All You Need is Love

do - do - do - do - do.

For some reason this classic song written by the Beatles got stuck in my head while we were at the State Department the other day. My mind started to wander as I wondered how the melody would sound if someone sang it in another language, but I realized that no matter what the "do's" would be the same. The "do's" are universal. The "do's" also make a lot of people smile. Smiles are universal.
I think that even Kim Jong-Il would have to crack a smile if another world leader began serenading him with their very own version of this song. Why wouldn't he? So honestly, why can't we all just get along? We all have our ups and downs, a sense of humor, a family, things we care about, and a heart that beats, so why can't we see that in everyone else?
I realize that this blog is highly idealistic. I also realize that one silly action can't change the world, but who knows, it could be a start
What if, in the middle of a conference someone were to get up and sing to the rest of the room? Maybe this simple action would make everyone smile, and be more likely to set aside their differences. After all, maybe all you need is love.

Reflections Week V

Reflecting on Friday’s discussion about the Immigration test and its relevance to the identity and beliefs of our country, I feel that the test’s existence is fundamentally important for the nationalism of the US. Immigrants that wish to reap the benefits of US residency and eventual citizenship, and who also contribute to its culture, economic welfare, and affluency should be required to study the fundamentals of our country, its history, demographics, and political system, and general facts that pertain to the development of American values. The test sets a tangible standard that gives the hopeful a “certificate of passage,” a remoriam of eligibility and accomplishment that, not only one should appreciate, but also serves as a stepping stone for acceptance into society as a full-fledged resident and/or citizen.
With the creation of any “standard” to which to essentially both define a country and evaluate those who wish to be citizens queries are raised regarding its content and the purpose of the questions asked in the test. As many classmates brought up on Friday, there are obvious, practical reasons for the test to be in English. After all, language is communication in its most basic form, and it would limit and hinder those who do not master it, causing them to become largely unaware of their surroundings, and therefore, unable to fully function, contribute, and benefit. Moreover, communication via a common language creates a unity throughout the country, while still allowing citizens to celebrate their individual cultures. Immigrants to the US should be allowed to live according to their beliefs, as is valued by the freedom afforded us in the American constitution, yet they must also have respect for the history and value system the US society holds and become a well-functioning part of it. Therefore, at least a grasp of the English language is a justified requirement and one should be tested to evaluate one's knowledge and ability to live effectively in the country. A diverse and colorful identity does represent our country while the pursuit and protection of freedom unites the people. Therefore, a test that focuses on the rights of American citizens and its historical facts that form the foundation to its values would be appropriate and beneficial to new immigrants. Citizens might not agree on all controversial issues that touch upon personal values, such as abortion and homosexual marriage, but they are still united in the same freedom to believe as they wish. We are a “ratatouille" that mixes and "weds" many vegetables and spices, and is never quite the same every time it's made, but it's gastronomically unique and ever so flavorful.

Reflection Week 5

Wow! I cannot believe it is week 5 already. This week we did so much I am not even sure where to start; we talked about what if aliens landed on the White House lawn, visited the State Department, delved into whether one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter, and discussed changes to the citizenship test.
What would happen if aliens landed on the White House lawn? I don’t really know, sure I could hypothesize, and all of us did, but the truth is that none of us really knows what would happen. What should we do, each of us has our answers but I don’t think one is more intrinsically right than the others. Is one person’s terrorist another person’s freedom fighter? Maybe, maybe not. While we may not agree with this quote it does reflect a certain truth, I believe, which is that different people have different views on important issues and while we may cling to our own view that does not mean that we ignore the other perspectives. Will the changes to the citizenship test make the immigration process smoother or more effective? That I don’t know either, my guess is that it probably will but I do not know. When considering such issues which are far from clear-cut it is easy to get discouraged at the absence of right and wrong answers. Sometimes I wonder, if we cannot answer such questions for certain is there any hope that any of us will be able to affect change in the world.
That brings me to the State Department where I am reminded of the goal that all of this questioning is meant to achieve. We ask the philosophical questions we have been posing not because we hope to be able to answer every philosophical question, after all philosophical questions do not have answers. The point is for us to get used to asking the questions and to prepare us for jobs where we will be tackling these questions. We may not solve all of the world’s problems or unlock the mysteries of the universe but we will try everyday to make the changes we want to see made in the world. The passion with which the speakers from the State Department spoke about their jobs made me realize how important it is to find a job that you can be passionate about and one where you feel like you are making a difference in a positive way. That does not mean, however, that you will have the answers to all of life’s questions but I think it means that you will be happy.
Erica Peterson

Lack of Morality Consensus

The assertion that “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” certainly holds much truth in a society today where violence and aggression is frequently founded on ideals and innate belief systems. It seems that the more imminent dangers of wealth driven aggression, seen in colonial times, is replaced by a far more threatening and resistant force of ideology and religion, even more serious when compiled out of grave miscommunication and understanding of the intentions of others. Today, the aggression of an ideologically motivated event can be noted in, for example, radical Islam when coordinating terrorism, the pursuit and defense of a sovereign nation (the Israeli/Palestinian conflict), and the need to be respected and recognized on the international scene (Russia, China, N-Korea, Iran). Generations of a country’s people are raised with cultural influences of their society and conclusions regarding the cultures of others that are taught to preceding generations, regardless of truth. Views are founded through the perception of a differing culture; therefore, a far different color palette might be used to paint the same picture. Yet, which is the correct color palette? Ideas and values that one society might hold as true and justified will not be listed in the same moral columns, “right and wrong,” as another society might define. A general majority could generally agree on an intrinsic, human, morality of right and wrong, yet when one considers the morality of the motivations and inspirations of an action, these “right” and “wrongs” become based on religious or innate ideology (usually in reference to a country’s culture), a gray area submissive to controversy, and far more drastically, violence.

When violence, or any form of drastic motivation, propaganda, or action for a certain cause occurs, the participants are obviously considered “freedom fighters” by their supporters, as they wish to be able to support a cause and potentially enable a positive outcome. Consequently, the opposing party will feel defensive of its beliefs, on a more tranquil level, and proportionally feeling terrorized with the introduction of zealous aggression and harm. Both parties vie for freedom, yet in its pursuit, hinder its peoples’ abilities to belief freely through methods of brainwash, resulting from miscommunication and misunderstanding.

Therefore, policy directed at those considered “terrorists” should be dictated by the “considers’,” a particular society, basis for action. When a “terrorist” intrudes on another’s land and executes negative action, endangering or harming the wellbeing of a society’s people, the victims have a right to address the situation as an attack and treat it accordingly. Meanwhile, of course, it would be beneficial for peaceful relations to be attained through communication and education, yet with geographical, linguistic, and of course ideological differences, these relations are often not formed preceding violence. Because every country feels threatened by varied perceptions of “attacks,” whether physical or another, there can be no collaborative method of action towards a perceived “terrorist” in a technical sense. Only uninfluenced freedom of thought, derived from constant truth, would allow for any technical justification of “freedom fighting” or “terrorism.” Without a consensus of morality, societies constitute action and policy from the values with which they hold in esteem.

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

This is one question that doesn't have an easy answer. A group may be considered "terrorists" by some people and "freedom fighters" by others. It really depends on your point of view. Hamas is considered a terrorist group by many Western nations, whereas it is considered a legitimate political party by countries such as Iran and Palestine. Hezbollah uses terrorist tactics like suicide bombings against Israeli civilians while at the same time providing humanitarian aid to Lebanese civilians in the wake of the 2006 Lebanon Conflict. The African National Congress, once considered a terrorist organization by the South African apartheid government, is now the democratically elected ruling political party in South Africa. The Soviet Union viewed the Mujahideen as terrorists, and the United States viewed them as freedom fighters.

Maybe one man's terrorist really is another man's freedom fighter.

-Gregory Proulx

Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighter

The phrase one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter is true because of the cultural and social implications of violence. Terrorism is broadly defined as the use of force in order to intimidate or coerce. Therefore any act of violence could be considered terrorism if it is meant to achieve particular political goals could be considered terrorism. Whether these acts are considered terrorism or freedom fighting depends only on the perspective of those viewing the acts of violence. Terrorists are culturally vilified while freedom fighters are culturally glorified. While both freedom fighters and terrorists use violence what separates them is the ends they hope to achieve not the means by which they get there.
The aim of Hezbollah is to wipe Israel off the map and to have in its stead a Palestinian state whereas the goal of Israel is to have an Israeli state without the existence of a Palestinian state. To many who agree with the Palestinian cause Palestinian violent elements are freedom fighters attempting to give their people their homeland and the freedom to live on that land. Subsequently even though they use violence their violence is justified as “not terrorism” because it is for a good cause according to those who support them. On the other hand Israelis tend to see them as terrorists because the Palestinians’ goal directly conflicts with their own. Therefore one person’s freedom fighter whose violent acts are justified because they promote a particular end is another person’s terrorist who directly counters their own goals. Furthermore this discussion depends upon peoples’ definitions of freedom. Israel seeks freedom from a Palestinian presence and Palestine seeks freedom from an Israeli state and therefore each entity’s goals are in conflict with those of the others. This leads to the conclusion that those who are fighting for freedom on one side are also fighting as terrorists in the eyes of their enemy.
The policy implications of this situation are that states risk being viewed as terrorists themselves if they actively fight those who oppose them. However, as a realist would say, they have to defend their nation or they will face ultimate destruction. If a state seeks to eliminate those it deems terrorists it is susceptible to being accused of terrorism by those who support their opponents, which makes it harder for them to win converts to their “side” of the conflict let alone maintaining the people they already have on their side. This is particularly important when dealing with cultural identifications. Those who identify culturally with a group a particular state deems terroristic are much more likely to believe those who share their culture as to who is the real terrorist. This situation makes the fighting “terrorism” extremely difficult within the international system.
Erica Peterson

terrorist or freedom-fighter??

The statement that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom - fighter" is most definitely true. The American Revolution is one key example of this. The revolutionaries obviously viewed themselves as freedom fighters, and because they won the war they are regarded as such in history. However, to the British government the actions of the revolutionaries could very well be defined as terrorism.
That being said, I do not believe that this has any implications for the policy towards terrorists. Those who we consider terrorists are treated as such, we do not go easy on them because they are freedom-fighters for their own cause. Take the current situation in Iraq for example. We hear about bombings almost every day and think about how out of control terrorism has become. It doesnt matter to us that the bombers only want the US out of their country, and in fact it can't. War is war and when two sides are fighting eachother there isn't necessarily time to think about the background and reasoning behind every explosion or suicide bombing. We must simply try to pervent the next one, keep our people safe, and push back our enemies. We may not all like it, and we certainly may not all agree with it but that is the way it is regardless.

Aliens Discussion

Here is a running list of the ideas that were brought up in the discussion about what would happen if aliens landed on the White House lawn. I did my best to capture the essence of every comment but this list is obviously not all of what was said.

What if aliens landed on the White House lawn? What would the US response be? What should are reaction be?
Common threat, would nations cooperate? Would people bond together?
How can we use this to increase our power and dominance over other nations? Use superior technology for benefit?
Nations would seek own security interests
Did they come as a threat or as a friend?
Aliens wouldn’t necessarily want to ally
Aliens will be upset about being used and then would try to retaliate
Finding out that there are aliens world religions will be thrown into chaos
Aliens will conquer the world
People have no conception of aliens we wouldn’t have to worry about consequences
Wont get along
Immediate histaria
Aliens probably have plan and would blow everything up
How would you talk to the aliens?
Reduced the alienness, own political actions, radical chaos, does it make a difference that it was aliens on the white house lawn
Exploit, assimilate vs. annihilate
Depends on view of aliens, if equals treat differently, powerful try to rationalize
Diplomatic relations? Discover aims of aliens.
Options:
Assimilation
Elimination
Diplomacy
Which should we pursue?
Diplomacy, assimilation, elimination
Alabama?
US would immediately try to eliminate them

Would probably kill them but we should morally use diplomacy
Aliens don’t need to ally
“barbarian” – anything from a different culture
Separation of worlds
Not possible, aliens might want resources
Aliens probably need an alliance
US uses new group to advantage, aliens take over
Illegal immigrant scenario is different, powerful new force institutes complete change
Thinking globally rather than as states
Mass hysteria, try to protect
When country invades another they have won out
If just one came
What and if we have a moral responsibility to the aliens
Security would be first priority, get out of aliens what we want
International issue, but US would keep them to themselves

Erica Peterson

Wealth versus Security

The question of wealth versus security does not have any easy answer. It would prove difficult for a nation-state to prosper if it were wracked by constant security issues such as terrorism and internal strife. On the other hand, it would also be difficult for a nation-state to achieve security without the wealth necessary to support the entities that provide such security—both internal and external—such as a police force, a justice system, and a national military force.

However, I think that if it came down to choosing between wealth or security, a nation-state would be wise to choose wealth. This is because wealth is fungible; it can easily be exchanged for other necessities of the state, such as infrastructure, services, and, of course, security! Wealth can build internal security by funding the establishment of the various apparatuses necessary for managing the political, social, and economic aspects of the modern nation-state. Wealth can also bring external security by funding diplomacy, military forces, and trade.

Although wealth is fungible and can be used to gain security, it is important to remember that being on the top of the heap often makes you the center of attention—and a tempting target. If a nation flaunts its wealth and uses it in an irresponsible manner, such as wasting major amounts of resources or bullying smaller nations, it is guaranteed to make others angry. If a nation is wealthy, it needs to be responsible with that wealth, using it for the betterment of its people and, hopefully, for people of other nations as well. By utilizing wealth to better human society as a whole, a nation is bound to be far more favorably that a nation that does not.

-Gregory Proulx

Blindfolded

How do you see others?
Do you see them for how the dress or the way they style their hair?
Do you see them for how tall, short, fat, or thin they are?
Do you see them for the color of their skin?
What if you couldn’t see them at all?
Whether we want to admit it or not, we all make judgments based on the appearances of others. Some people use these initial judgments to define how they will treat this person, others brush them aside and make new ones based on personality and character. Either way the judgments are made. If you were blindfolded for just one day, imagine how differently you would act towards everyone you met. There would be no opportunity to “judge a book by its cover”; you would have to rely solely on the content. I believe the things a person could learn about themselves and human nature as a whole by simply meeting one group of new people while blindfolded could be absolutely invaluable. We are all guilty of making unjustified assumptions solely based on shallow observations. One can only hope that one day we can all learn to see each other as if we are wearing a blindfold, and allow our opinions to remain untouched by simple issues of aesthetics.

Reflections Week IV

In discussing the pursuit of wealth and its effect on the increased possibility of peace, Lauren brought up an argument from an article that I found particularly interesting. An important aspect to the discussion question, she noted John Mearsheimer’s article, “Liberal Talk, Realist Thinking,” which touched on the role of both realism and liberalism in American society and government. Is American foreign policy behavior really led by realist logic?

Its people often characterize the values and ideals of the United States as being of high moral standard, democratic, good-willed, and marked by freedom. Because these ideals hold much fundamental truth and are steeped in a long history, they are ingrained into its society with a sense of nationalism. Could the government use these standards to enforce foreign political action as a “moral high road,” in an attempt to cover manipulative motives of self-interest? Possibly, especially when driven by an offensive realist policy; however, when considering influences from a defensive realist policy striving for security, are these motives really immoral? The more wealth, power, and responsibility a country has, the more it must protect its assets, both for its own benefit and in its relations with others. Therefore, persuading people with values of liberalism and democracy may not necessarily be considered “a gap between rhetoric and reality” (Kennan). Taking care of oneself as a nation is crucial in order to ensure survival, yet rationalizing negotiations with other nations and maintaining security for the benefit of all is also a nation's responsibility. The driving intentions of the US for the goodwill of all people might not always be entirely clear to everyone, yet important decisions in times of war, etc. that will profoundly impact others must still be made and made with honorable purpose. “American foreign policy behavior led by realist logic” does not always show signs of hypocrisy, even as the US may be making decisions with some measure of self-interest. Self-interest characterized by liberal thought and the pursuit of well-being for all marked the US’s involvement in the Cold War and World War II. Even as the US portrayed the Soviet Union in a dark light, the objective of the allies was to attain security of the US as well as the rest of the world.

Therefore, a conflict between pursuit of power and pursuit of principle might indicate the delicate balance of realism and liberalism that should mark the very morality with which the US has come to be identified.

Reflection Week 4

This week we each experienced different University College seminars during our Common Event Program. Some of us got to learn about hermit crab sex, while others talked about how our favorite and least favorite movies define our personality. When our temporary professor said that we had to connect a zombie movie to world politics I thought “oh no, how am I going to do that” and I’m still not sure exactly how it will work. With a topic as broad as world politics, though, I’m sure somehow I will find a way. World politics is made up not only on the actions of states on a global level but also on the actions of individual persons and how they influence the global system. Therefore anything that influences the daily lives and perspectives of individuals impacts the international system as a whole. Movies are part of culture and culture is a major component of how people interact with their government and how they interact with people of other nations who may have different cultural values. While zombie movies may be a normal part of American culture to other nations this may seem barbaric.

Thinking about this relationship has made me realize just how broad the topic of world politics is; anything could fall within the realm of international politics. With the world as interconnected as it is today any event that happens could be of potential foreign policy interest to the United States or any other nation on the globe. If it impacts people either economically, politically, or socially it impacts their government, their neighbors, and nations across the globe. If people get an incorrect notion about the people of another nation through entertainment, especially a negative one, they will be more likely to either themselves or through their government enact policies to the disadvantage of those people. Therefore we do have to care about the social effects of entertainment even if it occurs on the other side of the world. How crab sex fits into all this is a question for another day.

Erica Peterson

Absolutely Not

Let us travel back to pre-school (Idea courtesy of Ian). All of the children are out on the playground, frolicking and making merry. On the playground there is a swing set, see-saw, sand-box, a large box of blocks brought out by the teacher, and an open area where there is a conglomeration of sports balls to play with. At the period’s opening all of the children go off into their respective groups, each playing with something different and coexisting in harmony with each other group. All of a sudden the largest group of boys decides that they are not satisfied with just the sports balls and open area. In fact, the boys decide that that would like to control the entire playground.
Naturally, the other children are not going to willingly give up their respective playing areas. If this is true then the only way for the boys to gain the other assets of the playground is by force. If the boys are gaining the assets by force then they are not peaceful.
Sovereign states are like whiny little children. They want what they want, when they want it. Often times they will use whatever means necessary to get it. With this attitude it is impossible for the pursuit of wealth to make a state more peaceful. To say that would, in fact, be quite ludicrous.

A Reflection on Week Three

I think the third week of World Politics went well. Although Professor Jackson was in Europe, we continued to learn about international relations in the world. Our pancake breakfast with Nate was great (we should definitely do this again) and although I had already seen "Blood Diamond," I enjoyed watching it with the class. I was curious to see what people's emotional reactions would be to such a graphic and powerful film, so I scanned the faces of my classmates from time to time to see if their faces told me anything. A somber mood seemed to be present in the room, but I still wonder what people's exact thoughts were.

I think "Blood Diamond" is a very important movie to see because it exposes the horrors of civil war and aimless violence which are all too prevalent in Africa, and in a very effectively manner. Another thing "Blood Diamond" does is show that it is possible to prevent or reduce conflict by not using "conflict resources," defined by Global Witness as "natural resources whose systematic exploitation and trade in a context of conflict contribute to, benefit from or result in the commission of serious violations of human rights, violations of international humanitarian law or violations amounting to crimes under international law" ("Natural Resources in Conflict"). The movie also strengthens a position that I find I am espousing more and more, which is that it is morally acceptable, nay, responsible, for nations to intervene militarily in conflicts where blatant genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are being perpetrated in order to bring an end to these crimes. I believe that military force should be used sparingly, but I consider genocide to be one of the exceptions as it can be stopped "only [by] rapid and overwhelming armed intervention" (Stanton).

I've seen "Hotel Rwanda," "Sometimes in April," and "Blood Diamond." I've seen images from Sudan and the former Yugoslavia. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of all the political red tape, and the excuses not to intervene. Genocide stands as a black smear on the face of humanity, and it's got to stop.

-Gregory Proulx

Courtesy of Steve Greenberg, Ventura County Star, Calif. Posted with artist's permission.

Works Cited

"Natural Resources in Conflict: Definition of Conflict Resources." Global Witness. 19 Sept. 2007 <http://www.globalwitness.org/pages/en/definition_of_conflict_resources.html>.
Stanton, Dr. Gregory H. "The Eight Stages of Genocide." Genocide Watch. 19 Sept. 2007 <http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm>.

Wealth, Stability, and Peace

As empirically observed in history over the years, one might consider it safe to say that economics and politics are dominant forces in the pursuit of peace. Countries with strong industry, economy, and work force increase their production and enable themselves to trade and attain wealth. However, if a society is struggling with poverty and poor economic growth, its members may likely, in effect, be miserable and dissatisfied with their standard of living, as they will be plagued by poor education, health care, infrastructure, and job prospects. This situation then becomes a chain reaction that causes political unrest, as people will revolt against these circumstances and demand improvements of their government. However with wealth, prosperity and resources would help establish political stability within a nation and between other nations. Because the lesser the inequality, the greater the stability, economic and social development would lead to a wealthy and peaceful society, as seen in modern Germany. After World War I Germany was suffering from unemployment and inflation, causing unrest among the people and subsequent vulnerability to the aggression of Hitler. In today’s time, with a more egalitarian, wealthy society, Germany is a far more stable and prosperous country. A human being is motivated by his needs, large parts of which are based on consumption. When these needs are met through wealth he will feel more content and satisfied, and he will be less likely to engage in violence, theoretically speaking. Yet, poverty leads to feelings of dissatisfaction, deprivation, and resentment, which would lead to resistance and revolt, consequently endangering peace. For this reason, wealth would promote internal peace within a nation.

The problem might be solved externally, as well, because wealthy nations with a high standard of living have more to lose than poorer countries, as the economic and financial ties with other nations would be damaged in war. As a result, these wealthier nations would likely be more reluctant to show aggressive behavior toward other nations. Additionally, the nation’s citizens would be less likely to support wars that would conclude in a disturbance of the peace. This theory might be especially pertinent to democratic nations, supporting the notion that political and economical equality promotes peace.

Internal vs. External Peace

The pursuit of wealth does not make a nation more peaceful and I would submit that on the contrary the pursuit of wealth often makes nations more combative on the global stage. If a nation is pursuing wealth than that means that they are inherently competing with other nations pursuing the same goal. Due to the scarcity of resources on the planet not every nation can have all of the wealth that it hopes to attain for itself which puts each state in competition with the other states for the same resources. As seen throughout history conflict arises from the pursuit of the world’s limited resources be they land, labor, or products such as oil. The state that seeks wealth as its goal will inherently want to obtain all the wealth or resources in the world, hence world domination is the goal. Thus a nation would have to confront other nations in order to take their territory, which the nation would obviously not give up easily, and war would result.

Internally, on the other hand, if a nation obtains wealth and its citizens have their basic needs satisfied they are less likely to be aggressive and less inclined to revolt. However, if an entire nation has wealth on the global stage other nations become jealous of that wealth and insist that the nation must share. This causes those who do not have the resources to be more likely to take the wealthy nations’ resources by force but it also makes the wealthy nation more vigilant in protecting its resources and ensuring that another nation does not rival their financial situation. This is the situation of the United States at the current time in which most nations are jealous of the wealth of the United States and hope to perhaps even forcibly attain such wealth for themselves.

Essentially the conflict depicted in the film, Blood Diamond is a conflict brought about by the desire of various individuals and corporations to obtain certain resources. While this occurs on an individual level in the film it reflects greater conflicts on the world stage. Bloody conflict results because everyone wants the resources that only a few can have. Likewise the United States enters into military conflict in Iraq to ensure its access to oil which serves its goal of obtaining wealth. Therefore the United States has been drawn into conflict in order to gain access to resources it views as valuable to its pursuit of wealth. The Ottoman Empire, to take a more historic example, pursued a policy of territorial expansion in order to gain tribute and the military service of the Janissaries in order to serve their financial interests. Such successes allowed them to build upon their wealth and expand their empire and stockpile even more wealth.

Then we come to the ultimate question: is there a goal that a nation can strive for that will ensure peace? The answer depends on what type of peace a nation is striving for; if a nation wants to obtain internal peace it can do that by ensuring equal wealth for its citizens. People are less likely to revolt against their government if the government has the wealth to provide for their basic needs. This inherently means that the nation will be in conflict with other states as they compete for global resources. On the other hand a nation may seek to be at peace with its neighbors, in which case it must halt, or at least restrain, its efforts to obtain wealth, meaning that it cannot have everything that it wants. It must sacrifice some wealth for some measure of external peace. However this means that the nation may have internal problems arising from a lack of resources amongst their population. Nations strive to achieve a balance between internal and external peace. National leaders walk a tightrope between these two objectives because they can never obtain both complete internal peace and complete external peace. A lack of either one of these forces would cause destruction of the state as it exists, either by the population revolting and ousting the leader or another nation invading the territory, Machiavelli’s worst case scenario.

Erica Peterson

Reflection 3

Let’s talk about right and wrong.

In Tuesday's class we divided ourselves into two groups, the objective of the simulation was easy: to defend or reject Machiavelli's theories seen in "The Prince". At the end of the debate we were asked who we thought had won.

Of course it's natural for a group of hard-headed teenagers to assume they were right. The majority of each group insisting that they had won the argument and that the other never even stood a chance. Personally, I thought that neither group had won or lost. In debates of theory neither side can truly win; one may be better than another at arguing their point, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. World politics, like many issues is relative.

This weekend some members of our class attended a protest sponsored by the answer coalition. Before the main event took place there were a number of speakers, one of them being an 8 year old girl named Autumn Ashante. She has been called a prodigy and has had her praises sung by a large number of the black community (being a strong advocate of black supremacy). However, to many, this sort of behavior coming from one so young is simply disturbing. As with political theories, the correctness of her speech is an issue of opinion and thus there is no right or wrong answer.

With all the people in the world and all the different opinions mulling around with them it is no wonder that the field of world politics is so complicated. There are no right answers, and "sophisticated" adults, much like teenagers, are often far too stubborn to come to a consensus.

Refection Week 3

I thought our debate about Machiavelli this week displayed some very interesting aspects of human nature and discussion/debate styles. All of us picked the side we agreed with the most as to whether we thought Machiavelli was mostly correct or mostly incorrect in his assessment of world politics. Then when Nate switched the roles on us and made us argue the opposite position of the one we had chosen initially everyone freaked out and looked around in a panicked fashion.

People naturally want to argue the position with which they agree but the skilled debater is just as capable of arguing both sides to an issue. In fact it is a sign of a great intellect if one is able to understand the arguments behind opposing views regarding a subject. This does not mean that one must agree with both positions or be ambivalent toward the issue altogether, rather it means that one understands how many views on a certain subject can have valid support. Especially when discussing something as personal as politics it is important to keep in mind that there are many perspectives on such issues and that all of those views can have a logical basis and therefore all be correct.

I thought the debate allowed us to explore aspects of the book that we had not considered before because we were reading with our own preconceptions in mind. However, once we had to examine the book from the opposite perspective we were able to see how Machiavelli could either be correct or incorrect in his analysis of politics depending on your perspective. Also, aspects of Machiavelli’s argument are extremely strong and parts are weaker. Each debate group glossed over the points that did not support their argument yet they had to occasionally address those issues when the other team directly confronted them.

I think that for the most part both groups did a good job at arguing the points that supported the case they were assigned even though that might not have been their personal opinion. This exercise allowed us to gain experience and knowledge in the art of argumentation, which is a critical skill in any discipline, but especially so in world politics.

Erica Peterson

Reflections Week III

Thinking back on this week, I realized one common theme that has been repeating itself throughout the presentations I have seen this week. After watching Blood Diamonds, it became very real to me that currently people like Maddy do travel to impoverished countries to document the tragedy that occur there, in an attempt to bring about the necessary changes and reforms in wealthier nations. Hundreds of refugees in desperate need, separated from their families might make three seconds on the news, “somewhere between sports and entertainment” (Blood Diamonds). The world may have some notion of the circumstances in a particular area, yet the general population of affluent countries often relies on the truthful and persuasive reporting of journalists who have to put the desperate situation of an impoverished, war-stricken, corrupt, area into a perspective that the rest of the world can understand and thus bring about the needed action for immediate change.

Similarly, in the movie The Last King of Scotland, Dr. Garrigan, after witnessing the terror of Uganda’s then leader, Idi Amin, is asked by his colleague to go tell the world his story. Once in safety, Johnny must be the one to speak out against the brutality of daily life and the crimes against humanity committed by Uganda’s leader. Even though these films might not entirely be based on truth, the fictional characters of Maddy and Johnny show that it takes but one person to uncover the necessary evidence and have the courage to blow the whistle on a large, widely publicized scale. As never before in history, the modern media provide the best vehicle for those with the ability and means to convey the details to the general public of wealthy nations, who in turn can act to advocate change. Even though the idea might be dramatized in the movies, I believe that in present day reality one person can indeed bring about significant changes in our world.

Prudence in a Changing World

Upon reading Lang’s, in my opinion, realistic perception of the US and its strategy of preponderance, I believe Lang’s ideas are truthful and prudent. The USA's emergence and capabilities as a superpower came from its military, political, and economical strength based on capitalism and free trade. While military strength and political stability might have served as the foundation for economic prosperity, it is the American workforce and free market trade that, not only, indirectly funds the military in the first place, but continues to ensure the leading position of the USA in the world market. Therefore, as crucial as military balance of power, or rather “imbalance in one’s favor,” proves to provide the security and political stability for economic interdependence and trade, wealth and affluency must still be attained primarily to continue to fund the growing superpower’s military needs and ensure its leading position. Therefore, Lang is necessarily prudent in his stress of military, economic, and political strength to reach and maintain hegemonic power, yet his redundancy might overlook the need and ability for trade, precisely as a result of interdependence.

While countries may try to limit their dependence on another country, no country is entirely self-sufficient and, therefore, if a certain demand is present, these countries must trade on the world market, despite any element of mistrust. As quoted in the article, many scholars believe the US is not acting in a threatening manner and takes into account the interests of others, thus making others wish to ally with the US, and America’s “soft-power” legitimizes its “exercise of hegemonic power.” “It falls to the hegemonic power to provide the stable, secure conditions that interdependence requires” (Lang). Lang feels, however, this “unchecked power” will lead to the demise of the US because the rise of other great powers will be beyond deterrence. Yes, the rise of other powers, such as Russia, China and India, will force the USA to eventually share its power position and, therefore, it should begin to consider a balance of power strategy to some extent. However, there are many variables that will affect the course of events, such as the rate of development of those countries, which will necessitate significant economic reforms to sustain current growth rates. Those reforms can only be implemented in a society that has a stable political climate, free of corruption and restricting "red tape" in the form of unnecessarily cumbersome rules and regulations, giving the individual citizens an incentive to contribute their talents to the best of their abilities. As it stands now, it will take many years before the right circumstances will be created in those countries to where they become economical and political rivals to the USA. When security in the international system is scarce, however, trade diminishes; states seek to maximize their power (economic and military) over their rivals, and hence attempt to ensure they become richer than their rivals (Lang). Indeed, one potentially destabilizing factor is the rise of islamic governments, such as Iran, which are not driven by the same political and economical objectives and do not wish to be bound by international agreements, thus threatening the hegemonic power of the USA and endangering the political and economical stability and interdependence in the world. In view of these developments, it is important that the USA understands the changing political and economical forces and the need to review its strategy preponderance.

A Prudent Realist

I think the most striking part of the realist philosophy is the view that nations block one another through the development of power advantages. When one nation appears to have the majority of the power, other nations with ally in order to create an effective block to that nation’s power, according to realists. This reflects the basic human tendency to want what your neighbor has and even to work with others to obtain it. Layne uses this as a central point in his essay because he says that other nations have seen the power of the United States and attempted to block this power with alliances. Furthermore Layne believes in the realist perspective that a nation’s security should be its primary concern which he proposes doing through offshore balancing in the case of the United States.

Realists stress that a nation can never take for granted its territorial security and therefore it must constantly be concerned with assuring its security. Similarly Layne argues that even though it is a hegemonic power, and even especially because it is, the United States must be constantly concerned for its security. This is because other nations see the power of the hegemonic nation and want to either alone or in concert with others take the place of the hegemonic power. It is only prudent for the United States to look out for its security because its status as a superpower makes it vulnerable to the jealous attacks of other nations.

Layne’s arguments deal almost exclusively with power in world politics and even when Layne discusses economics it is from the angle of the enhancement of military power through economic means. Layne says that through offshore balancing the United States could improve its economy and therefore improve its power in the international community. Layne views these economic issues as directly relating to the enhancement of power on the international stage.

All superpowers must come to an end, this assertion by Layne is not in the strict sense a realist sentiment but it is logical considering the history of all great empires. Therefore this assumption is a practical one that can be applied to the United States because Layne clearly defines the United States as a superpower. Subsequently Layne says that because of this the United States must look after its own security since the threats to its power clearly exist. Layne is prudent in that he assesses the threats posed to the United States because of its hegemonic status and the inclinations to “power block” in their jealousy of those states that hold the power in the international system. His concerns are not distant from those that the United States faces in this interconnected world and he does not spell out doomsday predictions without support. Therefore Layne’s sentiment does not reflect that paranoia but rather an interpretation of realistic theory that requires prudence when it comes to the practice of international affairs.

Erica Peterson

Week Two Reflections

Looking back on our second week of class, I have to say it has been quite interesting. The sovereignty simulation we did was quite fun, albeit anarchic. Being our first simulation, I feel that we all took it with a bit of humor, invading and annexing neighboring nation-states, forming alliances, stealing resources, and so on. I believe that future simulations will be more serious, and, hopefully having satisfied our urge for conquest, that we will be able to work together to benefit the common good. In fact, our floor has proven itself an ample staging ground for various happenings, and I would find it most interested to see how the theories of international relations could be applied to our floor escapades.

One thing I thought was particularly relevant to our globally-oriented class was a trip I took with Stephan, Ashley, James, Caitlin, Emily, Liz, and Rebecca to Adams Morgan yesterday for dinner at an Ethiopian restaurant. We had looked up a restaurant in advance, and set off to get a simple dinner and then return. When we got to Adams Morgan, however, we were pleasantly surprised to find that the 2007 Adams Morgan Street Festival was taking place! The street had been closed and a great number of different vendors had set up, selling everything from African arts to ethnic gourmets to hand-made woodcrafts. Accompanying the vendors were a great number of musical and dance performances of varying genre and nationality. We got quite distracted from our original plan and ended up exploring the entirety of the street and all it had to offer! We did eventually end up finding an Ethiopian restaurant called Meskerem, whose food was extremely tasty (and trust me, when a picky eater who’s never had Ethiopian food before says it is, it is!). Reflecting on the day, I feel that we were very lucky to have gone to Adams Morgan the day we did. Coming from a small town in Massachusetts with a largely homogeneous population, it was refreshing to see the true patchwork that is humanity: black, South American, European, tan, Ethiopian, Asian, Latino, African, white, Ghanaian, Mexican, Arab.

It’s wonderful – we are all so diverse and different, yet we are all so alike.

-Gregory Proulx

“Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.” – President John F. Kennedy

Week 2 Reflection

So I’ll be honest, I waited until last minute to write my blog. I was struggling over what to write about, how I wanted to work t, ad what part of the week I wanted to draw from. However, upon returning home tonight I decided that there really is only one thing that I want to say at present, and I am fairly certain that I can even relate it back to world politics.

I tried a few times to find eloquent wording, but I don’t know that I find it necessary in this case. Basically what I want to say is that we all live together, we are going to disagree, but we need to learn to deal with it as mature adults and try not to start bigger problems. In Thursday’s class it was mentioned that unlike the classroom model, sovereign states do not get to return home at the end of the day. Sovereign states live in the same world all of the time, this is also true for the Leonard 7 community. When we think about world politics and international relations it all seems very complicated, there are so many precautions that need to be taken to not disrupt the balance and to try to come to majority agreements. In a sense we must also treat our little community with the same care. If we are not careful about the manner in which we react to one another then chances are some form of argument will break out. Let’s think of an argument as a sort of mini war, even though it may be between two countries the repercussions are going to affect the entire globe in some way shape or form. The situation is no different here, even if it is on a much smaller scale. So if we are going to use UC as a little microcosm of the world let’s just try to increase the peace, refrain from using any nuclear weapons, and maybe even clean up the environment (or the hallway) if we’re feeling really ambitious.

Reflections of Week II

This week in class it was interesting to discuss sovereignty and its implications in an interactive manner. Simplifying areas of the world, using chairs and desk space, as well as fourth grade students forces one to think about the similarities between establishments, and use these simulations as a tool to clarify ideas and uncover some sort of truth. Yet I think I have come to realize there really are not any absolute “truths” in the way countries coexist, in as much as there are applicable theories. After all, we can theorize about our environment and its future based on history we’ve observed, as trends often repeat themselves, yet it is not possible to categorize or predict the future with definity. For example, one can define general patterns of behavior that are common to human nature, yet does it mean that a person will always act according to that pattern and exhibit a particular “trait” of human nature? Using trends and patterns may support a school of thought and a theory, however it may not constitute a blue print by which to simplify an environment and from which to derive absolute conclusions. The beauty of a theory is that it is open to the influence of other perspectives (thesis and anti-thesis) and may provide a probability, leading the way for evolution that expresses the complexity of how countries interact. Viewing the world from the perspective of a realist, liberal, and constructivist should be very telling in the coming weeks.

Reflection Week 2

I felt like this week’s classes furthered my understanding of international relations theory in ways I had not previously considered. The role playing situation that we acted out on Tuesday accurately reflected how resources determine power within the international system. At first I just accepted that the less powerful “nations” would bind together to oppose the larger ones. However after reading the articles assigned for Friday I thought of this situation as reflecting the realist philosophy of blocking in which the less powerful nations joined together in order to block the more powerful nation or nations. After the reading I saw this phenomenon as a international relations theory that has flaws as well as truths rather than simply an aspect of human nature applied to nations on a global scale.

Furthermore on Friday I thought it was beneficial to examine an idea brought up in one of the blogs. It gave us each a chance to examine our views on this metaphor and how much it realistically applied to international politics. The metaphor of the classroom was just that, a metaphor, and in many ways it did reflect the reality of global politics and it failed short of explaining how the world works in others. This discussion reminded me, as I think we all should be reminded at times, to recognize that just because a theory explains a truth or a perceived truth does not mean that it is the only truth. This was further emphasized in the articles we read which stressed that only through a combination of realism, idealism, and constructivism can we reach any type of successful policy.

While I really connected to what we did in class this week I feel like in general we have not been discussing in the classroom the reading we have done outside of class. I think much of the reading we have done directly relates to the activities we have been doing in class and I would like to incorporate the readings. I think there are interesting points that could be pulled out of these readings and applied to the classroom discussions we have been having. Next week I will try to better connect the outside readings to the class discussions while in class rather than only making those connections after the fact.

Erica Peterson

Possible vs. Feasible vs. Practicable

Is it possible for sovereign states to reach global agreements? In order to determine this we must first determine a definition of a global agreement. Is it an agreement between all sovereign states on the globe, regardless of economic status? Is at an agreement between the world's current super powers? How about an agreement among the members of the United Nations? I personally consider a global agreement to be between all of the world's nations.

The question is of course, whether or not such an agreement is possible in today's world.

While there are certainly a great number of issues in today's world that would require such an agreement in order to be solved, the fact of the matter is that some form of compromise must be reached among the states. Unfortunately this act is easier said than done, for even if it is only one or two that are unwilling to accept a proposal, the vote still is not unanimous.
Some examples that can be used to explain the situation are the international human rights treaties established by United Nations. "Every member state of the United Nations (UN) has ratified at least one of the seven international human rights treaties, and over 81% of member states have ratified four" ( http://web.amnesty.org/library/indez/engior400182003 )
However, we should take into account that this proposal for reform was made over ten years prior to the date on which the article was written. Further ahead the article shows that none of the 7 treaty bodies have been completed ratified. The proposal reads " Although no treaty has achieved universal ratification, the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by all but two member states". If we step outside this example for a moment it is clear to see how absurdly difficult it is to reach an agreement between the members of the United Nations, let alone between all of the sovereign states. Even on an issue such as the Rights of a Child, it has taken over ten years to get all but two of the votes, but that is two votes too few.

It certainly is possible that sovereign states could reach a global agreement; I've personally been taught that anything is possible (within reason of course). Such an agreement may even be feasible, it would take heaps of hard work and probably take a number of years but it could be reached. However, if we really examine the odds is it really practicable?

The definitions of these three words bear only a slight difference.
possible - that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc
feasible - capable of being done, effected, or accomplished
practicable - capable of being done, effected, or put into practice, with the available means
( dictionary.com )

Though these words are listed as synonyms, the definitions become increasingly specific and more concrete. In a question such as this, these differences draw a line between a yes and no answer. I consider the "available means" to be the mentality and ideals held by each sovereign state throughout the world, unless these change I do not believe that a global agreement is truly possible.

sources:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engior400182003
dictionary.com

Justice and the Sovereign State

While it is certainly possible and advisable for sovereign states to reach global agreements that benefit all parties involved, progression toward a concurrence can only be made with compromise that does not threaten the sovereign state’s power and exercise of power. A sovereign state, in a democratic sense, must both represent and protect its people and make decisions with other countries on mutual interests. Yet, in order to be sovereign, a state must be known and recognized as sovereign by the other member states of the global society, and therefore, must also act with authority and power over its “possessions” in order to maintain its position. As a result, even and balanced agreements between sovereign states might be scarce since they are complex to negotiate as each nation competes with another for resources, economic development, market share, and wealth. However, global agreements, in the true meaning of the term, are of utmost importance and made regularly, either bilateral (between two countries, such as the USA and Mexico) or multilateral (between several countries, such as the European Union). Even though there is no higher law that safeguards the justice of decisions being made, agreements between countries can still be attained on the premise of extreme need and desperation, or political and economical advancement. For example, Great Britain could increase its financial aid to Ethiopia, but is it going to stretch its resources beyond the range of comfort just to be generous? Great Britain would lend a “reasonable” amount, as expected from a wealthy nation, in a form and against financial terms that would be, of course, acceptable by Ethiopia, and that would be seen as politically correct and considerate. An agreement and compromise is made, in technical terms, yet the element of justice is drastically absent.

Because sovereign states determine their own law and execute legislation in their territories, they will interact and negotiate with other sovereign states on a basis of power, producing agreements that directly correspond in balance to the power and sovereignty of that particular state, resulting in the best deal they can negotiate for themselves. For example, most western European countries and the USA have trade tariffs in place that protect and subsidize their own agricultural industries, guaranteeing them access to the global market and thus securing a profit. However, these trade barriers make it extremely difficult for poorer, third world nations to compete in the global market place and get a fair price for their agricultural products, which make up a large part of their economy, thus choking their development. Agreements they are, yet fair? In many ways they are not. Legally, “there is no law without sovereignty,” but globally and politically speaking, in sovereignty there is no law.

Global Agreements; Mission Possible

Change happens in extremely small increments over many years especially when it is change for the better. You can effect change very quickly if you bomb a city but to build up a community takes many years and much hard work. It is the same way in the international community with global agreements, but rest assured it does happen. Despite the sovereign identity of each state, global agreements are possible though they might not seem in themselves to provide monumental change or any significant change at all.

According to http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml there are 192 member states in the United Nations who all “accept the obligations of the Charter” (Basic Facts About the United Nations). Subsequently each of these sovereign states has agreed to accept the obligations of the UN Charter and to act upon those obligations should it be necessary. This agreement exists between almost all nations of the world and therefore it could certainly be classified as a global agreement. Additionally the nations involved are truly sovereign because they have the right to run their internal affairs as they see fit and the United Nations cannot send troops into a state without the consent of that state which emphasizes that states are sovereign even within this international organization.

While this global agreement may not seem to make significant progress on its own as the UN has no enforcing power when it comes to the norms of international relations, it is an agreement between almost every nation on the planet and in that fact alone it has significant power. This agreement provides a common framework on which to build the future of international cooperation. Getting nations with such varying cultural identities to agree on anything is a monumental step upon which we can build further global agreement and cooperation. If all states see their identity within an international framework such as the United Nations disputes can be more easily resolved because states would be less likely to attack those they see as similar to themselves even in some small way. Even though not all states agree on every issue there are some fundamental issues on which all nations agree such as the need for clean water, a secure food supply, and individual security. Therefore basic global agreements are possible within the framework of national sovereignty possessed by each nation.

Erica Peterson

A greater global unity is possible!

I strongly believe that it is not only possible for sovereign states to reach global agreement, but that it would be in their best interest to do so. If a collective effort was made by all the nations of the world to solve the plethora of issues facing humanity today, such as environmental destruction, overpopulation, poverty, oppression, and injustice, people everywhere would benefit. There are several examples of when sovereign states reached global agreement. One such example was the 1970s campaign by the World Health Organization (WHO) to eradicate smallpox. Through a combined effort of the nations, a deadly disease that had ravaged the human population for centuries was completely eliminated from nature, a feat which has not yet been repeated to this day¹.

Another example of a global agreement seems to be the de facto consensus between sovereign states that nuclear weapons, although powerful politico-military bargaining chips, are so overwhelmingly destructive that their use should be avoided at all costs. Since the introduction of nuclear weapons in 1945, only eight nations – the United States, the Russian Federation, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel – possess nuclear weapons, compared with the nineteen nations – Australia, Egypt, Sweden, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Romania, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Italy, Japan, Germany, and Norway – that decided to abandon their nuclear weapon programs and ambitions. In addition to these nations, four other nations – South Africa, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan – possessed nuclear weapons but chose to sign on to the NPT and disarm². As of today, North Korea and Iran are the only nations exhibiting significant nuclear weapons ambitions.

Although I strongly believe that nation-states can reach global consensus, I feel that current international and domestic sociopolitical atmospheres present a problematic ideological bloc to humankind’s progressive advancement on a global scale. However, I do not view this bloc as impassible and am confident in the many efforts that exist to begin to “break through,” such as the great number of grassroots movements promoting social justice, education and healthcare reform, gender equality, racial harmony, and other progressive agendas. I am also encouraged by the fact that there are many others out there who, like me, share my vision of a better future for humanity and will work for the advancement of the common good.

-Gregory Proulx

Sources:

¹ “Smallpox Disease Overview.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 30 Dec. 2004. 5 Sept. 2007. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp.

² “Nuclear Weapons Programs Worldwide: An Historical Overview.” Institute for Science and International Security. 5 Sept. 2007. http://www.isis-online.org/mapproject/introduction.html.

Reflections: Two Weeks and Goin' Strong

Although we have been together as a class for only two weeks and have yet to explore the subject of world politics in the depth that we undoubtedly will, I feel very glad to have chosen to take this class. Everyone in class is very friendly, and I am happy to be part of this unique educational community. The class discussions we have had so far have been very impressive because people have been careful to avoid conflict and have treated each other with a high level of respect. I enjoyed hearing Supriya and Gunperi give their views of their home countries – views that are vastly different from the traditional Western ones which we are presented with every day. I have also enjoyed all the activities we have been doing, such as visiting RFK Stadium and Anacostia, learning about the waterfront redevelopment plan, and going to see the Nationals vs. Giants game. Throughout these two weeks, I have been happily surprised by the number of deep, eloquent, and respectful conversations I have had with my peers over a wide variety of pressing social and political issues – nuclear power with Gunperi, human nature and social progress with Megan, the prevention of genocide with Rachel, socialism with Sarah, and so on. I am quite ecstatic because I know there will be many more of these conversations to come! Another aspect of class that I was impressive with was the issue of bringing a new student into our community. Professor Jackson described the situation and why the student wanted to join, and then, in the spirit of participatory democracy, said that it was the class’s choice whether we wanted to bring a new student into our community. The vote was a unanimous yes. I feel extremely lucky and honored to be part of such a welcoming, respectful, and progressive community, and am looking forward to the wonderful experience ahead of us!

-Gregory Proulx

Reflections

Looking back on our first week of class and activities together, I feel very privileged to be part of a dynamic and inquisitive class. In only two short weeks we have made the transition into a new chapter of life and have shared personal accounts in class that encourage each person to examine his own beliefs, possibly even drawing one to form new resolutions. Gunperi spoke of the importance of positively representing her homeland to other countries, which is a strong part of the foundation to “relating” to other countries in the broad aspect of world politics. It is an element that I feel is central to a goal of better understanding, and as a result, more effective action among people in society to the benefit of all. It is we, the people, who collectively form a voting society that determines the rules and regulations and, therefore, how we live. We, consequently, have the responsibility to accurately represent and give justice to our country, striving to change and better that with which we do not necessarily agree. We really are not so different from each other in our quest for the knowledge that can help us solidify our visions and reach our objectives. In light of Labor Day, I think our class exemplifies the work force and the desire to achieve, which is a characteristic so defining of our country. The simple asking of a question in class, making of a statement, or the expression of a thought leads to a multitude of branches with different leaves that can all lead to revelations and new affirmations, in effect, the fuel for progression. Meeting with an RFK stadium executive and learning about the proposed plan for the Anacostian river led our class to ask questions and be actively engaged in a current event that is but one of similar issues in the larger scale of our world. The desire and willingness to learn and work in the respectful environment thus created, struck me as the cohesive binder amongst us.

Refection Week 1

Upon reading the blog posts this week on the most important issue in world politics it was tempting to immediately judge and say, “well, that’s not the most important issue, this is.” After taking some time to reflect I realized that the beauty of world politics is that we can all be right. Perhaps is no “most important” issue but only important issues. The most important issue can be poverty, education, sovereignty, religion, oil, and all of the other ideas people brought forward rolled into one. All of our ideas are interconnected and hence perhaps the greatest issue in world politics is all of them combined. However we each pointed out specific issues in world politics that we thought particularly important which reveals each of our unique problem solving strategies. We each asserted that the world could be “fixed” if only the problem we identified were solved. We are all here because of our unique views and the world needs all of us working for the greater good of humanity in our own way. So when the debates get heated, as they undoubtedly will, let’s remember that just because we disagree that does not mean that any of us are wrong, or right for that matter.

On a different note, Sunday Gunperi, Sam, and I had an interesting world politics moment that happened outside of the classroom. We were sitting on the Quad trying to get some reading done but it was difficult because we were distracted by the beauty of nature. Nevertheless our minds were still in world politics mode so we came up with metaphors for how nature could explain world politics. We discussed how the squirrels were chasing each another because one was jealous of the other’s stash of acorns and how that symbolized the struggle for power and wealth in today’s society. We discussed how we all share the land (the grass) and yet we partition it up without regard for its natural boundaries. Our model was a little simplistic, yes, but it helped me put a model to the theoretical discussions we were having in class. Moreover it showed world politics not as a quest to save the world but simply a quest to understand a little bit more about it and I think that should be our goal.

This week has been a whirlwind of activity and it’s easy to get lost in the “things” you did but I think World Politics has taught me a lot about myself, my classmates, and the world in just one week. I cannot imagine what it will teach me in the course of a semester but I’m eager to find out.
Erica Peterson

Reflection (week 1)

What can I say about this week? Though I still cannot claim to be a fan of baseball, I now at least understand the basic rules of the game. To be honest I can’t say that I found the game to be all that eventful (or relevant) but I still had a great time, I definitely miss working with kids.
In the classroom there were a few things that really set in with me. I think the biggest is perhaps the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I had never really thought of how much these two terms vary, but now that I think about it there truly is an astronomical difference. So, to correct my earlier statement: I believe that people should be educated worldwide on how to tolerate all other people as they are. If mankind managed this feat the planet would be so much better off.
The other thing that was clear in class this week was the fact that we really are a living learning community. We are all going home to the same place, so regardless of what may happen in discussion/debate I think it is really important that we remember that it is only a class discussion and that we are a community. Nobody likes getting worked up (that I know of), but at the end of the day there shouldn’t be any hard feelings or grudges. There are two stellar sayings I know: “leave it at the door” and “don’t go to bed angry”. I think those are some pretty good words to live by.