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