to allow them to join the General Assembly and exist within the market. However, a nation such Russia might decide that they don’t want to freely trade with this alien nation and ultimately have a different relationship with the aliens outside of the UN. Yet, this relationship at any time could change, with Russia or the UN, through such methods as altercasting. More important than simply trade, though, is our world’s security. This alien force poses an additional state to add to our security/defense force within the UN or a potential threat to our world, which could ultimately lead to a complete change in the identities of the globe- where every nation bonds together to ward off this unitary enemy. However, before it gets to any point of changes in relationships, the UN (through the eyes of constructivism) should treat the alien force the way in which the nations within the UN would want to be treated by the aliens.
Under the idea of constructivism, international institutions set standards to which states can legitimately be held. The alien force would ultimately have to live up to these standards if it wishes to continue have a legitimized existence within the UN.

UN Ambassador to Aliens

The most basic premise behind the concept of constructivism is the idea of governance without government. The purpose of an ambassador is entirely diplomatic; as the actual position is based off of image and the way other countries cooperatively perceive the ambassador. The all-accepting point of view allows for validity in the position, as other nations will view the position of ambassador seriously and the foundation for peaceful relations will be established. The fact that aliens themselves would have no concept of how international relations work or how the global community would respond to an actual alien attack could create some qualms about creating the position of ambassadorship to such an unexplored field like aliens. The constructivist point of view would view the position of an ambassador to aliens as useful in the way that a positive diplomatic image could be procured but at the same time, the skepticism with which the international community would view such a position could create tensions that a constructivist would possibly want to avoid because of the rigidity of the government aspect involved.

The liberalism perspective on creating an ambassador to the aliens would involve ensuring that cohesiveness is the highest priority. The international community accepting aliens would be a huge step in the global arena, as something so foreign is often hard to view as benevolent, especially when there is little to no means of communication. The regulations created around the position of the ambassador would only emphasize cooperation amongst nations and a complex interworking of global diplomacy to promote a peaceful message to be sent out to the alien invaders. The states themselves should be entirely capable of deciding their own individual responses to the alien nation, and they really should not be dictated by any other being that would infringe on their sovereignty. This approach has to coexist with collaboration amongst nations, as nations are free to govern themselves but must also communicate so as to create a unified message against foreign territories. The ambassador to the aliens would thus need to be viewed as something of a global representative of peace, bringing nothing but a positive message to the alien invaders.

The UN recently decided to appoint an ambassador in case of alien contact. Is this a good idea?

From a constructivist perspective, the United Nations appointing an ambassador for extra-terrestrial affairs is a very smart decision. Constructivists are very concerned with their identity and the images that they give others, as well as the identity and image that others have. Assuming that aliens ever come to Earth, an ambassador would be seen as very non-threatening. It would give the sense that the world was open to diplomatic negotiations and might help divert a small portion of the tension that comes with making contact. We might look at the idea of diplomacy as an institution in itself, and the norms that diplomacy has would help quell hostilities that the aliens might perceive. However, if some countries think that the ambassadorship is unnecessary, then they may not recognize the validity of the post and disregard it completely. The UN needs to cultivate the image of the alien ambassador is useful and completely necessary for security reasons, without sending the world into a panic.

From a realist perspective, the ambassador can be useful but in a much different way. A realist would argue that everyone works in their own self-interest, regardless of what any other state does, and that the work is all to achieve dominance. Thus, if aliens come to Earth, the ambassador would put on a nice show for a little while but conflict would inevitably ensue. Both aliens and humans would be fighting for dominance, so conflict would be a foregone conclusion. They would not be able to trust each other. The aliens would probably not trust the Earth ambassador in the end.

Reflection 5

This week’s discussion was primarily geared towards a real-life scenario, which I appreciate. I thought it was interesting that we came to a conclusion that it would be most important what “subtle” messages we would be sending by the smallest of moves. Would sending a few...expendable representative (i.e. Hilary Clinton) portray a defensive message? I thought that the best course of action would be to rely on a defensive plan of attack. That is, wait entirely for them to make any sort of first move and if and when they do, plan accordingly to their strike or peace offering.

I think that when nations become too wrapped up in planning pre-emptive strikes and form elaborate plans for how interactions with nations should go, the entire process of peace offerings is lost in the bureaucratic sense of over-analyzing. This can be tied to the international community relating to the European Union trip we took on Wednesday. Because every country within the European Union finds an utmost priority to preserve individual culture, the fact that there is no collective European identity works in their favor in regards to the rest of the world. The intimidation and the carefully planned international interworking would create a tense atmosphere that would most definitely override the original intentions of the EU if the rest of the world felt as though they were facing Europe as a whole, instead of Europe as it is intended to be- nations coming together with common interests and needs.

Reflection 5

I really, really liked the alien simulation that took place in class on Thursday. I thought that it was a fascinating and hands-on way to examine the idea of constructivism in a way that is accessible to everyone.

For me, a lot of the decisions made about how to prepare for the aliens rested on the idea of constructivism. Since constructivism involves the creation and application of identities for states and institutions, the process of answering an incoming alien vessel rested on how America’s identity perceived the aliens’ identity. If the decision-makers saw the aliens as peaceful and diplomatic, the hope is that the creatures would not feel threatened. However, one does not want to be without defenses in case something happened.

Gunperi mentioned at the end of the class that no one had discussed the possibility that the shuttle coming down to Earth was empty, or filled with things that were not aliens. I think that this is a very interesting possibility. We tended to make our decisions in class partly because of all of the alien invasion movies we had seen. The shuttle being empty would have really confused us, and it would have sent the world into a panic, maybe more so than if the shuttle had been filled with little green martians. I think the lack of knowledge of what was manning the shuttle and, foremost, why it had come to Earth, would have driven everyone crazy with curiosity and fear. We would have been forced to reevaluate the past decisions and possibly keep the world’s defenses on very high alert.

Reflection #5

Our visit this week to the EU delegation struck a particular chord with me because Dr. Deak's remarks seemed so at odds with our discussions in class recently. I hope it is safe to claim that we all recognize the world as an interdependent system of nations and peoples. Our dialogues in world politics increasingly mention the economic, political, and cultural ties that inherently bind all parts of the world. This change in dynamic is due to numerous factors: globalization, technology, public policy, war, etc. However, during Dr. Deak's presentation on Wednesday, he continually referred to the EU as a separate, superior, optimal-functioning collection of European nations, which it arguably is. However, it was his lacking mention of the EU within the global community that upset me. Naturally, Dr. Deak exhibited a certain level of pride in the European Union and its various accomplishments, tenets, and appendages. Yet it seemed to me that our conversation perpetually stayed within the bounds of the EU as a physical entity. Dr. Deak discussed how the various member nations of the European Union interact with one another, particularly in terms of additions (Turkey). While I was interested in learning about the internal dynamic of the EU, I would have been even more fascinated to hear how the EU functions within the international sector, especially compared to the roles of individual nation-states. My problem with Dr. Deak's presentation was his inability to address the EU's influence outside the confines of Europe (because it does play an intrinsic part). His incapacity to articulate the European Union's international impact parallels the uncertainty that is felt throughout the world system because of the EU's presence. As Chris mentions in his reflection, nowhere in the world is there an overarching assemblage of an entire region, except in Europe. It is my belief that the United States, the rest of the world, and perhaps the European Union itself, are still unsure of how to incorporate and utilize this organization in the global forum.