Helping citizens help themselves

If a country must choose between the economic opportunity of disembedded liberalism and the social benefit of imbedded liberalism, disembedded liberalism would provide the most opportunity for economic prosperity, which would, in turn, benefit common citizens. Imbedded liberalism often leads to a large, stable middle class of people who are kept employed by the internal buying and selling of their products and services, yet it also hinders technology and innovation. Requiring the country to put forth necessary services and materials, supplies, and expertise which cannot be obtained through trade in a free market puts a burden on all of society due to various legal restrictions and oppressive labor laws that prevent the necessary market flexibility to quickly react to economic change. If a country is not burdened by restrictive laws, it has the freedom to quickly adapt to global market demand and specialize in areas where it can excel, while trading for the things it cannot produce itself. As a result of the limited social protection afforded under disembedded liberalism, some of the country’s workers might find themselves unemployed, yet the consequences of a small percentage of the population living in poverty cannot compare to the trouble that results from a stagnant economy and an inefficient workforce protected by the government from the cradle to the grave at the expense of the taxpayer under embedded realism. Taking away people’s incentive to work and their responsibility for their own destiny, killing their ambition to create new technology that might be traded and produce fortune for the creator, results in an atmosphere where people feel safe and do not need to concern themselves about their future and that of their country, as the government will provide for them regardless of whether they perform to their potential. Such a system would choke off economic expansion. Yet, if it is innovation and trade that creates wealth for a nation and its citizens, but restrictive laws prevent such economic development while, in addition, the burden on society is increased due to the graying of the population, how can a nation hold on to its power and position in the world market? Taxing everyone equally does not reward an individual for going the extra mile, thereby feeding the lack of ambition that inhibits the very technological and economic advancement that is necessary to keep the needed revenue. A clear example of the failure of embedded liberalism can be seen in the overburdened social systems of The Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, and most other northern European nations, who are now in the painful process of much needed reform to adjust to changing demographics and decreasing revenue, as their population is graying (more older people, who need more health care, social services, etc., than young people who work and pay the taxes to pay for them). Technological advance and flexible economic expansion means wealth and power in today’s day and age, and secures a “reservation” at meetings with other powerful nations, where the country’s interests can now be heard. The USA is an example of successful disembedded liberalism, as flexible labor laws and capitalism make for a quickly contracting and expanding economy, as required by the ever changing world market demands. The early bird gets the worm, as the saying goes, and the faster an economy can adjust, the greater the pay-off for the nation and its citizens.

While many might argue that under disembedded liberalism the rich and capable are rewarded with wealth they hardly need, this wealth might very well be spent in a way that would help the poor far more than simply handing them checks (taxing proportional to income). If the rich spend and invest their wealth and thus fuel the economy, more employment and advancement opportunities will be available for the poor to improve, educate, and support themselves. The economy must provide an atmosphere where capitalism can thrive and market forces are allowed to work freely, making it possible for people to better and support themselves, thus controlling their own wealth and destiny, largely independent of the government. As long as flexible laws and an open market make it possible for anyone to make his or her fortune, the economy will provide a source of income for a nation's long-term health and benefit its citizens.

embedded vs disembedded liberalism

In regards the question of rather I would prefer the political-economic system of embedded or disembedded liberalism for my country I would have to answer that I would prefer embedded liberalism. There are a number of reasons for this, the first of which being that as a citizen it would simply be to my benefit to be in favor of the system which serves social purposes. After all, if we are all so self interested, shouldn't we first be considered with how we ourselves fair from the application of each system? Second, keeping the previous reason in mind, people are more likely to comply with a government that works to their benefit. If people are more compliant with the government it is easier to get things done. If it is easier for a state to get things done, more time is allotted for relations with other states, and if more time is allotted for interstate relations then they will subsequently improve as well (in theory). Basically the entire line of reasoning for embedded liberalism being the more practical choice is the reasoning that you need to work from the bottom up. There is a saying " No whole is greater than the sum of its parts." strengthen the parts, strengthen the whole. That being said, not only does it benefit the country in question for them to focus on their domestic affairs and welfare of their people, but it also benefits all the other countries with which they have relations because by making their state more structurally sound from the inside they are increasing the potential for strength within interstate relations.

State Policy and the Will of the People

I don’t think there is a simple yes or no answer to the question, “is public opinion, or the will of the people, a sufficient basis for state policy?” First off, we must take into account that we are a representative democracy, meaning that people elect the leaders to represent their views. However, it seems that this is becoming the case less and less. The people’s views are often drowned out by those of special interest groups, corporate lobbies, and self-serving politicians. Like Liz said, when public opinion turned increasingly against the Vietnam War, the government still insisted on trudging on, and the rest, as they say, is history. Not that anything was learned from that history, because today we are embroiled in Iraq, and the government is still ignoring the will of the people.

Although the will of the people must be taken into effective, there has to be a process of public discussion and review before a decision is made. If the will of the people were the sole basis for state policy we would run the risk of becoming a mobocracy, where minorities had no say and the will of the people, regardless of consequences, would rule. There is no such thing as infallibility, and if the people made a rash or informed decision, it could be disastrous.

Fortunately, there is a solution to these problems. First, there must be governmental reform so that the people’s views are accurately and fairly represented. Political corruption must be sought out and punished, and changes must be made so that citizens can more easily and directly participate in government. Secondly, the public must be encouraged (by each other and the government) to participate in government and inform themselves of the issues so that they can make prudent decisions. By fostering vibrant political discourse that involves the public and policymakers, our country can work towards becoming more democratic and building more state policy based on the will of an educated, informed citizenry.

-Gregory Proulx

Reflections VIIII

After Friday’s class discussion about commercials and the techniques they utilize to persuade viewers to think according to their ideals, I remembered the words of my wise Language and Composition teacher senior year. She repeatedly reminded us to “never believe everything that seems to be” as we read the slogans of advertisements and viewed countless commercials. Ms. Hassenplug trained our eyes to note ethos, pathos, and logos strategically weaved through every literary review or political article. We learned how any information that may impress an audience by logical, sympathetic, or ethical means may and often will be exaggerated to gain the greatest support. Fallacies and subtle manipulation of words and statistics are often the most popular methods exploited in a zealous attempt to control and sway the mind, feelings, and moral standing of an audience. Because of the tremendous power these tactics can have over the oblivious, especially, it is vital that information be sent through a “filter” that a person develops as they critically evaluate statements deemed to be facts. Just as overreaction to perceived threats might be harmful economically (Simplicity and Spook), media holds enormous power over our daily environment, and ourselves, if we allow information to squeeze past our “filter” and become spoon-fed fact.

Reflections on a week that shall remain numberless

When I first sat down to write this week's reflection all that I could manage was a blank page. With the hustle and bustle of parents weekend and the excitement of Halloween it was a little difficult to shift back into class mode. Luckily James suggested I read his blog "about Halloween", it served as a great bridge for my brain to come back to class and brought up some interesting information. Even though the article discussed was dealing with the banning of Halloween costumes in schools what immediately came to mind was the banning of religion in schools and the effect that this could potentially have on the minds of our nations youth.
When something is banned one would think of it as bad: explicit music, racy books, revealing clothing... these are all things that used to find their place at the top of a schools "no-no" list. Now look at what places at the top: weapons ( which of course have always been banned but did we see armed guards and metal detectors in schools in the 1950s?), Halloween costumes, and religion. Why does it frighten parents so much that another child dress up as a pirate for a 4th grade Halloween party? Why are people so offended if the words "under God" remain in the pledge of allegiance? Why are people so offended that they have to say the pledge of allegiance, should we not be loyal to our country and respect all those who died for us to have the freedoms we enjoy? I may not agree with our government, or with our wars, but I still respect the men and women who live and die defending us.
The ban on religion that is happening in our country's schools seems to go against the very ideal of religious freedom that this country was founded on. A child isn't allowed to pray in school....isn't allowed to pray, you work out the logic on that one. The refusal to say the pledge of allegiance just seems to further this abandonment of basic American beliefs. Then there is the spread of fear, hate, and bigotry. Before the desegregation of schools the separation of blacks from whites did nothing to stop the troubles between them, if anything it added steam to the idea. Why then do we find it so interesting that our children think every person they see of middle eastern decent is a terrorist. Any intelligent person knows that not all, or even most Muslims are terrorists out to destroy the US, but if children aren't allowed to learn about religion and are only fed the media's propaganda how will they ever come to learn this? In an attempt to make everyone "comfortable" more and more seemingly innocent things have become taboo. Yet at the same time the topics that were once off limits such as sex and drugs seem to be on the rise. A school is considered to be "ahead of its time" and "innovative" if they ban any form or mention of religion within its bubble of infuence, while they simultaneously tell their students to Go Ask Alice or read any other number of modern books with heavy themes of drug use, alcoholism, suicide and sexual promiscuity. This new trend of being so accepting that no one is allowed to express their views seems to be a breeding ground for widespread bigotry. Sure we will have a large population well versed in the terms of drug culture, but show a 3rd grader an image of Jesus and see how many even recognize him as any form of religious leader (not even a valid one , depending on their faith) and see how many can actually answer.

reflection week 9

This week we discussed security and all that it entails both on a national and a personal level. The article we read about terrorism and fear tactics as relating to security struck me the most primarily because the whole time I was reading it I was nodding my head. This was because I agreed with everything that was written. I agree that there are dangers in the world and that we should take precautions to prevent terrible things from happening but I do not think that means that you should stop going about your everyday business. You could be hit by a car on your way to work anytime, anywhere but that does not stop you from going to work or doing the tasks you need to do. You could choose never to leave your room because something MIGHT happen to you but then you would spend your entire life locked away from the world without experiencing everything the world has to offer and you would eventually die, but would you have really lived? That should not, however, prevent you from putting on your seatbelt because you never know when something terrible will happen and putting on a seatbelt does not mean that you are cohering under your bed.
I think it is a similar situation for national security because we, as a nation, should not change or character as a free and democratic society in order to eliminate threats. We should take measures to protect ourselves but not at the expense of the things that make us who we are as a country because then we are ceasing to live our lives and we are giving those who seek to harm us a distinct victory over us anyway. Therefore we might as well stick to our guns and win honorably.
Furthermore, many times we cannot do anything to prevent threats and therefore there is no point in worrying about it. When the government raises the terror alert people get scared and worried but they do not have the power to prevent a massive terror attack and then their quality of life decreases even though they cannot do anything to mitigate the situation.
Erica Peterson

Parents and People

There is no black and white answer to the question posed. Public opinion is important up to extent and should definitely be taken into account when forming state policies, after all a government cannot truly survive unless it has the support of its people. On the other hand there is the "parent" theory: children know what they want, but what they want is not always what is best for them. In such cases it is the parent's job to do what is best for their children - even if they wholeheartedly disagree.
Let's take apart the issue of state policy using this family metaphor. For example, we'll say that in the beginning of the summer Jimmy sustained a serious injury to his left leg and had to receive surgery. When the soccer season starts in September Jimmy wants to play on his school's team like he has always done, but his parents forbid him to do so - at least for the time being. Jimmy will naturally be very upset with his parents because he wants to play, and may even feel strong enough to do so however, his parents know that his leg isn't supposed to be fully healed for at least another month. If Jimmy's parents based their decisions only on Jimmy's opinion and let him play he could sustain further injuries which would not be in any one's best interest. This is not to say that Jimmy's parents should not take his opinion into account, on the contrary it is something that should definitely be considered. However they must also objectively weigh the situation and see which choice of action is truly the most beneficial.
There are also cases where the child's opinion should be the most important. Let's say that Jimmy's parents are trying to enroll him in ballet class. If Jimmy does not take ballet, his well being won't be hurt. On the contrary if he is forced to enroll in class (let's face it) he could be put under harsh ridicule by his peers. Because no ramifications will directly reach the parents regardless of what Jimmy chooses to do, yet Jimmy will be effected either way - the choice should strictly belong to him.
If we think of Jimmy as the public and his parent's as the state, what I am trying to say is basically that public opinion is not a firm basis for state policy, however the role that public opinion plays in state policy should be determined on an issue to issue basis. Other things, especially how each decision would effect the state and its citizens on the whole should definitely be taken into account. Citizens should have more input on issues that involve them more directly and less on international policies that will never effect them (this of course is excluding decisions to go to war and the like).

The Will of the People

The theoretical basis of republican government is that the will of the people is always right and therefore if the government is subject to the will of the people the government will make the right decision. There is a relevant quote in the TV show The West Wing in which a pollster says, “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” However we know this is not true because all people are flawed and therefore even their collective voice can be erroneous from time to time. Thus in absolute terms the will of the people will not always be the morally correct action. However, absent any other decision making mechanism other than the capricious will of a few leaders, the will of the people provides the best possible basis for a nation’s actions.
The people of a nation are ultimately going to be effected by any foreign policy decisions their leaders make and then, in turn, the leader must acquiesce to the will of the people in order to stay in power. Even in nations that are not democratic this happens because the leader can be overthrown if he does not have the support of his citizens. While the people of a country might not be directly affected by their nation’s foreign policy decisions they will be affected eventually and thus their input is important. This is not to say, however, that policy makers should not be concerned with the opinions of those with whom they interact globally since their attitude may come back to haunt the nation later. I think the only feasible alternative to national policy based on the will of the people is the will of one individual, a dictator, or a few very powerful individuals. This situation only breads corruption since a few people are forcing their will not only upon people in foreign countries but also the vast majority of those in their country. Since the people will be most affected by the action taken their will should be considered above all else in policy making decisions.
The United States is somewhere in between these two situations because our government is not a democracy, it is a republic. The citizens themselves do not make the national policy decisions but rather choose the leaders who make the decisions. Therefore the will of the people is not always directly followed. I guess you could say that things get “lost in translation” from the people to their leaders. The leader assumes that x is what the people want because they elected him and then he sets out to achieve it even if the people do not really support it. Perhaps, however, the leader substitutes his will for the will of the people and uses the people as a cover. The idea behind the republican form of government of the United States is that the nation is too large for the people to all individually vote on policy decisions and therefore we elected representatives to do the voting for us. Since absolute democracy is not achievable in a large nation like the United States we must settle for the next best alternative, a republic in which sometimes our leaders get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. The will of the people is, however, a sufficient basis for foreign policy decisions even though it is not always listened to and implemented.
Erica Peterson

Reflections on Week Eight

Week eight was a very exciting week for me. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the two reports on US national security and decided to choose NSC 68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security as the document I would focus on while answering question #7. My answer ended up being quite substantial as there were many aspects of NSC-68 that I found interesting, such as calls for an international system "based on freedom and justice" and strong affirmations of the fundamental ideological purpose of the United States. I found it very surprising that a realist document written on such a topic, and at such a tense period in time, would contain such suggestions and affirmations.

Our Wednesday trip to the International Spy Museum was really fun. The cloak-and-dagger world of espionage has always been an interest of mine—I have a large collection of spy books about Cold War espionage at home—so it was very exciting to be able to explore this interest in the context of a class! Although I've been to the museum before, I find that the amount of information available is simply too much to absorb in one (well, now two) days, so I definitely plan on visiting again. Later that day I went with Gunperi to the Capital to see the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama and to hear him speak, which was a wonderful experience. It reminded me of how lucky I am to be going to college in Washington, D.C.—it's not often that you get to hear the Dalai Lama speak in your city!

I also enjoyed reading Carol Cohn's "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals" for Friday's class. I thought it was a very interesting article which did a thorough analysis of the issue and raised a lot of good points. Being someone who is fairly literate in the language of nuclear strategy, I was actually quite surprised to hear about the sexual overtones in the language of 1980s defense intellectuals, and personally thought such overtones were highly unprofessional. I also thought the language regarding virginity and birth seemed very strange and out-of-place. I was a bit skeptical of some of Cohn's analysis of the language of defense intellectuals, such as when she mentions how the acronym for Permissive Action Links—PAL—makes such planning easier to do. I would have to disagree, as PAL is simply an acronym! Further, when Cohn talks about Oppenheimer's quoting from the Bhagavad Gita I feel that she over-analyzes, as this quote was meant to illustrate the shock and, possibly, guilt at releasing such a destructive force on the world. Overall, thought, I thought it was a good article.

Looking forward to another good week!

-Gregory Proulx

Principles and Means: The Issue of US National Security during the Cold War

I found NSC-68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security to be highly interesting as it was written in early on in the Cold War in 1950, when the situation was not as complicated as it during the 1960s through the 1980s. This relative simplicity, in my opinion, of the situation in 1950 was due to the fact that both the United States and the Soviet Union were still adjusting, in varying degrees, to the international atmosphere of a post-WWII world, and were both far from reaching their economic and military primacies. Another fact that I see as contributing to 1950 being a less complicated year of the Cold War is although the fission bomb had recently been introduced and the thermonuclear bomb was waiting “in the wings,” so to speak, the pace of military research and design had not yet ramped up and, hence, the multitude of new, technologically-advanced and highly destructive weapons that were to come—such as ICBMs, stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, and MIRVs—had not yet been developed. All of these weapons, and others, caused the complexity of the Cold War to increase dramatically, as they presented new threats and strategies that nations had to counter.

If NSC-68 and the realist perspective were to be taken and held up against one another, the realist perspective would approve of the course of action NSC-68 suggests (that is, the steady and concerted build-up of the political, economic, and military capabilities—and hence the security—of the United States and the free world to face the Soviet threat). The document would also be in harmony with the realist perspective as both hold power and security to be the primary motivation for nations.

However, there are several very unique aspects of this document that I noticed as I was reading through it. Aside from the antiquated language, such as “atomic” and “European NAT countries,” I was highly surprised to find that the tone and recommendations of the document were overwhelmingly reasonable, principled, and considered all aspects of the situation, even in a time when the perceived threat from the Soviet Union to the United States’ way of life was immense. At the beginning of the document is a section called, “Fundamental Purpose of the United States,” and is as follows:

The fundamental purpose of the United States is laid down in the Preamble to the Constitution: “. . . to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” In essence, the fundamental purpose is to assure the integrity and vitality of our free society, which is founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual.

Three realities emerge as a consequence of this purpose: Our determination to maintain the essential elements of individual freedom, as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights; our determination to create conditions under which our free and democratic system can live and prosper; and our determination to fight if necessary to defend our way of life, for which as in the Declaration of Independence, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Such an affirmation of the principles on which the United States was built infers that the conclusions and recommendations offered in NSC-68 will be the manifestation and reinforcement of these principles. It was surprising to see such an affirmation in this markedly realist document, as realists hold power as the main goal of states and that states will pursue power through any means regardless of ideological or other beliefs. Chapter IV, Section C follows this principled theme by discussing the responsibilities regarding the use of force such principles command:

The free society is limited in its choice of means to achieve its ends.

Compulsion is the negation of freedom, except when it is used to enforce the rights common to all. The resort to force, internally or externally, is therefore a last resort for a free society. The act is permissible only when one individual or groups of individuals within it threaten the basic rights of other individuals or when another society seeks to impose its will upon it. The free society cherishes and protects as fundamental the rights of the minority against the will of a majority, because these rights are the inalienable rights of each and every individual.

The resort to force, to compulsion, to the imposition of its will is therefore a difficult and dangerous act for a free society, which is warranted only in the face of even greater dangers. The necessity of the act must be clear and compelling; the act must commend itself to the overwhelming majority as an inescapable exception to the basic idea of freedom; or the regenerative capacity of free men after the act has been performed will be endangered.

Our free society, confronted by a threat to its basic values, naturally will take such action, including the use of military force, as may be required to protect those values. The integrity of our system will not be jeopardized by any measures, covert or overt, violent or non-violent, which serve the purposes of frustrating the Kremlin design, nor does the necessity for conducting ourselves so as to affirm our values in actions as well as words forbid such measures, provided only they are appropriately calculated to that end and are not so excessive or misdirected as to make us enemies of the people instead of the evil men who have enslaved them.

But if war comes, what is the role of force? Unless we so use it that the Russian people can perceive that our effort is directed against the regime and its power for aggression, and not against their own interests, we will unite the regime and the people in the kind of last ditch fight in which no underlying problems are solved, new ones are created, and where our basic principles are obscured and compromised. If we do not in the application of force demonstrate the nature of our objectives we will, in fact, have compromised from the outset our fundamental purpose. In the words of the Federalist (No. 28) “The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief.”

The above passages deviate from realist thinking because they present strong ideologically-grounded limitations on the use of force. The phrase, “[t]he free society is limited in its choice of means to achieve its ends,” references the realist philosopher Machiavelli’s classic quote, “the ends justify the means,” but clearly indicates that a free society cannot disregard its principles when pursuing its goals because doing so would cause its “basic principles [to be] obscured and compromised.” The hazards regarding force are also mentioned in Chapter IX, where four courses of action the United States could take regarding the Soviet Union are outlined. In Section C it is stated that war, as a course of action for dealing with the Soviet threat, would be an unacceptable to the United States:

Some Americans favor a deliberate decision to go to war against the Soviet Union in the near future. It goes without saying that the idea of “preventive” war—in the sense of a military attack not provoked by a military attack upon us or our allies—is generally unacceptable to Americans. Its supporters argue that since the Soviet Union is in fact at war with the free world now and that since the failure of the Soviet Union to use all-out military force is explainable on grounds of expediency, we are at war and should conduct ourselves accordingly…This is a powerful argument in the light of history, but the considerations against war are so compelling that the free world must demonstrate that this argument is wrong.

It is further stated that such an action “would probably mean a long and difficult struggle during which the free institutions of Western Europe and many freedom-loving people would be destroyed and the regenerative capacity of Western Europe dealt a crippling blow,” and that “…a surprise attack upon the Soviet Union, despite the provocativeness of recent Soviet behavior, would be repugnant to many Americans. Although the American people would probably rally in support of the war effort, the shock of responsibility for a surprise attack would be morally corrosive.” These two statements fly in the face of realist thinking by declaring in strong terms that such an action would not only cause harm to countries other than the United States, but that committing such an action would be morally unacceptable for a free society. The sense of obligations to other nations, which realists would frown upon, is also mentioned in Chapter IX. In the analysis of isolationism as a course of action in Section B, it is said that, “[a]s the Soviet Union came to dominate free countries, it is clear that many Americans would feel a deep sense of responsibility and guilt for having abandoned their former friends and allies,” highlighting the emphasize NSC-68 placed upon the bonds between the United States and its allies. Lastly, one other interesting piece of Section B was the passage, “…many would seek to defend the United States by creating a regimented system which would permit the assignment of a tremendous part of our resources to defense. Under such a state of affairs our national morale would be corrupted and the integrity and vitality of our system subverted.” This statement (and several similar ones throughout NSC-68) was particularly striking as it took into account that actions such as the militarization of American society could be just as great a threat to the fundamental purpose of the United States as was the Soviet Union.

The objectives of the United States outlined in NSC-68 regarding the Soviet Union are also unexpectedly reasonable. The document also did not demonize or stereotype the Soviet people as enemies of the United States, as was often done in talk of the Soviet Union (especially during the Red Scare in the 1950s), but targeted the idea of communism and its manifestation in the governmental institutions and aims of the Soviet Union. Also, rather than calling for the annihilation (in any shape or form) of the Soviet Union, NSC-68 states that pressure needs to be applied so as to “induce the Soviet Union to accommodate itself, with or without the conscious abandonment of its design, to coexistence on tolerable terms with the non-Soviet world.” Similar statements can be found throughout NSC-68 calling for the Soviet Union to “adjust,” “negotiate acceptable agreements on issues of major importance,” and “[behave] in accordance with precepts of international conduct.” Such language is a very surprising as the atmosphere of the time would seem to indicate a US urge to defeat or destroy the Soviet Union.

Yet another interesting discovery within this markedly realist document was the call for greater international cooperation and the strengthening of the United Nations, which is most noticeable in Chapters VI, VIII, and IX. Chapter VI states that an integral part of the overall US policy regarding the Soviet Union “…is a policy of attempting to develop a healthy international community.” Such a policy seems to be the exact opposite of what realists—to whom the belief in the anarchic nature of the international system is key—would recommend. Chapter VI further states that this policy “…is the long-term constructive effort which [the United States is] engaged in,” and that “[i]t was this policy which gave rise to [the United States’] vigorous sponsorship of the United Nations.” Considering current national realist sentiments, it is interesting to hear about the United States’ “vigorous sponsorship” of the United Nations in such a positive tone, especially in a document regarding US national security! Chapter VIII, which addresses the issue of atomic weapons, further defines conventional realist thinking by affirming that “it would be to the long-term advantage of the United States if atomic weapons were to be effectively eliminated from national peacetime armaments,” and speaks of the need for international controls on atomic energy and the impossibility of these controls being established unless a “genuine and drastic change in Soviet policies has taken place.” The goal of established such an international regulatory agency, or any international regulatory agency for that matter, would be dismissed by realists who hold international organizations to have little, if any, impact in a world dominated by unitary state actors. Finally, in Chapter IX, comes the call to build a cooperative international system:

It is clear that our long-range objectives require a strengthened United Nations, or a successor organization, to which the world can look for the maintenance of peace and order in a system based on freedom and justice.

It was this statement that was possibly the most surprising in all of NSC-68. In 1950, a time when the Cold War was heating up, the Red Scare was taking place, and fear of nuclear war between the two superpowers was in everyone’s mind, comes a call for building a cooperative international system based on freedom and justice! Such a statement seems like the absolute last thing a realist would be caught saying in the 1950s (and a US national security document!). Such a statement was surprising then, and it is even more surprising now, considering recent US actions such as the Iraq War.

Looking back on everything here, maybe NSC-68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security isn’t such a realist document after all.

-Gregory Proulx

Reflections VIII

In discussing the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information, and the need for a more peaceful and politically stable world, many theories come to the table such as multilateral disarmament and a more constructive negotiation strategy and methods to promote and achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. However, because technology, once developed and applied, cannot be reversed and countries like to use nuclear weapons to amplify their “voice” on the world stage in order to increase their political power and economic leverage, there is little hope that nuclear weapons will be eliminated and the struggle for their attainment will cease in the near future. While we should be procuring every possible chance for political and economic stability in the future and be searching for an effective way to communicate and peacefully coexist, all of which will take considerable time and effort, what measures can be taken in the meantime? If other countries do not wish to comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) or any other form of disarmament, and nuclear weapons would continue to proliferate into the hands of the dangerous, the US and its allies would remain politically and economically vulnerable at the expense of any peace initiative, which would be doomed from the outset. Yet many convincingly argue that the widespread possession of nuclear weapons would be a deterrent and, as such, be comparable to a lack thereof, as a country would be afraid to make the first move to support a threat with the use of a nuclear weapon, as it would in effect result in self destruction when the inevitable retaliating strike is made. This theory is based on the human survival instinct and the fear of death. However, with increasingly bold and aggressive religious extremism, the deterrent factor might not be applicable, as it only takes one “martyr” without this instinctive fear of death and placed in a politically powerful position with access to nuclear weaponry to possibly annihilate millions. Therefore, if nuclear weapons cannot be eliminated or effectively controlled, as by nature, their sheer existence allows for dangerous hands and minds to work under the security radar and attain or develop such weapons, regardless of the decisions made by dominant countries, we must find ways to handle their presence for the future and ensure our safety. The most peaceful solution might be to have widespread, balanced, and treaty-controlled possession of nuclear weapons, while finding other ways and means to exert force on others and building new technology to maintain importance in the world market.

reflections

On Wednesday we took a trip to the International Spy Museum. While this was certainly very cool and informative, for me the real highlight of the day was seeing the Dalai Lama speak. It's not every day that you get a chance to see one of the world's great religious leaders and Nobel Peace prize winners address such a large and diverse crowd. To be honest I did not know much about the problem in Tibet before this past week, just the bare bones of the issue. However, after watching a film on the conflict for one of my classes, reading up and going to see the Dalai Lama, I realize just how big of an issue it really is. Unfortunately we seem to have a very short attention span, not just here, but throughout the globe. It was not that long ago that Tibet was a huge issue, but now we have all but forgotten. This past Monday my professor for Views from the third World asked who thought they had a real grasp on the situation and only a couple seniors raised their hands, they were the only ones old enough to remember when it was actually on the news, when we actually cared. Something the Dalai Lama said struck me, he said that United States support of Tibet had been unwavering. He said this even though we removed all support in favor of stronger economic ties with China, even though we are funding their suffering through the grape vine. Maybe when he looks at the United States he sees more than just the fickle support received from our government, maybe he sees the individuals that keep the struggles and hardships of the Tibetan people in mind even when our government and media seem to have stopped caring. Not every American has to have a short attention span. Darfur was on the news constantly not that long ago, but now coverage is a lot more sparse. The same goes for every huge global humanitarian issue. We care for awhile, forget, hear about it again and think that the problem has returned when really it never stopped.
Even with the fickleness of the media and government towards these issues it was reassuring to see that the US did not cave into China's wish for us to cancel the event. Though the repercussions will be slim to none even with things carried out as planned it is at least a comfort to know that we cannot be that easily made to go back on our word. Perhaps that can serve as a sign that their may still be hope for the good reputation and honest word of the US government in the future.

Discussion

Here is a summary of the discussion on Friday that Professor Jackson asked me to post. If you have anything you want to add or correct please do so.

Greg: weapons are useless and irrational for a democracy
Rebecca: Not completely irrational because you have to continue to have weapons
Autumn: nuclear strategic people are rational to have because you have to defend against possible attack. Look at possible events that could happen- based on what if
Titus: not rational to have the amount we have – article’s point is that community is structured and limited to language they use, isolated group talking about issues- few individuals
Rachel: nuclear warfare is not likely so only a few people use the language. Language is necessary for dealing with issue
Ian: have to realize what you are doing. Need to focus on death that occurs.
Sarah: language doesn’t need to change- subject is the missiles- way of thinking that needs to be changed
Caitlin: the language is transformative, not additive
Supriya: language is practical, efficient- they are doing the mechanics
Travis: author is paranoid- trying to be rational- abstract topic
Lauren L.: job needs to be less technical- they dehumanize what they are discussing and letting subject be missiles- the language should be less abstract
Megan: hard to be utilitarian when you consider people you will be hurting- easier to decide if you don’t consider them
Stephan: they aren’t totally oblivious to the human aspects
Ashley: should think about moral/ethical problems- they are in a game world
Tom: point is to try to win nuclear war- hard to think about situation when it is occurring- feminism applies to everything without masculinity
Lauren S.: jargon is not positive, people discussing it are men
Claire: men are involved because of male dominance of other- jargon is necessary to understand and humanize actions
Emily: jargon is not helpful- easier for men to get into field because of the terms used, men and women can’t relate under those terms
James: jargon is useful because they can understand what they are talking about- it is used to simplify
Gunperi: jargon shouldn’t be used because of moral ethical aspects- trying to ease minds to what they are doing
Sam: jargon is good- people wouldn’t understand technical, military terms- so they use the jargon- author takes language out of context
Erica: at first she didn’t understand-she had to become accustomed to the language to conform. Many phrases taken out of context- no purposeful intent to exclude women, just evolved.

Megan: bureaucracy inhibits discussion of peaceful aspects
Sarah: other people have job to talk about peace and there can’t be dialogue because they have different language
Megan: not fault of war people that peace people don’t have jargon
Titus: do we want discussion be about missiles, or actually prove we are acting for greater good- language has negative effect on policy
Rachel: language is defense mechanism because they still have to realize consequences, useful to help them have conversations about it without “freaking out”
Ashley: language makes it easier to push the button
Gunperi: leaders put defense people into position, leaders are forcing people to do this
Titus: structure and ideology not language is most important- people looking at it scientifically has effect on policy makers- if we changed the way defense people thought, we would change policy
Lauren L.: Cat’s Cradle- person doesn’t care what research leads to- destroys universe
Megan: technological development doesn’t initially have negative intentions but rather positive intentions
Greg: technology (nuclear weapons) invalidate previous technological innovation
Titus: bombs have greater reach than internet- people should care more about people than bombs
Caitlin- we still need nuclear weapons to counter the weapons of others
Nate- strategic planners are only ones talking about this- there is a dual voice since President (civilian) has ultimate say
Titus: if we didn’t have such threatening capabilities other countries wouldn’t need weapons- should make deals with countries to limit total weapons
Tom: mathematical models govern thinking about other side’s intentions – USSR had phallic language as well
Ashley: if both exchange nuclear weapons total annihilation so that’s not wise- we tell other countries to get rid of weapons but we have the most
Stephan: when there are huge stockpiles countries won’t use them because they will get bombed by an opposing force
Titus: do we want to live under fear of other nations all the time? If you have a gun you are more likely to use it even if everyone has one
Autumn: can’t get rid of technology because someone would rebuild it- if we tried to get rid of weapons someone else would recognize vulnerability and attack us
James: others won’t destroy weapons just because we do
Caitlin- weapons give countries a voice

Reflection Week 8

Tuesday we discussed national security documents. I thought it was very interesting how eerily similar the two documents were despite the fact that they were separated by half a century and many changes in world politics. The two documents were very similar even though they seemed to be going after two different enemies. The methods used against these enemies were similar revealing how little the tools of American foreign policy have changed in half a century. In terms of the structure of the discussion I liked it more than our large group discussions. We were able to discuss the issues more in-depth with fewer people and everyone was able to speak more and subsequently we could have more of a conversation. With such small groups you could have a conversation in which each person would have multiple chances to talk rather than just one and therefore I think we were less afraid that we had to say everything we wanted to all at once. We worked together to come up with an answer we all agreed upon rather than fighting with one another as to who was right which provided a nice change of pace.
As far as the Spy Museum goes, I think the whole premise of the museum is more interesting than the museum itself was. Megan pointed this out to me when she said that it was interesting in a free society we had a museum devoted to our spying. The whole purpose of spying is to be secretive and often to hide that you are spying at all and yet there is a museum dedicated to how spying is done which clearly reveals that we have spies. I guess the cat is out of the bag now since everyone knows that all countries have spies. Nevertheless it is still interesting that information about the tools of spying are displayed in such a public way. Anyone could walk in there and learn about spy techniques. Certainly many details have been left out but still this means the United States must be very confident that its spying endeavors will not be compromised by the information presented. However it still strikes me as odd that we have such a museum but maybe that’s just me.
Erica Peterson

Hierarchy of Security

Considering the National Security Strategy of the USA’s implications for the post 9/11 world and the structure of the War on Terror, realism might be the first theoretical perspective that would come to mind, in a sense that the attainment of homeland security is of top priority and must be dealt with urgently and pragmatically. The attainment of security for the homeland and the control and stabilization of countries suspected of supporting and harboring terrorist organizations are the primary goals of the tactical guidelines to be implemented. The spread and support of the American ideals of democracy and freedom are reiterated as of foremost importance to stabilizing a particularly thorny area while, at the same time, ensuring US security from such an unconventional, idealistic, and religiously radical enemy. However, after the first levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are attained and immediate danger on one’s own soil is controlled, for example, the source and maintenance of a country’s competence and income centers on the table. In the case of the US, and liberally speaking, free trade, political and economic agreements, and a stable world market between “rational” and democratic nations leads to its prosperity as well as the prosperity of others. Therefore, security, when viewed in the long run, means a need to ensure a stable growth pattern and an upward path of achievement for both oneself, and others, as others need to be stable and involved in the market in order for all to benefit. The US is self-interested in its pursuit of negotiation and agreements with other democratic nations, yet this free trade, personal freedom, and some level of democracy would also be beneficial to the development of areas in the grip of radicalism. After all, autocracy robs people of motivation to take responsibility for themselves and creates an environment where they feel out of control, which creates fertile ground for radicalism. Constructively, the USA has learned from the experiences of 9/11 and has changed its approach to the outside world by developing the National Security Strategy, as parts of the world no longer act according to its expectation. The failures in Iraq after the initial military action, for example, forces the USA to learn from them and adjust its security strategy, in cooperation with its allies and, in the case of Iraq, with the Iraqi government as well.

US National Security

In the United States National Security document constructivist, liberal, and realist principles underline the policies of the United States in the field of international affairs. The United States has the identity of a democratic, free nation that respects human rights and justice. Since the United States wants to project this image around the world it sets out to influence other parts of the world with its value system. Part of United States foreign policy is to promote democracy throughout the world and assist nations in their transformation to democratic states. Furthermore the United States asserts its commitment to freedom, equality, and human rights which it tries to spread throughout the world. Not only does this further entrench the American identity but it injects American culture into various parts of the world which guards the United States against possible attacks. People who share our culture are less likely to attack us because they see us as similar to themselves. Likewise the United States vehemently opposes terrorism in the document and stresses that because we have the identity of a powerful, democratic state we have a duty to root out terrorism.

The democratization of nations across the globe serves American interests because those nations are less likely to go to war with democratic nations like our self according to liberal international relations theory. Another liberal piece of the US National Security document was that the United States seeks to engage in and encourage free markets and free trade throughout the world. Such trade is likely to diminish the level of conflict since nations that trade together often do not go to war with one another for fear of harming their own interests. Economic ties will make the United States secure by eliminating possible threats and creating allies throughout the world.

However, all of these strategies attempt to achieve a realist objective which is to provide for the security of the nation. The document emphatically states that the United States will defend itself and its allies and prevent all attacks against their security interests. It stresses that while diplomacy is the first tool of a free and democratic society such as the United States, the US will use its military strength to protect itself from its enemies should such actions become necessary. All of the constructivist and liberal policies outlined in the document are used to protect American citizens and interests around the globe. The programs asserted are all designed to keep the United States secure and while the other policy initiatives may help us achieve security, security is the ultimate goal.
Erica Peterson

Reflections on Week Seven

Week seven war fairly quiet, with our discussion on Tuesday about marginalization and our trip to the EU on Wednesday. I've really enjoyed all the discussions I've participated in with Professor Jackson outside of class, for it is one of the major things I have looked forward to in college. In other news, I came across several posts today regarding an AIM conversation that was had in class on Monday, and it seems to have caused a lot of internal strife. I read through the conversation, and couldn't really see why everyone was riled up about. It seemed like the typical AIM chat: poorly-punctuated and unfocused. I don't see how it really related to class that much. The thin that I found most surprising about the whole situation was the fact that it was causing so many problems between people in class.

It's an AIM chat, you guys. Chill. Save your energy for more positive endeavors.

This is one of the reasons I don't have AIM: it magnifies pettiness and drama, both of which I severely dislike. Every time I overhead of incidents like this, I made a choice to preserve my peace of mind!

-Gregory Proulx

Thoughts on Marginalization

Marginalization has always been a major issue within human society. Throughout history, people have been marginalized based on the color of their skin, their national and ethnic background, their gender, their sexual orientation, their religion, and a variety of other factors. Marginalization like this is wrong, because it assumes that because a person is black or Jewish or Polish or gay they have some set of innate differences that set them apart from others or make them inferior. This sort of thinking is highly flawed, as it sets up a whole series of preconceived notions about a person before you have even gotten to know them. There are certain cases of marginalization, such as against people espousing harmful views like racism and misogyny, but these are relatively limited. Although people may have different skins colors, speak a different language, or be attracted to their same sex, we are all basically the same—little specks of cosmic dust trying to find our way in the endless expanse that is the universe.

-Gregory Proulx

Reflection week 7

At first i thought it might be difficult to pick a topic for my blog this week since we only had one class; this of course was an absolutely ridiculous thought. There have definitely been some differing opinions on whether or not it was appropriate to post the aim chat from Tuesday's class, and whether or not the said chat was relevant. Whether or not it was relevant, Autumn was simply following instructions by posting. I can definitely see how the conversation could be hard to follow and never have been a big fan of chat rooms, but I do feel it was a constructive supplement to the class discussion. That being said everyone is most definitely entitled to their own opinions, and as long as they are prevented respectfully then they are received as such as well. However I would like to say that class blogs probably are not the place to vocalize whatever problems you may have with your floor mates. Whether or not you like to speak to them at all in general, I know that I personally like to address my problems in person. Since blogging seems to be the preferred method I would just like to say that if you have a problem with someone you could actually try speaking to them about it.
In other news, I really would like to suggest that everyone take advantage of all the amazing cultural events D.C. has to offer. There is always a wealth of cultures to explore and the experiences are amazing. Of course, you don't even need to leave the dorm to do this. Talk to people and learn about their home and culture, it is definitely worth it.

"real" differences

In my opinion the answer to this question is simple. A "real" difference is a fact that can be seen about a person without delving into their personality traits, morals, character etc. The following examples :"she has brown skin" , "he is a boy", "she is English", "he is catholic", are all "real" differences. If you make these observations about other people you aren't saying anything about them that is not fact. It is the assumptions that people make based on these facts that are not "real" differences. For example, if we say Johnny is Asian, that is a real difference. If we say Johnny is smart because he is Asian we are stereotyping because there is no way that we can know how smart Johnny is simply by reading a survey he filled out while applying to colleges and looking at his picture on facebook.

Reflections Week VII

Today as I was toying with the idea of doing some homework, but ultimately deciding I would go to Turkish fest and watch the sunset on the Capitol steps, I started to reflect on how many cultural experiences and opportunities each weekend in DC has held in the past few weeks. From attending festivals in Adam’s Morgan to enjoying jazz concerts and sipping Lebanese hot chocolate, or even just a night at the Ethiopian restaurant, being in the midst of a whole new city constantly confronts my mind with new thoughts and ideas on a much broader level, which encompasses so many areas of the world. Different philosophies and traditions constantly challenge my views in life to have a new depth and be influenced by a more varied set of experiences. Pursuing new stimuli and being able to grasp new opportunities in a big city has opened up a life that I consider a blessing. While some may choose to stay in a small hometown out of fear, experiencing new cultures and meeting new people has made me realize that our shared experiences, and even our mutual friends from other states (it has happened!), is an interconnection that makes the world seem much smaller than it can feel. I passed the words “Past is Prologue” en route to the Capitol, and the phrase further clarified the way I felt when moving, changing schools, and making new friends. Sometimes it might be hard to imagine life after a big transition, yet a past life is just a chapter that leads to new chapters, but still influences the way in which they will be lived, all the same.

Accurate marginalization...or unnecessary?

People are raised, educated, and exposed to a multitude of cultural environments all over the world. Therefore, there certainly are “differences” between them; this is a logical and obvious fact. However, even if a person from one cultural background recognizes another person's cultural background as different from his own, does he have the right to marginalize because he deemed it “different”? What knowledge must he have before he can appropriately marginalize or accurately distinguish another’s background, either directly in person or in discussions with others? A clear and objective consensus of the other's identity and culture, as he wishes to be known, must be made before another person has the right to make a particular distinction. Therefore, all people should be respected through a subjective reference to which they concede. When another disagrees with a particular people’s label for itself, it becomes a personal judgment, however, which does not qualify as an official marginalization because the subject may not be in agreement with such judgment.
However, are distinctions between groups of people always a necessity - do they have a purpose? There are many situations where it is entirely irrelevant and even inappropriate to make a point of noting certain differences. Often, in a politically correct argument, it is possible for a group of people to feel that a particular distinction or marginalizing remark is “derogatory.” A term is offensive if it attempts to challenge the equality of the subject based on irrelevant characterizations. However, if equality between people is presumed in a given situation (as it always should be), is there really a need to make distinctions between people? Isn’t it irrelevant unless the personal differences are of importance and should be taken into consideration because they may significantly influence the course of important events? For example, it would be wise for an American businessperson to be aware of the cultural differences before entering in negotiations with a Japanese counterpart, so as to not unwittingly offend him and risk losing an important deal. This is not to say a person should not feel free to celebrate his heritage and distinct cultural background, but rather to address situations where divisions would be unnecessary and would result in a separation of people and the building of walls, rather than bridges that would facilitate and enhance understanding.

Never Wise to Marginalize

Webster’s Dictionary defines marginalize as “to exclude, to ignore” and if we are operating under this definition it is never neither justified nor practical to marginalize others despite differences. More than being immoral to ignore the voice of a group you happen to disagree with, it is unwise because if you ignore them that just gives them the time and space needed to attack you.

When discussing a measure that affects many people it is critical to take into consideration the views of those affected by the measure. As Enloe states NAFTA was agreed to without consideration of the Indian farmers of Mexico and the act harmed them considerably because they were not involved in the negotiations. These people clearly had an interest in the legislation that was being discussed because it directly affected their daily lives and yet they were excluded from the negotiations and therefore marginalized. Furthermore on the domestic side the Native Americans were marginalized in the United States as the American government did not consult them before taking their land and forcing them onto reservations. The health and wellbeing of the Native American population has been severely affected and the United States has lost much moral credibility in the world as a result. Especially in this circumstance not only the marginalized are adversely affected but also those who do the marginalizing.

The United States cannot simply ignore its enemies or else it would be in grave trouble from the security threat those nations or groups might pose. If the United States ceased negotiations with Iran or North Korea that would give them a good incentive to continue developing their nuclear programs. While the negotiations are not halting these programs at the current time they are attempting to keep them from becoming even more dangerous. If the United States were simply to ignore these countries they would even more so be allowed to continue their programs, which clearly pose a threat to the United States. We must seek the input of even those with whom we disagree if we are ever going to resolve differences without war. This does not mean that we must always do what are enemies what us to do for that would often be immoral and unwise but it does mean that we should at least know their perspective on the issue so that we can add credibility to our argument and enhance our decision making abilities.

Erica Peterson

reflection week 7

I thought our trip to the EU Commission this week was very interesting not only for the content of the briefing but mostly for the structure of it. The speaker was very careful about the words he chose to use and how he spoke on certain issues and to certain people. As a typical politician he did not answer some of the questions but rather skirted around the issue and then admitted that he did not really answer the question. This was particularly true when it came to the question about why the integration of the EU economically was easier than militarily. To a certain extent the speaker could profess ignorance about the military aspects because he specializes in trade, but considering the EU is a political organization one would assume that he would have some knowledge of the political and military aspects of the organization. I think he may have avoided the question because he did not know or perhaps because he did not want to reveal the real reason that the EU was unable to organize militarily.
He did touch upon the issue some, however, and said that each nation wants to maintain its own military power and is reluctant to trust others when it comes to security. While I think this is in some ways valid in explaining why nations are less likely to agree on military matters than on economic matters, I cannot help thinking of NATO as a counter argument. While NATO is not a complete military integration it is a military agreement and I wonder why Europe could not have established a similar organization. I recognize that some of the EU nations are also in NATO but there could be a way for them to cooperate with other European nations. The speaker was even less reluctant to offer much information about the issue of expansion of the EU which reveals how politically charged that issue is.
Furthermore he was careful about choosing the right words when he was talking to Gunperi because he did not know whether she was from North or South Cyprus. Unfortunately politics always creates such a position in which to refrain from offending one group you almost have to offend another group unless you are extremely careful about what you say. Wouldn’t it be nice if he could discuss the issue without distinguishing between what he would say to a North Cypriot versus a South Cypriot. I certain do not claim to know everything about this issue but I think we should be able to communicate with each other similarly regardless of where we happen to be from though unfortunately this will be the case as long as there is conflict in the world.
Erica Peterson

Reflections on Weeks Four, Five, and Six

Whoo...well, I have a lot to talk about.

I thought our question for week four, wealth vs. security, was a difficult one to answer. To me, it seems that to have one, you must have the other. You cannot be wealthy but have no security, but you cannot have security without wealth. For example, nations such as Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have great economic potential, but due to instability, are preventing from reaching this potential. On the other hand, if a wealthy nation, such as Saudi Arabia with its vast petroleum resources, did not have security, it would be pretty likely that a neighboring state would come in and take over. Hence, you must have a balance between wealth and security.

Week five was definitely an exciting week. Our discussion on what would be humanity’s response to aliens landing on the White House lawn gave me quite a few ideas for possible scenarios. I’ve actually thought about this topic before, especially after watching movies such as Independence Day, and what would happen if aliens did come to Earth. The conclusion I have often reached is that they would take one look at humans, utter, “What a pathetic, factional, warlike species,” and promptly eradicate us. In most of the movies I have seen involving aliens, they are always intellectually superior to humans, and most often come close to wiping humanity out. Fortunately for us, we end up putting aside our differences and banding together to defeat the alien threat. I can only hope we’d do that if we were faced with the threat in real life!

Several other highlights of week five were our visit to the State Department and our discussion on citizenship and what it means to be “American.” The State Department visit was very interesting, and I really enjoyed listening to what Gregg Sullivan had to say about US diplomacy in South and Central Asia. I found it very interested to hear about South and Central Asia, a region which the US has tended to ignore in the past, and all the potential that the region has. I felt that a few times he pushed the “official policy” line a bit too strongly, but overall I was very impressed with his presentation. Our discussion on what it means to be “American” was also very enlightening, for it raised the question of American identity and how it relates to ethnic and cultural background, national heritage, and so on. The questions on the current citizenship test, and the goal of those questions, raises a handful of good questions as well, such as: what values are we trying to instill in immigrants to the US? Should we focus more on what the country was founded on, or how it operates today? Should questions about the current political situation be included, or would that lead to partisan bickering?

And finally week six. I feel that the simulation went well (albeit with some editing errors) and that we got to see an in-depth view of the two sides involved in the battle over domestic content rules: those in favor of domestic content rules (such as GM, Ford, UAW) and those against domestic content rules (consumers, the Sierra Club, AIAM). One of the things I found most interesting was that even though AIAM, the Sierra Club, and consumers are against domestic content rules, the final decision was to keep them in place. This obvious disconnect between what the majority wants (consumers), as well as what would be good for the environment, and the domestic auto manufacturers illustrates the negative impact corporate campaign contributions have on our democracy.

Possibly my favorite thing about week six was the Sunday discussion on Iran. Iran’s saber-rattling and continued nuclear program are two major issues occupying political discussion today. I feel that a great deal of Ahmadinejad’s talk is simply bluster, but the Iranian nuclear program is a definite threat. The United States has seriously inhibited itself from dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat by embroiling ourselves in Iraq. With have little political or diplomatic credibility, and any military action against Iran would destabilize the entire Middle East and destroy whatever credibility we have left. Even if it did become absolutely necessary to strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure to prevent the imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons, many of Iran’s nuclear facilities are buried deep underground, negating the option of surgical airstrikes with smart munitions such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) or GBU-28 “bunker busters,” the two prime guided munitions in the US arsenal. Also, unlike the Iraqi military, which was never to recover from its near-complete obliteration by US air power during the 1991 Gulf War, Iran has been steadily building up its military, unmolested, since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, obtaining advanced military hardware such as the Tor-M1 and S-300 air defense systems and highly-capable Kilo-class diesel-electric attack submarines from the Russian Federation, making any sort of military action further complicated. Rumors have been swirling about possible US plans to employ tactical low-yield nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear facilities, but this would be an unthinkable option with disastrous domestic and international consequences. Iran might be saber-rattling now, but they could pose a more serious threat in the future. Still, the United States should not do anything rash, such as attacking Iran—we can’t afford any more mistakes.

In fact, we might even be able to take a lesson from Iran: saber-rattling doesn’t solve anything.

-Gregory Proulx

The Cold War Might Be Over, but the Threat Posed by Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons Isn’t

Spanning over 17 million square kilometers, the Russian Federation is the largest country in the world. It is a beautiful country with rolling tundra, great birch forests, and breathtaking pink sunsets that slowly melt away into crisp, clear nights (remembering back to watching one such sunset from a windowsill in St. Petersburg, I realize that written descriptions don’t do such a sight justice). It is a nation with a rich culture, vast natural resources, and a patchwork of ethnic groups. It is a nation with a lengthy and detailed history that spans many centuries.

The Russian Federation is also a nation with a dangerous nuclear legacy.

Since the end of the Cold War, the Russian Federation and the United States have greatly reduced their nuclear stockpiles, owing both to nonproliferation treaties and the decreased threat of nuclear war. However, a serious threat still exists: the overwhelmingly large number of Soviet tactical nuclear weapons left in the Russian arsenal. Tactical nuclear weapons—also known as TNWs—are designed for use in the battlefield to strike targets ranging from carrier groups to enemy ground forces. Throughout the Cold War, the USSR maintained a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons for use in the event of a conflict with NATO, and this arsenal inherited by the Russian Federation is still frightening large, as highlighted by the Center for Defense Information:

“Russia is currently estimated to have about 5,000 strategic nuclear warheads plus 3,400 tactical nuclear weapons. It should be noted, however, that estimates of Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal vary widely, ranging upwards to 10,000-15,000 when estimates include weapons waiting dismantlement” (Friedman).

Looking at this statistic, some may ask, why is this large number of tactical nuclear weapons so frightening? Aren’t strategic nuclear weapons just as dangerous as tactical ones? Well, yes and no. If strategic nuclear weapons were ever used in warfare, the resulting destruction would be immense, of course. However, as counterintuitive as it may seem, there are several reasons why strategic nuclear weapons are not as dangerous as TNWs. First off, strategic nuclear weapons tend to be mounted on missiles in silos and on submarines, making them difficult to steal, but easy to account for and secure. Strategic weapons also feature intricate security systems that require multiple levels of authorization before they can be armed and deployed. Tactical nuclear weapons, on the other hand, are just the opposite:

“Because of their often small size and portability, tactical nuclear weapons are more vulnerable than strategic nuclear weapons to accidental or illicit use. Characteristics of command unique to some TNWs—such as predelegated launch authorization, and often inadequate safeguards (i.e., effective permissive action links, or PALs) add to their potential unauthorized, accidental, or illicit use” (Alexander and Millar 4).

The small size of TNWs also makes them extremely vulnerable to theft. This, combined with the fact that many of these weapons sit in poorly secured locations throughout the Russian Federation—which are, in turn, guarded by underpaid and demoralized security forces—make Russian tactical nuclear weapons tempting targets for terrorists, who could acquire them either by theft or bribing corrupt security forces. And this isn’t just a hypothetical threat: senior Russian officials have confirmed that “terrorists have carried out reconnaissance at nuclear warhead storage facilities” (Bunn).

Tactical nuclear weapons come in several different types—from missile warheads that would fit into a truck to artillery shells that could fit into something as small as a backpack or suitcase—and have varying degrees of destructive power. Yields range from “relatively low—0.1 kiloton (KT)—to yields higher than those of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—10 to 15 KT, and upwards to 1 megaton” (Alexander and Millar 2). Regardless of this, a terrorist attack on a US city with a stolen Russian tactical nuclear weapon would be devastating. US government analytical tools estimated that the detonation of a 12.5 kiloton bomb—smaller than the Hiroshima bomb—smuggled into New York City would result in 52,000 immediate deaths, expose 238,000 people to direction radiation—causing an additional 10,000 deaths and acute radiation sickness for 44,000 people—and expose 1.5 million people to radioactive fallout in the following days which, in the absence of evacuation or shelter, could kill an additional 200,000 people and cause acute radiation sickness for hundreds of thousands. Another estimate by the US Department of Homeland Security in 2005 predicted that 205,000 fatalities, 295,000 injuries, and 49,000 cancer cases would result from a 10 kiloton explosion in Washington, D.C. (Ruff 6). In addition to the huge number of casualties caused by such an attack, the economic, military, environmental, and political ramifications would be grave and far-reaching.

With these dangers posed by Russia’s vast arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons in mind, a logical question that would come to mind is, “What is being done to reduce this threat?” Unfortunately, not enough, as “[t]actical nuclear weapons are not covered by any arms control pact, such as the [recent US-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty signed in 2002], nor are they the subject of any negotiations” (Wurst). Even more worrisome is the renewed Russian interest in TNWs—an interest that is “broad-based and cuts across the entire political spectrum” (Potter 3). Hence, it is imperative for the United States to work towards reducing the TNW threat. The United States should expand the original objectives of the Nun-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction agreement to include the securing and dismantling of tactical nuclear weapons, as recommended by experts like William Potter, and developing a new arms control treaty that deals with the issue of tactical nuclear weapons (Wurst). Increased US-Russian dialogue on, and transparency regarding, tactical nuclear stockpiles is also imperative for progress. By taking steps such as these, the United States and the Russian Federation can work towards reducing the threat posed by tactical nuclear weapons.

-Gregory Proulx

Works Cited

Bunn, Matthew. “The Threat in Russia and the Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. 3 Oct. 2007 <http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/threat/russia.asp>.

Friedman, Benjamin, comp. “The World’s Nuclear Arsenals.” Center for Defense Information. 24 Sept. 2007 <http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm#Russia>.

Millar, Alistair, and Brian Alexander. Uncovered Nukes: Arms Control and the Challenge of Tactical Nuclear Weapons. Washington, D.C.: Fourth Freedom Forum, 2001. 2-4. 2 Oct. 2007 <http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/uncoveredrpt.pdf>.

Potter, Professor William C. Mounting Challenges to Nuclear Nonproliferation. Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. 2004. 3. 3 Oct. 2007 <http://disarmament.un.org/rcpd/Sapporo2004/textweb/potterreport.pdf>.

Ruff, Tilman. Nuclear Terrorism. 2006. 6. 3 Oct. 2007 <http://energyscience.org.au/FS10%20Nuclear%20Terrorism.pdf>.

Wurst, Jim. “U.S.-Russia II: Take Care of Tactical Weapons Next, U.N. Report Urges.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. 29 May 2002. 3 Oct. 2007 <http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/5/29/7s.html>.

Reflection (what week is it anyway?)

This weekend I found an interesting video online. Though it is meant to be entertaining (and it most certainly is), this video reiterates a point made in class earlier this year. Is there really a difference between terrorists and freedom fighters? This topic also fits nicely into tonight's discussion. The United States is currently at war with Iraq. The purpose of this war is supposedly to free the Iraqi people. How is it possible to force someone to be free? We cry foul when the governments of these nations oppress their people, but technically aren't we doing the same thing?

I hope you guys enjoy the video, here is the link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8


and the lyrics are posted below.

LYRICS:

Well our
Story begins, you know, with old St. Augustine.
Way back in days of old he reported on this theme:
A mighty emperor had caught himself a pirate who
Was a-terrorizin' people who were sailin' on the open seas.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT: What meanest thou by keeping hostile possession of the sea?

PIRATE: What meanest thou by seizing the whole earth; because I do it with a petty ship, I'm called a robber, whilst thou who dost the same with a great fleet art styled emperor.

NARRATOR: And old St. Augustine thought that was a pretty smart answer!

'Cause there are
pirates and emperors, but they're really the same thing
When they go and try to reach the same ends
By using the same means.
Well they do it big
or they do it small
From a little tiny boat,
or from hallowed halls.
Bully is as bully does, that's plain to see.

NARRATOR: Speaking of bullies, what would you say about a gang of vicious, low-down thugs who were trying to overthrow the government by attacking undefended civilian targets like schools, farms, hospitals, & outreach centers?

UNCLE SAM: Why, I'd say they were terrorists!

[BUZZER SOUND and SUPER: "Wrong!"]

NARRATOR: I'm sorry, the correct answer is "Freedom Fighters." At least that's what you called THESE thugs, a.k.a. the Contras, when you funded their campaign of terror and indiscriminate killing to overthrow the government of Nicaragua!

There was trouble in the land of Nicaragua in the '80's, it's true.
And Uncle Sam has always said this kind of thing just really won't do.
So he paid for a bag full of dirty tricks
And turned killers into heroes with a P.R. blitz
Well freedom's sure a funny word for what the Contras did do.

Y'know there are
pirates and emperors but they're really the same thing
Even the ones who say they just wanna let freedom ring.
Well they do it big
or they do it small
But only one goes down when they break the law
While the Big One claims "This really don't apply to me"

NARRATOR: The funny thing about "pirates" and "emperors" is that they often start out as pals who get into a tiff somehow and end up enemies.

KID: You mean like Lex Luthor and Superman!

NARRATOR: Yeah, except Lex Luthor was a nice guy before he lost all his hair, whereas Manuel Noriega, Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were all known thugs and mass-murderers when they were on Uncle Sam's payroll. That's why they got the job! Either that, or Uncle Sam is just a really bad judge of character.

UNCLE SAM: I don't understand why this keeps happening to me?!

Well not so long ago we thought Saddam here was a pretty swell guy
And we helped him get the goods to make the Ayatollah Khomeini cry
But Uncle Sam decided it was not Saddam's fate
To be the leader of his Middle Eastern client state
That was sitting on top of a big huge oil supply.

Big and little thugs got thuggery in common
Even if one's got stars and stripes on 'im.
Bully is as bully does, that's plain to see.

'Cause if it looks like a duck
And acts like a duck,
And quacks like a duck,
It probably is a duck.
You know a rose is a rose
no matter how much it stinks.

DUCK: I resent that comment.
I'm not a duck, I'm an anti-duck!
I'm a counter-duck!
Well I'm more of a mallard really...
Why, I'm fighting a War on Ducks!
Any ducks come around here, I'm gonna blast 'em!

THE END


© 2004 Eric Henry