I have always felt that science-fiction provides perhaps the best means by which one can criticize and analyze modern society. The genre if science fiction allows the author to create a set of rules, a setting for the human interactions, partially or entirely removed from our own. In this way, parallels can be all the more clearly drawn between absurdities in the science-fiction world and absurdities in our own world. So, I’m not surprised that we are discussing aliens in a World Politics course.
In other news, the debate was fascinating. Both made great strides, with McCain generally appearing very old and Obama saying “Jim (Lehrer), let me just make a point. I've got a bracelet, too”, and using the phrase “orgy of spending.” Sarcasm aside, I think that Obama far and away won the debate. Generally, he just seemed far more presidential than his opposition.

So, let’s talk about pirates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/world/africa/29pirates.html?ref=africa

To summarize this article: Russian arms (including 33 tanks!) headed for Kenya were intercepted by Somali pirates. The Somali government stated that they believed that the arms would go to Islamic extremists, and requested American assistance. Currently, we are planning on not interceding, even though interceding would strike a direct blow to terrorists. Are we or are we not conducting a war on terror? I suppose not, if we are unwilling to stop terrorists when we have the means to do so due to it being “potentially messy”. Make up your mind, America. Do you hold an ideal close to your heart, or do you only spout it when it is politically or economically convenient to do so?

Who Are We?

PTJ’s mention of the solution to questions of the zoo theory really struck me.  To refresh everyone, the zoo theory is that the aliens are waiting to come into contact with us.  It is likely that they will make contact when we reach a certain point of development.  However, if we are under the impression that the aliens are peaceful and all around nice creatures, it is very, very unlikely that we will reach any peace benchmark in our lifetime.  When the aliens check out our news resources such as the World News section on NYtimes.com, they will see “kill,” “arson,” “kill,” “chaos,” “kill,” “war,” “kills,” “arson,” “tragedy,” and “killed”.  I do not think aliens would want to enter into our knowledge when we cannot even deal with members of our own race (the entire human race) peaceably. 

            Now, I do not actually believe in aliens nor that there is intelligent life beyond Earth, but I think it is enlightening to look at our international situation as if from an outsider’s perspective.  I look at the news and I generally get pessimistic and depressed.  I think I can see why the aliens do not want to get involved.  On the other hand, when I see atrocities in the news, it also inspires me to someday get a job where I can work to end the evils humans do to each other.  This makes me feel that perhaps the aliens are more constructivists than liberals.  I am assuming they get that our perception of ourselves is the one the media portrays.  The aliens have been confused by our own confusion of the identity of the entire human race.  We do not even know whether our innate nature and instincts are good or evil.  We have not figured ourselves out, and perhaps the alien’s benchmark for interaction is for us to put aside religious, geographical, and racial boundaries and to discover who we are as intelligent life on this wondrous orb called Earth.  

Vigilantism on a National Scale

So watching Boondock Saints got me thinking about the moral quandary that is vigilantism. For those who don't know, the movie is about two brothers who kill mafiosi, claiming to be justified by God in their actions. It poses a moral question: when something is obviously evil, is it right for a person to intervene and stop this evil from happening? And in the context of the class, is it right for a nation to violate the sovereignty of another nation on principle alone?

Both questions can be answered at once: yes, idealistically, with pragmatic restrictions. There are situations where evil is so pervasive that even the most morally flexible of individuals can see it for what it is. The Holocaust is the most obvious instance; most today would argue that intervention was a moral imperative. Others include such cases as the Rwandan genocide, the purges of Stalin, various religious extremes of the pre-Westphalian era, or even the Japanese internment. These were instances where evil was clear; the difficulty arises in naming a perpetrator.

The Rwandan genocide is a strong case of where defining an actual criminal is difficult. Juvenal Habyarimana, the president of Rwanda, and his wife Agathe, the two responsible for instigating much of the Hutu-Tutsi hatred, were dead early into the genocide. Defining an actual leader of the conflict remains difficult; various genocidaires have been tried over the years for their crimes. Yet in the end, no one can walk away and name one perpetrator, one evil, one target of hatred in the Rwandan genocide. This is what makes post-genocide Rwanda so interesting (in only the most morbid of senses). Many Tutsis are forced to live next to men and women who killed loved ones, as the government pardoned all Hutus for their actions. Few will deny that the vast majority of the Hutu population openly participated in the genocide. But do we blame the Hutu race for their role in the genocide? Often forgotten was the genocide next door in Burundi, where Tutsis slaughtered Hutus. The moral twists and turns of the Rwandan genocide create one of those instances where lashing out seems too abrupt. There is no focal point of evil, like in the Holocaust. No face behind the slaughter. There were those like Hassan Ngeze who enflamed the rage of the Hutu population, but he was merely a mouthpiece for the ideology that drove the slaughter.

So now we ask: in the case of the Rwandan genocide, how would a vigilante find a proper target? This creates a moral limbo in which defining who is to blame for a crime is nearly impossible due to the nature of the crime itself and the manner in which it was perpetrated. The action was beyond any kind of doubt evil. Yet who is accountable? Where is the line in which vigilantism is justified drawn?

This is obviously a question with no clear answer. As a result, I'm hoping to get comments on the topic answering these questions to get some good disussion going. Can a nation intervene in the affairs of another nation where the issue is not one of black and white?

I have vision...

and the rest of the world wears bifocals. Rest in peace, Paul Newman. Thanks for being a hero in my eyes.

Anyway, reflection time.

Friday...aliens. As much as science fiction writers would disagree with me, I feel like aliens have been discussed to exhaustion, or at least to the point of reluctance to care.

So I'll reflect on something else, that is entirely relevant, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been thinking about this, but may be one of the only ones to actually say something about it.

I have no idea how I'm doing in this class. None, whatsoever. Which, to be honest, is a little (very) frightening. The problem, I feel, is because how the class is structured is so subjective. Essentially, every single aspect of the class, from in class discussions, to both blog posts we can do a week, everything is just our opinions. While there is nothing wrong with opinions, the normal day-to-day goings on in this class rest on our ability to express our opinions. I personally think that I am good at expressing my opinions, but who knows? Maybe in this class, I'm not. It isn't then, that I don't have good ideas, it is that I can't adequately express them, be it in written or verbal form, and as such, my grade rests on the idea of me being able to convince some higher power (PTJ) that my ideas aren't as primitive as my words may make them seem.

Another problem, and this is a problem that isn't really resolvable, but simply exists, is in-class discussions. Let's say I'm raising my hand, waiting of the ball in order to be granted the permission to speak. Then, for whatever reason, the ball doesn't come to me, whether it is because there were many hands up, or someone else hadn't spoken in a longer time than I, or little plays of society taking place, and the conversation continues to evolve. During that time, my point, which a few minutes ago, becomes completely irrelevant, and then the ball is suddenly in my hand and, by the mere fact that the conversation has moved on from my thoughts, my thoughts suddenly seem out of place, rudimentary, and completely unimportant in this new level of discussion. And it isn't that I haven't been listening to what's been going on since my thought popped into my head, but it is that I believed my thought deserved to be voiced, and I may suffer as a result of me voicing it at too late a time. Yes, you could always just tuck that thought away into some pocket in your mind, post it later in your reflection, but sometimes, that simply isn't what you want to do, because maybe you don't want to reflect on that idea.

It isn't even that this could be a simple solution of going in and talking to PTJ. Once again, if I couldn't express my opinions sufficiently to begin with, how could one really be told how to do so? It isn't a solution of "talk more". Is it a solution of "talk better"? How do I "talk better" then?

I'm sure some people will say this is all just a microcosm of world politics, a intricate play on how politics and society works.

I'll say though, that this is my grade, and as such, it is one of the determining factors in whether I stay here, or whether I'll be going somewhere else (read: San Francisco State) next year. (I hate this economy.)

Simply, this is a class dependent on how I express myself, and I'm terrified my thoughts aren't good enough.

Was that clear?

[Apologies for any snarkiness in advance. Snarkiness isn't a word...but it describes what I mean very well. And snarkiness isn't intentional, just an unfortunate by product of me being frustrated at my cluelessness.]

If Aliens landed on the White House lawn, what would we do?

How would we react to first contact with aliens? Well, it depends on how advanced the aliens are. If they are more advanced than us, I predict an increase in favor for a stronger United Nations or similar organization as nations scramble to determine how to best protect their interests. Regional organizations are formed based on protection of and furthering of common interests; no matter what our various historical squabbles, we are all human, and would unite against a non-human force. However, I personally believe that this strengthening of both the United Nations and of regional organizations would happen anyways.

If they are less advanced than us, I predict that we will attempt to interfere in their affairs. This may take the form of proselytizing religion, spreading specific political systems, The various powers of the world will all have different ideas of what to do, and these will manifest themselves in yet another conflict. This would result in a situation surprisingly reminiscent of the status quo – with the entire world agreeing that Something Good should happen, but having such staunchly different opinions on A.) what the Something Good is and B.) how to accomplish that Something Good.
Essentially, I believe that the introduction of aliens into our political landscape would change nothing.

We All Die. (Well, dying in a nuclear explosion would be nicer than spider babies crawling out of you and eating you alive)

I noticed that most everyone’s posts are based on US reactions to alien invasions as seen in movies.  I think that because the majority of Hollywood productions portray aliens as forces of evil (Ewoks excluded) that the American people will be initially pushing for the government to destroy the aliens.  I usually do not think that the government always does what the people want, but I think government leaders would probably be paranoid about aliens too. 

The US government would probably kill/incapacitate the aliens as a first priority. If we did somehow manage to accomplish that, we would probably try to study them to understand what they are.  We would try to understand their anatomy and how their brains and bodies work.  Then we would try to steal some of their technology.  In the end, I think the US would destroy the alien race entirely before giving them a chance. 

I do not know if that would be possible, because the aliens will most likely be more intelligent and technologically advanced (let’s hope they are vulnerable to water/the common cold!).  In this case, we would probably try to nuke them, and then everyone else with nukes would launch them and we would blow ourselves up.  Then the aliens would repopulate our dead planet.  THE END!!??**#@!!!!!!

Danger, World Politics, danger! (Flail arms accordingly)

"What do you think the US government (and world governments) would do if aliens came and landed on the White House lawn?"

Being a child of the 90s, my knowledge of aliens (and I'm going to define aliens as extraterrestrials, not my relatives across the border) is comprised of videos popped into the VCR, then Netflix, then TiVo. That said, we're taking a cinematic approach to "when aliens attack/land."

Going through decades of film, here are pretty much the collective options garnered from Hollywood:
1) We can attempt to kill them immediately. (…No film would actually kill the aliens immediately, because that means a 10 minute movie. Still, it is an option.)
2) We can (attempt to) kill them after they harm us (even if possibly we caused them to attack), and some options of how to kill them INCLUDE: playing Slim Whitman songs (Mars Attacks!), or Ronny Desmond songs (Attack of the Killer Tomatoes), freezing them (The Blob), electrocuting them (The Thing from Another Planet), pouring water on them (Signs), shooting them (Men in Black), using a computer virus to infiltrate their mainframe, then blowing them up (Independence Day), letting Mother Nature take its course (The War of the Worlds), using high pitched frequencies (Earth vs. The Flying Saucers) and blowing them up (Invaders from Mars, Predator [although Predator blows himself up…], Killer Klowns from Outer Space).
3) We can attempt to kill them even though they did nothing wrong, and in fact were trying to help us (The Day the Earth Stood Still).
4) We can form some sort of relationship with them, including setting up an ambassador program with them (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) or creating an agency that allows them to live on Earth (Men in Black), or just let them chill after we persecute them and then they save the world (Transformers).
5) We basically just let them hang around a bit (maybe try to capture them, fail/they escape), then they leave (Cocoon, It Came from Outer Space, E.T., The Abyss, The Rocky Horror Picture Show [although…they kill their leader then rocket-house back home]).
6) We can do nothing. They’re already here. You’re next. (a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers)

Alright, maybe blockbusters and B-movie films aren’t the best way to go about figuring out what to do in the event that aliens just happen to land on the White House lawn. However, movies are great at providing what if scenarios, and what if is exactly the question we’ve been poised with.

So what would we do? WWUSD? Immediately, get the President, First Lady, VP, cabinet members all to their safe locations, while simultaneously securing the area, and begin evacuating civilians from the area (although probably not telling them why…unless they see the spaceship and are like, “Yo, it’s a UFO.”). This could be considered a realist measure, placing security first, however, it is doubtful staunch liberals would be “hey, they’s cool, no worries, we’s all chill, party on the lawn!”

After that…not sure. It depends on whether or not the aliens immediately decide to kill us (which is War of the Worlds style, in which case, we revert to Independence Day status), if they do nothing (probably roll it out like The Day the Earth Stood Still) and just wait till they do something. I doubt the US would attempt to make the first encounter, since it could be safely assumed that the aliens have more advanced technology, and while perhaps not necessarily true, more advanced weaponry. However, if after an extended period of time (1-2 days sounds about right), we would probably attempt to make the least antagonist contact possible. No idea what that is, but we’d do it. If they do attempt to contact us, then we’d…probably have some convoy prepared to meet them. I’m relatively sure the government does have a list of people who’d be in a convoy to meet extraterrestrials, probably including a polyglot, a top “extraterrestrial” scientist, a top space technician, an expert mathematician, a doctor, a psychologist, and some of the top trained soldiers, yet not blatantly dressed as such (once again, non-antagonistic).

As for the world governments' responses...that is a bit harder to say. Places like Russia, China, and other countries that practice more realism than liberalism would go on the defensive, and could easily move into the offensive if they feel their security is endangered, which they always do. Other, more liberal countries, like Sweden or Iceland, would undoubtedly stay quiet, since pacifism is usually their route. Other countries that are more "mixed" in theories....I don't know, probably something along the lines of the US, I suppose. On the defensive, but willing to be open to what happens. Unless the aliens are BAMFs, in which case, that is an excellent excuse to blow various nations/factions up. Because, as in Invasion of the Body Snatchers how do we know that they're even human anymore?

Listen, we're thinking in what if scenarios here, and this is something unprecedented. Much like the economic crisis right now...coincidence? Nope. This is a conspiracy theorist post, and I don't believe in coincidences. (I want to believe.)

In both situations, we don't know what to do, and even similar experiences in the past can only help us so much. Luckily, aliens landing remains in the hypothetical realm; terrifyingly, the economic crisis doesn't, but we're facing the same hesitancy. As Klaatu says, "I am fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason. "

...If we're all fearful though, how do we know what is reason, and what is fear parading around as such? Who knows our best interests then, when no one is sure of our interests now? ....Frightening.



And yes, I have seen every single film I mentioned.

Mass Effect! Aliens and the Social Construct

Suppose years from now aliens land on the White House lawn. How would this affect humanity? How would it affect our social institutions, but more importantly, our own sense of identity? I will attempt to answer these questions through a realist, liberal, and constructivist lens, viewing how they affect national and atomistic relations.

A realist argues that human relations do not fundamentally change over time. Because of the newly discovered security threat posed by the aliens, a realist would advocate the expansion of the "human defensive sphere" to include all of earth. The invasion of aliens would expand the perceived security risk, putting humans under a new security blanket. The world would essentially see itself in a balance of power situation with the aliens, rather than one divided by power blocs or even nonpolar nation-states. Relations between the aliens and realistic order would be tense due to the assumption of the aliens' hostile intentions, increasing the likelihood for conflict or land-grabbing. This is a nearly identical situation to what occurs under the liberal scenario; only slight variations occur.

A liberal would view the aliens as potential allies. Nations would broaden their trade horizons, expanding their economilitary blanket over the world, embracing the expanded communication and trade. They would have many technologies or other goods to offer, and Earth may additionally have goods to offer. Viewing this situation as a liberal, one would not even assume peaceful intentions on the part of the extraterrestrials. Again, liberalism is not idealism. It does not preclude the use of force, even as a first resort if popular will demands it. A liberal would then examine their political system, and they were undemocratic, they would not be viewed as a legitimate force with which the world should not have diplomatic relations.

A constructivist would see the change from a historical point of view. Humans have a fundamental desire for a sense of belonging and unity in the face of the anarchy the world presents. This is exemplified in familial structure and its extension into tribes, evolving into the town and feudal state (ending with the Thirty Years War), extending into the modern Westphalian nation-state. As humans communicate more and more, they find more bonds with other people when compared relatively to how different outsiders are. For example, a Chattanoogan and a Bostonian had nothing in common 200 years ago. Yet now, as we see Chinese and Uzbeks or Brazilians, we view ourselves as Americans in the broader worldview. When aliens land on the White House lawn, we will collectively view ourselves as citizens of the world, in the constructivist imaginary. This is where the human identity plays a huge role in determining the actions of the world. The questions from here would be answered by how we saw ourselves as human beings in the galactic space. To answer this question would require an analysis of what human nature itself was, what our interest was as a species, and how we would adapt to our newfound situation.

I'm going to pre-empt the argument that we'd just go insane and fight back immediately, or that they would start out with an Independence Day scenario where the White House is vaporized. I don't think arguing that we'd go to war immediately is really effective given the context of our discussion, where we're trying to frame this in an international (or in this case, intergalactic) relations mindset.

Humans would have what amounts to an identity crisis. For the entirety of our existence, we have never even contemplated the advent of an alternate species challenging our dominance. When others did pose a threat, they were dealt with. But facing a new entity on equal or arguably superior footing would require great changes in the human dynamic. This is so extreme a situation where I feel a realist or liberal would see constructivism as a viable solution or worldview to see human identity as something greater than nations. If we had any hope of overcoming our identity crisis, we would have to define what made us human versus the aliens, rather than what made us American versus Bahraini or Kyrgyz. I'm not even going to try to predict how this would happen. But the ultimate determination of human identity would fix the course of action in countering the alien threat or embracing the cute cuddly Ewok neighbor.

Economic Reconstruction Package

So by now, we all know the economy has taken an interesting tailspin, and banks have pretty much stopped lending. The Treasury, with the assistance of several foreign banks, has agreed to pump $180 billion into the global market to provide a measure of liquidity in the market. The US government will be authorizing $700 billion to be spent to buy up subprime mortgages. The big concern thusfar has been in asking where the $700 billion will come from. Taxpayers will be asked to shoulder a burden that many consider far too large for taxpayers to handle. I would agree with this judgement, but I would also express some over the actual security of these purchases.

The government is assuming the role of Atlas carrying the world's burden. It is buying up these bad mortgages to free up lending space in the market, which needs to happen. But is what now happens is the government assumes all of the risks and benefits of the mortgages that Lehman Brothers or Bear Sterns did. Many anticipate the value of the mortgages to shore up with time, balancing out much of the $700 billion loss. I acknowledge the possibility; but at the same time, I find it ironic that the government will be passing laws against such lending practices while carrying out these same irresponsible actions. There are benefits to partaking in subprime mortgages; if people pay them off with time, you've made an absolute killing, hence their initial popularity. But as people defaulted on them (as they are now), banks run out of money available to lend.

In my mind, a better alternative would be encouraging people to save more money so banks will have more money available to lend out to borrowers. This can be done through providing something such as a tax credit for opening a savings account or for maintaining a solid credit score. These actions would likely produce a far better outcome, removing many of the risks involved in getting the bad mortgages out of the market. With time, something like this would have to be scaled back depending on its success, lest the market end up in a situation akin to that of Japanese markets, where oversaving is an issue.

Out of the many different international relations theories we have learned about so far, I agree more with liberalism than with the alternatives. Or, uh, alternative, because the only one we have learned about besides liberalism is realism. Whoops. I’m just putting that disclaimer out there so that nobody says “oh, but Michael, I thought you said you were a liberal!”.
I would like to take this time to respond to a point made by my good friend Andrew Daly. He said that, given a person with idealistic beliefs, and, then, given a gun pointed at said person, all you will see is a person, for their idealistic beliefs will be thrown out the window at the threat of personal safety. I feel as though he is arguing against liberal international relations theory by saying: “Well, Liberalism is wrong, because security!!”, when that is the very definition of Realism – security is sacrosanct. You can’t say “No, Liberalism is wrong because Realism is right” no more than you can say “No, apples are not good, because oranges are.”
Besides, the analogy he uses – gun at head – is false. Take, for example, Harmodius and Aristogeiton. They were lovers in Greece ca. 500 B.C. Harmodius was the eromenos of Aristogeiton – meaning that Aristogeiton, the older, held claim over Harmodius – the latter almost being the former’s property, as Thucydides put it. The tyrant of the day was Hippias; when his playboy, money-flaunting, universally-hated brother Hipparchus hit on Harmodius, he was rejected. So, as one does when these sorts of things occur, Hipparchus publically accused Harmodius of not being a virgin, which was apparently a masssssive insult at the time, as it caused Harmodius and Aristogeiton to try and kill Hippias and Hipparchus to revenge the blight done onto Harmodius’ family’s name. They were only able to kill Hipparchus; Harmodius was killed, and Aristogeiton captured and tortured.
To quote Wikipedia, that most reliable of sources: “During his ordeal, personally overseen by Hippias, he feigned willingness to betray his co-conspirators, claiming only Hippias' handshake as guarantee of safety. Upon receiving the tyrant's hand he is reputed to have berated him for shaking the hand of his own brother's murderer, upon which the tyrant wheeled and struck him down on the spot.”
Obviously, Aristogeiton was a badass, and did not give up his ideals to the barrel of a gun.

I'm a Liberal, in Both Senses of the Word

I disagree with the view voiced on Friday that people do not vote in their self-interest.  I believe that self-interest is personal, so if you believe that you are acting in your own self-interest, then you are.  Now, I first used to believe that the American public sometimes voted against their self-interest.  In the 2004 election, I thought that the citizens in the Midwest who were losing their jobs voted against their self-interest by voting for Bush.  In actuality, they voted for the candidate that they felt would be better at protecting homeland security.  These people chose to vote on an issue that they felt was more important even though I saw it as less pressing than unemployment.  It required some clichés (walking in their shoes, looking through their eyeglasses) to understand. 

            I agree with international liberalism (there is not but… coming) and I think that I can also be a liberal in the domestic sense.  Some Democrats might have qualms about the self-interest aspect of internationalism.  For instance, I feel that helping others is in my self-interest, which means that working in my own self-interest is not a bad thing.  I think it is possible to be a liberal in both senses of the word because altruism is still a good thing even if it helps you out as well.  I believe that it is in my self-interest to support and help to preserve the rights of all humans everywhere because that means that I am also supporting and protecting my own rights.  While I am not one hundred percent positive that I consciously try to help people to help myself, it does seem rational for that to be the case for this discussion.  

In the immortal words of Wyclef Jean

"Cos' I'ma tell you like Wu told me
Cash rules everything around me
Singin' dollar dollar bill y'all (dollar, dollar bill y'all)
Singin' dollar dollar bill y'all (dollar, dollar bill y'all)"

Straight up, homeslice.

According to PTJ, the discussion Friday didn't go as expected. We ended up talking about the economy, but not even that...some various things that involved the economy and revolved around the economy.

Somewhere within that confabulation, PTJ said that eventually, all elections, regardless of what is going on the in world, and how we're involved in it, get back down to domestic issues. Obviously.

If our lives aren't stable, then what do we care about other people's? That's not being vicious, that's being realistic. I can honestly say that, as much as I care about what goes on the world, how much I want to work internationally, it doesn't matter if I can't afford an education because the economy has gone down the crapper. And that is a worry I face everyday. What makes it worse is that getting a loan is not the best idea right now. I don't want to go home...but what if the economy forces it?

Let's put this in 2008 election perspective: PTJ also said that when it comes to economy, Democrats tend to do better in the polls. ....But let's be honest. This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. If the government hadn't stepped in, hadn't done something, we could be in such a worse position. Imagine if AIG had been allowed to collapse...worldwide repercussions would have occurred. It is unfathomable. Voting now isn't just a matter of who we like because we don't like someone else...who we elect will directly relate to the next few years, and if this crisis is halfway over, or just begun. Even more than that, as my friends in various parts of the globe tell me, who we vote for affects their lives on a very direct level as well. The US economy still has a bohemoth impact on the rest of the world, and my friends in England, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Japan are all waiting to see how the American public decides their lives.

That's another way to look at voting. Now, it just simply isn't for us (even though us (US) comes first), but it is for everyone who is affected by the actions of the US...which is everyone. Our economy is being shaken to its core, the world along with it.


This is all rather unfathomable. For me, personally, it is terrifying. For others, who started out with less than me at the beginning of this whole mess? ...It makes me really grateful, and frightfully desolate.

Ignoring the connotation that Obama has placed on the word hope....we all need to hope right now, for something better to be coming, and soon.

And that the stock market doesn't dive bomb again when the markets open tomorrow.

Because that would just suck mucho.

Wanna know what else sucks mucho? Damn baseball stadium didn't have churros. Failure.
Good job Padres. They won because the Nationals didn't have any CHURROS. I'd be indignant too.

Just the [19]2 of us, UN I

Just the [19]2 of us,
We can make it if we try,
Just the [19]2 of us,
UN I.

Question: Is the UN a realist or liberal organization?
-------------------------------------------------------

Well, Tori stole my idea to use the charter as an explanation (man, I even had a BOOK with all of that stuff in there, called Basic Documents on International Human Rights...I stole it from a library.), I'll have to do something different.

Or not.

The UN is a liberal organization. Originally, I was going to say no, it is both, and to a certain extent it is, because, as discussed in class Tuesday, liberalism incorporates both ideas unique to liberalism and borrows ideas from realism. So, alright, yes, it is both, but we're calling both liberalism at the moment.

My support of this lies in the preamble of the charter:

"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and...

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest"

Alright, so, the UN will use armed force it is deems it necessary to the common good of peace.
Which is a little bit like using realist methods to achieve liberal goals.

Which is what I said in class Tuesday.
Beyond that, it really is a question of how you want to look at the UN: if you want to look at the ideals it was founded on, then yes, it is completely liberal. If you want to look at how it actually acts, then yes, it is still pretty much liberal. Looking at relative and absolute gains....everyone in the UN achieves absolutely. Relatively, however, is based on the interactions within the UN and can change on the turn of a dime (or a dollar, which seems very applicable now in days). It could generally be said that the Group of 77 relatively receives more than others, and from a realist point of view this would be looked at negatively.

Yet from the liberal point of view, the gains are a part of mutual benefits: if developing nations are better developed, then the status of the world's economy is more stable, and everyone benefits from a stable economy (please see current stock market crash for more proof), and stable economies are more peaceful.

Alternatively, achieving economic stability is a really sneaky way of creating peace. Actually, liberalism is a really sneaky way of creating peace. By creating so many ties to each other that if one is damaged, others are too, incentive is created to not be a jerkface and get all aggressive up in this globe. Which in theory should work, but doesn't always pan out.

Which brings up a good point...has the UN ever really stopped a war? In my opinion, no. Then again, you can't have everything.

Go UN, you can make it if you try [harder].

The UN: Translating War into Peace

The United Nations was created to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html )

These objectives are all about social issues and preventing the need for concern about territorial invasion.  It was created when the world wanted to prevent any more terrible wars and genocides from ever happening again.  The general role of the UN is to solve social issues and to use diplomacy to end conflicts before they start.  They do more for nations in the way of institutions and not helping militarily. 

The UN only deploys its troops for PEACEKEEPING missions.  Even though they sometimes fail to prevent violence, they will usually not use force.  They hope to prevent conflict by being there.  I am not necessarily sure that this is always the best course, but it is not a realist move.  To not use force to secure territory is an international liberal policy. 

The UN is a non-state actor that influences on world politics.  This inherently means that it cannot be realist because realism does not subscribe to the idea that organizations can have an impact in the international community. 

I would say that the number one reason that the UN is a liberal organization in my mind is the Millennium Development Goals.  MDG’s are a set of 8 goals intended on helping impoverished nations improve more rapidly.  None of these goals includes anything about security.  They are all regarding the issues that are more important for a country to accomplish in order to be successful and prosperous.  The UN believes that improving health, education, environment, equality, and trade come before national security:  The UN is a liberal organization. 

 

If anyone is interested in seeing some amazing information about progress of the MDGs, here is a link to an interactive presentation with really fun graphs!

http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/presentations/human-development-trends-2005.html

The UN -- Realist or Liberal?

I don't think it's possible to declare the United Nations as either realist or liberal, just as you can't a human being. In theory and in practice, it acts as both.

Theoretically (and arguably) in practice, the UN treats all nations as legitimate, regardless of their governments. This aspect of political correctness stems out of a desire to appease all actors involved, whether Zimbabwe or Sweden. This is a very realistic perspective on international relations. Liberalism only allows for dealing with fellow liberal states, like the McCain League of Democracies would seek to do. In supporting this case, I want to point out several instances of how the UN as a body has acted with realist ends in mind.

Libya served as chair of the UN's 57th Commission on Human Rights (US State Department). This autocratic state with a history of funding terror organizations and stifling opposition to Muammar Ghaddafi's rule was supposed to be the guiding force in the world of human rights. This is a direct result of the UN’s determination to be viewed as “objective” in the broader global environment. As a result, considering liberal states only view other liberal states as legitimate institutions to be dealt with, the UN does not always stick with its liberal mandate.

The UN additionally assumes it can facilitate cooperation between nations, a vast segment of liberal philosophy. Realism tends to view international affairs on a microcosmic basis, assuming that all nations are locked in a state of constant rivalry, and cooperation is impossible. This very fact means the UN's existence itself is liberal. This is an attempt to provide order in the anarchy of the realist imaginary.

What this goes to prove isn’t that the UN is one or another, but that it is a syncretic blend of the two, just like anything else in the foreign policy realm. Trying to argue that it is exclusively one way or another is impossible. Even if it is more liberal than realist, it still remains that realist philosophy has played a role in shaping the government of the organization. Most will agree that it maintains a mostly liberal philosophy in government. But as the Libya example proves, it is not empirically liberal.

I basically want to use this blog post to show how nothing has to be exclusively liberal or realist. In foreign policy terms, to be exclusively one or the other is silly. All institutions and ideas are a blend of one or the other.

actual link to all tori's posts

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ctz=240&c2coff=1&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=a&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2000&as_maxd=15&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2008&lr=&safe=active&ie=UTF-8&q=inblogtitle:Propranololitics+inpostauthor:Tori&bl_url=http://propranololitics.blogspot.com/

A New Blog is Rising

Since I'm unable to find any other solution, all posts I make on this blog can be singularly viewed at my new blog Catherine and Athkor. Along with all those singular posts, on occasion, there may be some random post just to spice things up a bit.

The blog can also be accessed by accessing my profile.

Alternatively, you could go here
all my blogs (like all my children, but better)

However, I still like Catherine and Athkor.
Because it will have some crazy stuff up in the blogosphere.

Link to see all Tori's posts(I think

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ctz=240&c2coff=1&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=a&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2000&as_maxd=15&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2008&lr=&safe=active&q=inblogtitle:Propranololitics+inpostauthor:Tori&ie=UTF-8&bl_url=http://propranololitics.blogspot.com/

The importance of land, strategically, has increasingly diminished have we had proceeded through time. In the earlier ages of warfare, the minutiae of a country’s landscape were vastly important to warfare. A hill provided a more easily defendable location; a mountain, a fortress nigh-unkillable. A river could hasten the movement of troops tenfold or serve as a wall to those trying to cross it into a hostile territory. An ocean provides even more of a barrier; consider how infrequently Britain was invaded when compared to the rest of Europe.

But War has changed from the era of swords, and even from the era of guns. Now we have spy satellites, nullifying the shroud of secrecy provided by a treeline or a mountain range. Now we have aircraft carriers, allowing the most militarily powerful nations to project that power wheresoever in the world they choose. Now we have nuclear power, capable of leveling cities in seconds.

And so territorial sovereignty only matters as far as the people’s love for their homelands matters, as there is no longer much practical reason to hold a firm grasp over your territory as there once might have been.

Jif, Skippy, and Peter Pan

Peanut butter is world politics.  In America, we love peanut butter.  We pretend that we own peanut butter, but it was originally made in small tropical countries that we colonized and tried to control.  Nowadays, we like to get other people to like peanut butter and spread it all over.  We send it to third world nations under the name Plumpy’nut to help them in their state of starvation.  In truth, (as said by The Master of Truth, Maggie) peanut butter has stayed essentially the same, but there are some differences in the details.  For example we have all different types of peanut butter:  smooth, creamy, crunchy, chunky, and extreme chunky. 

Some people (Jasmine) have the impression that peanut butter goes good on everything, but in some countries like France, the people think peanut butter is gross and fattening. I believe that if Jasmine wants to eat peanut butter on anything and everything, she should have that right, as long as her doing so does not infringe on anyone else’s eating rights. 

Seamus is of the opinion that crunchy peanut butter is more exciting and potentially more delicious and satiating and that Machiavelli would agree that creamy is super boring.  Therefore most leaders of the peanut butter world use a crunchier policy, with the threat of using their extreme chunky always looming over those who do not have such a strong peanut butter initiative. 

There are some (Rachel) who believe that when spreading peanut butter over bread, you must spread it evenly and not let some areas in the middle get more peanut butter than the areas near the crust. 

In conclusion, the majority of 7^th floor Leonard believe that peanut butter can be applied to our society today, even though there are many methods to apply it.  Thus, a debate about whether it should be applied and how it should be applied would be more interesting to me than our normal class discussion we had on Friday.  

What Does Globalization Mean for Borders?

This kind of links back to my first blog post about non-state actors. Most people argued in some capacity or another that states had an obligation to maintain territorial sovereignty. I suppose I'm using this post to posit a question: what does the existence of supranational organizations mean for protecting this sovereignty?

Some would argue the US essentially "invaded" other countries through the extension of soft power. Does a state have an obligation to maintain their fundamental "state-hood" and uniqueness in the face of the onslaught of McDonalds and MTV? Many argue that globalization is bad because it destroys individual cultures. This fits into that strain of thought.

I personally don't have much of an answer to provide. I feel that territorial sovereignty is not violated at all when the subjects of the state voluntarily choose to accept this "soft power." Cultures are not annihilated or assimilated into the global order; rather, they seem to be turned into a syncretic blend of several popular cultural norms while still maintaining elements of their own being (i.e. McDonalds didn't kill Ramadan in the Middle East). I found them to be interesting questions that I hope come up in the next class/comments.

Diplomacy Game

I have made a separate blog for the Diplomacy game.

Click here.

Seeing is believing...what do you see?

A little bit of a backtrack:

Towards Friday's discussion, I sit to my blog post: people, and their satisfaction (or contentment or however you want to put it), come first. If securing a border is what is required to make the people content, then fine. That does not mean that territorial integrity/border security etc is now first priority. It means that the people, as first priority, needed a border secured in order to achieve contentment. Same with the creation of institutions, systems etc. Those are all for the people. Hence, first priority.

---------------------------------------------

Now for something completely different:

Endangered species. First thought: lions and tigers and panda bears oh my! Along with wolves, owls, gorillas, harp seals, elephants, and anything else resembling cute/large. According to the IUCN Red List, over 16,000 species are considered threatened (that includes vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered). Which, is, of course, a bit depressing. But more than that, of those thousands of species, so few actually get media attention at all.

If they aren't cute, aren't big, aren't commonly made into stuffed animals for children to squeeze, then they aren't considered within the radar of "worth saving". That's unfortunate. There are a lot of really interesting animals out there that are moving towards extinction. And while extinction is a natural process, for many animals, the destruction of habitat or hunting for various body parts isn't. While some animals aren't pretty or cuddly, they still deserve attention, because some of these may be keystone species. If keystone species are thriving, then it can generally be assumed that its habitat, and what lives in its habitat, are doing alright too.

It's as Mark Carwardine, co-author of one of my all-time favorite books, Last Chance to See says:

Animals and plants provide us with life-saving drugs and food, they pollinate crops and provide important ingredients for many industrial processes. Ironically, it is often not the big and beautiful creatures, but the ugly and less dramatic ones, that we need most.

There is one last reason for caring, and I believe that no other is necessary. It is certainly the reason why so many people have devoted their lives to protecting the likes of rhinos, parakeets, kakapos, and dolphins. And it is simply this: the world would be a poorer, darker, lonelier place without them.(emphasis mine)

Amen. In the realm of world politics, it is always the big, spotlight issues (and animals) that are noticed, and thus supported. Yet, without a cohesive intent to look at species, especially keystone species, and how we can help them, our quality of life will fluctuate as well.

Look at it this way: as I said, the first priority of a leader is to keep the people satisfied. People like animals. Animals like not being dead (...unless its an opossum, but those don't count). People like animals that aren't dead. It is in a government's interest to take interest in endangered species, and not just the cuddly ones. The cuddly ones can serve as spokespersons, but the fugly ones are usually where the money (read: drugs, food, secret to curing cancer) are. Apart from people liking animals that aren't dead, people also like people that aren't dead. In fact, dead in general just isn't looked on positively. Anyway. If governments work together (also, people like it when governments work together) on something like saving species for the good of planet-kind, it's a double whammy of a content populace.

It's killing two birds with one stone.

...Probably not the best idiom to use. It's like killing two endangered Mauritius kestrels with one stone.

Better.

(And just a side note: I realize posting blogs about food and endangered species isn't necessarily the most world politics discussion/reflection thing to do, this all simply relates back to my first post: What in the World are We Talking About? As I stated in that post, what defines world politics isn't a solidified set of rules. By exploring how world politics relates to various arenas of the world, I'm providing evidence to support it.)

A strong education system is very important for any nation state. An effective education system will enable a state to foster great minds, rather than stifle them, and will as a result produce larger numbers of great scientists, mathematicians and generals. Without a strong education system, a state will not be able to achieve its full potential in any field without relying unnecessarily on foreign powers, and in so doing trading away bits of its sovereignty. A strong economy is also very important for a nation. A strong economy allows a state to keep all of its citizens gainfully employed, and to out produce its rivals both in times of peace and in times of war. Without a strong economy, a state will be able to accomplish nothing, as (as the saying goes) money is power.

Bit what good is a strong education system if students die in outside attacks on American soil? What good is ensuring a strong economy, wherein everyone is free to fulfill the American dream (white picket fence, nuclear family, golden retriever named Jack, yadda yadda yadda) if our financial centers are being brought to their knees by terrorist attacks? National security is of utmost importance.

However, the fact that national security holds vast importance does not mean that the nation should hold anywhere near infinite power. The nation cannot and must not violate individual rights, and must not violate the sovereignty of foreign nations unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. In this, I agree with Colin Powell and the Powell Doctrine that stemmed from the First Gulf War. In essence, the Powell Doctrine states that we should only go to war if it is deemed absolutely necessary, but, if we do, to do so with overwhelming force. The problem then, of course, is determining when an intervention is necessary, but that is another topic for another blog post.

So, should a specific leader care about national security more than any other thing? Most definitely; even if a leader follows Machiavelli’s advice to the letter in ensuring the public will follow his command, it doesn’t matter if the enemy is pounding at your door with such ferocity that no show of public love / fear will turn them back.

As far as the term “territorial integrity” goes – it is my estimation that territorial integrity is synonymous with national security, as should part of your territory fall to an enemy or in some mother way become instable, the rest will likely soon follow, or, lacking that, face major instability.

The Leader formally known as The Prince

Is the security -- defined as the territorial integrity -- of the state the first and foremost thing that a state's leader ought to concern her- or himself with?

This is land is your land, I lied it’s my land, it never was your land, it was always my land…

To put it simply, the “territorial integrity” isn’t the first thing a state’s leader should concern themselves with. Land won’t kick you out/kill you/vote against you/encourage a military coup if it’s upset. The people who live within one’s state, however, will. Keeping the people content then, is the first and foremost concern of a state’s leader.

If a state’s people are satisfied with their ruler, when the time comes for defending a state’s land, then the people themselves will gladly take up arms because they feel it is their land. If, however, the state’s people are dissatisfied, not only will they accept an invasion (at first, mind you, maybe not later), but they will encourage new leadership.

That all works in Machiavelli’s time when people were like, “Hey, let’s expand the backyard. “ “Alright, how about adding on half of Italy?” “Sure!” In this day and age, invading someone for the schnitzels and giggles of it just isn’t going to happen so often. Regardless, a state’s, especially a democratic state, first priority remains satisfying the people, because if the people get pissed off, they don’t blame themselves – they blame the person on top, and will gladly knock that person off their pedestal at the first mention of “change” by some competitor.

If the people love the state’s leader, though, then stability is created, progress is achieved, and the UN will put the state on states with the best quality of life list.

For more information on why you should keep the people happy, please see The Prince.

Territorial Integrity and the State

Before asking whether or not a state has a priority to protect its territory or any other part of society, we must first define what the state actually is. Given the amount we have discussed the state's priorities, we haven't really defined the post-Westphalian state in all its glory. The nature of America itself as a state and the anti-nationalist backlash against ethnocentrism has drastically changed the early modern perception of the nation-state as a body of people of a similar race or religion into something entirely different. The state has turned into something where people share similar values and language more than anything else. Even in America, where the differences between parties are vast, there is a general unity under democratic principles, and a clear majority of people speak the same language (contrasted with, say, Belgium, where the divide is more ambiguous).

We often view the state in this philosophical sense, almost implying that if our territorial sovereignty were fully compromised these ideals would somehow live on. Yes, everyone in society will live on thinking of how special things were before we were invaded, so in that sense, they will. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, these rights will not be institutionalized, and whatever hope that existed for a democratic future goes away with them. It is far easier to gain rights back from a totalitarian state that was previously a democracy than it is a foreign power that dismantles all pre-existing institutions, as nearly always happens after an invasion. Territorial sovereignty is the state priority if and only if democratic institutions exist that allow for sacrificed rights to be regained.

Using the US as a historical precedent, strong institutional basis will provide for the restoration of rights. Though often our state has fallen into a near-undemocratic state, such as during the War of 1812 (Alien and Sedition Acts), Civil War (Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus), and World War I & II's respective restrictions on immigrant rights, the nature of democracy and the flexibility of its political system return the system to the ante bellum status quo. These restrictions are by no means "just", and nine times out of ten they are unneccesary. But if the state is forced to restrict rights just one of those times to guarantee the survival of the state, it is justified. Therefore, times in which this actually occurs are few and far between. But categorically putting a concept above practical reality dooms the state to an inevitable demise, and along with it the values it holds to be true die. As a result, my actual "thesis" would be that so long as a state has strong democratic institutions, it can best protect its borders. This is clearly vital to the survival of the state, as even when it is in the state's best interest to restrict rights, there is always a form of recompensation following the restriction. In order for rights to exist, strong institutions must exist as well. At this point, border sovereignty becomes the key issue. However, if there are no democratic rights in the first place, the establishment of democratic institutions ought to be a nation's first priority.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin

I do not have an example of something that is a state’s leader’s foremost concern, but I think that territorial integrity is not it.  I have always set store by Ben Franklin’s famous quote (see title of this post).  Therefore, I find myself disagreeing with concerning oneself too much with safety and security.  Safety and security are all well and good, but when the government takes away rights to secure the nation, I get angry.  I would rather fear for my security from external foes than from my own government.  Seeing how we are going with the assumption that security is against external factors, I am more inclined to agree with said statement.   

However, I do have some qualms about the semantics of this question, mostly because I disagree with that definition of security.  I have an issue with “territorial integrity,” because I feel that it encapsulates more and less than I would like in order to agree.  First of all, illegal immigration would count as infringing on territorial integrity.  I do not believe that illegal immigration into America from Mexico is as big of an issue as people make it out to be.  I also think that the way we handle illegal immigrants and our policies to prevent illegal immigration are not admirable or effective.  Sure, the economy can be negatively affected by them, but if undocumented workers were suddenly all deported and farmers had to hire Americans at minimum wage, the way that our agricultural system is set up, the food prices would skyrocket and the people who would really get hurt would be middle to low income Americans.  In this case, no, the territorial integrity of America should not be the main priority. 

I also think that the desire for “territorial integrity” for a nation really depends on the nation.  I’d say that for countries that border Russia, security is definitely the number one objective.  I’d also say the same for emerging nations.  The American Revolution had to occur to secure the nation from the British before the Founding Fathers could write the Constitution and acknowledge our inalienable rights.  However, when Obama or McCain (and by that I really mean Obama) takes office, he is not going to get to the oval office and begin his presidency by securing our nation against territorial invasions.  I do not see that as being the number one concern for every nation’s leader around the world.  

I found this past class to be a very interesting microcosm of the actual international system. Some of it was intentional. PTJ's setup of having us decide how to split the available resources and the interactions between our groups that resulted from that was a predictable sort of drama, as were the various metadebates surrounding our general group-to-group interactions.

The unintentional aspect of our interactions (namely, the various toy weapons brought to class) allowed for a simultaneously amusing and thought-provoking analogy of the international system. Those with military strength wielded power not in proportion to their wealth; unlikely alliances were formed on the basis of strategical advantage alone.

All in all, it's been a good week for World Politics, and I'm looking forward to more of the same.

Class was great and I love you all!!!!!!!!

I found class on Friday to be representative of the reason why I applied for this learning community.  I do not think that class on Friday was unsuccessful or that it lacked purpose, because we had a really interesting simulation that is applicable to real world situations.  In the international community, there are rogue states, and threats, and alliances.  Sure it was fun, but I thought that we did represent some of the more fascinating aspects of international relations.  Did we get a lot done in the ways of our “serious discussion”?  Perhaps not, but why was that?  How does the world get things done with all the chaos of rogue states, threats, and alliances?  I think that we proved how difficult relations between nations are by having difficulties in carrying out a serious discussion.  We did not have that “serious discussion” that perhaps most were looking for, but I learn best by seeing the concepts in motion and I did learn a lot in class. 

I think most people thought that class was not as intellectually stimulating as other classes that we have had, but I hope that upon reading my post, you may see otherwise.  Also, since most people have been blogging about LC love, I would like to mention that you are all wonderful, beautiful people and I am so glad that we are all in this class together.  

Guns, Germs and Storm.

At the end of Friday’s class, a question was placed: Did the wheeling’s, dealing’s, and weapons of that class take away from getting into a serious discussion? Then a ban was placed on bringing weapons to class. Obviously, regardless of whether or not the students/citizens in the class/nations believed that the ballyhoo (really, I just wanted to use that word) the items of the day caused were detracting, the omnipotent professor/deity did. Realizing that the professor/deity controls our grades/lives, it would be foolish to disagree. Under that backslash onslaught, I do have to say that as much as I love violence (and I do love violence. Needless, reckless violence.), the Nerf guns, $2.50 missile shooters and Skittles did take away from the conversation. As did the mere premise of the class that day, which was acting as nations with resources in regards to the table and chairs. Seeing as the latter was instituted by professor/deity, only the first can be changed. For the latter, I can understand the point. As PTJ said, it is a "microcosm" for world politics. I realize that, and can respect it. However, when placed into groups that not only are supposed to be discussing how the metaphor of the microcosm relates to world politics but other things as well, this setup made it more difficult (for me, in any case) to concentrate on that discussion. Within each group seperate conversations were going on about deals and who to place a think embargo on etc. It all became slightly circus-like.

With those two cents out of the way, on to the really important stuff: Flugtag!

I’m kidding, flugtag isn’t important. Just amazing. Google it.

However, Bhutto’s widower has won the presidency in Pakistan, and that is important. While Zadari has been accused of corruption, the fact that he, the husband on the late Benazir Bhutto, is a supporter of democracy in a nation that is unstable and unsure and is now president is a hopeful look into the future of the nation. What happens next (hopefully not a funeral) however, will be the precedent for how Zadari plans to guide the nation towards stability and fighting terrorism within his borders. Eyes will focus on Pakistan again, and with that, throw some more focus onto Afghanistan, which, hidden behind the Iraq war, still has relevance, a mission, and a chance. Not to mention support.

Peace, I'm sick. Dang Hanna.

John Rawls & The Veil of Ignorance

I found the in-class relationship between group one and the inevitably-antagonistic rest of the class to be of particular interest today. Group one attempted to justify their decision-making process as completely altruistic. I actually completely agree with this point, however, I feel it is not genuine enough to be taken as true good-natured sharing. The difference in this situation and one in which group one could have truly looked after the class is the lack of competition. Emily, Nate, Rachel, and Rob came into class with no one but themselves present, and they all stood to gain from a mutual agreement as far as seating arrangements went. Had there been a competitive rush for scarce resources, I can nearly guarantee group one would have thrown altruistic motives out the window and joined in out of the assumption that no actor was rational, and that there would be no pause to fairly distribute resources. They wouldn't have taken them because they threw altruistic motives out the window, but because everyone else assumed all of the others in the room would and protected their own interests. This is "game theory" at its finest. This leads into what I actually wanted to talk about, that being what I see as the flaw in John Rawls's theory of "justice as fairness."

Our class today was basically the reason that Rawls's "veil of ignorance" doesn't really happen. He even concedes in the introduction of one of his novels, Justice As Fairness, that in order for his theory to work, all actors in the decision-making process must be rational, with "rational" being defined as taking into the account of all involved parties equally. This rarely if ever happens. All parties, regardless of their supposed objectivity, have a certain agenda they attempt to push. This is an inescapible aspect of the human mind. Take Supreme Court Justices. they are supposed to be the ultimate representation of Constitutional decision-making, supposedly objective in all their decisions. However, whether the justice is Antonin Scalia or Stephen Breyer, all have their respective motivations and interpretation of what it means to be "rational." The veil of ignorance seems to hold people to a sort of impossible-to-reach standard of rationality that separates human desires and wants from any equation.

Most would agree that the following two statements are true: One of the primary functions of a state is to improve the condition of the citizens of that state. We should help those in need. Luckily, those two statements, far from being mutually exclusive, are quite connected.
It benefits us to maintain stability as much as possible. A stable state promotes stability amongst its neighboring states; likewise, chaos breeds chaos. If a nation is beset by chaos, it will not be able to conduct trade in an effective manner. From a purely economic standpoint, a stable nation contributes more to the global economy than an instable one. Our world is an increasingly globalized one; as a result, every state nation is tied into the global economy, and so every single state benefits if other states are stable, and is damaged if they are not.
Instability does not come from an abyss. Rather, it is the result of years of humanitarian crises that culminate in chaos. If the citizens of a state are impoverished, or face hunger, or face mass disease, etc., they will turn to non-state actors for sustenance, thus undermining the stability of the state, with the obvious and oft-cited example of Palestine, or else simply lash out at their government.
If we deliver humanitarian aid, we increase the stability of the specific state where the humanitarian aid is delivered. If states remain stable, the global economy will become stronger. If the global economy becomes stronger, we benefit. Therefore, it is in our best interest to administer humanitarian aid whenever doing so does not counteract our national interest in some other way.

Mutual economic interdependence brings about stability, and stability brings about mutual economic interdependence. We should act in whatever way we can to ensure that this cycle continues.

The Moral Obligation of the State

Whether a nation has an obligation to help a lesser nation is a question for the larger nation to decide on its own. Before answering this question, we first must analyze the question itself. The word “should” implies a sort of moral imperative that requires someone to act on a situation, whether or not they are able. Therefore, one must remove all pragmatic sides to the question and look at the question as to whether a nation should help lesser nations as the discussion of a Kantian categorical imperative, where one must always help lesser nations out of moral obligation.

I, however, do not believe that a nation has any such obligation. This runs contrary to what a nation stands for. A nation is the manifestation of a human’s fundamental desire for a sense of belonging. This movement began in the form of tribes, who joined together in the face of common foes. This evolved into the modern conception of a nation, where the sense of belonging has expanded to a broader group. However, it has not yet grown to the point where leaders and citizens feel a fundamental responsibility to assist those outside of their borders. This runs contrary to the concept of a social contractual obligation, where the government has an established relationship and obligation to assist those under the direct authority of said nations constitution. Nations ought to be able to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to help other nations, deciding whether or not it is better for the nation in question to assist the nation requiring aid.

Bono would be disappointed.

World Politics Question #2
Should powerful countries look after the interests of less-powerful countries? In other words, is there any particular obligation to others associated with being a powerful country?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.



…If you were expecting more, you aren’t getting it. I, as a representative of a powerful country, am not required to divulge my reasoning, for that could lead to terrorists attacking my country.


On a less sarcastic basis, yes, “powerful” countries should look after the interests of less-“powerful” countries. Not necessarily out of any idea of goodwill and caring about that country and the people within it, but simply that there are more benefits to helping countries (of aid, of support, of business, of complete government overhauls through the idea of invasion [last one is a bit sarcastic]) than practicing isolationist policies. Let’s take the example of the U.S. (because I live here): if the U.S. doesn’t offer aid/help/support to other countries, particularly countries (or factions within the countries) that support democracy, freedom, other ideals of a Western nation, then the rest of the world, developed and developing alike, look upon the U.S. as a country that doesn’t care about anyone but itself. This leads to a negative image of the U.S., and a downturn in U.S. trade and economy, and in general makes everyone upset. Simply, from a world perspective, nations that are granted with a strong economy, strong military, strong not-dying-thanks-to-human-rights-violations-malnutrition-guerilla-warfare-lack-of-health-care state, need to look after /take interest in nations that aren’t granted with the above because it will damage a nation’s reputation (thus credibility and authority).

On an internal basis, most countries that profess “power” within the world spectrum have citizens who can access the news and thus know something (maybe not a lot, but something) about what’s going on in the globe-o-sphere. People, while being stupid, are not always callous, and thus, for the vast majority, want their home nation to help/support other nations, because people “care” about other people, especially people who don’t have all the advantages we have and want that warm fuzzy feeling when their nation does good. On top of that, celebrities, in their need to do something meaningful with their lives, convince the average person that a) their government is horrible if it doesn’t help other nations b) they are horrible if they don’t tell their government a) and c) the movie comes out December 15th. Now, if a government is isolationist, the people within the nation become discontent, unhappy and whiny, meaning they could make more choices based on emotions instead of logic and then everyone else is unhappy as well.

While taking care of one's own nation is a government's first priority, that also means that a sound nation is a content nation, and a nation filled with people who think the government is selfish (even if it is selfish in the name of its people) aren't content. So, the government must sacrifice resources to be used towards its own in order to satisfy its own.

Alright, let’s summarize: “Powerful” nations (going with developed as having power) should help nations that are less “powerful” because, internationally, people don’t like isolationist nations, and that hurts the economy, and nationally, people don’t like governments that don’t like celebrities that aren’t “caring”, thus hurting the stability of the country. So, to make people happy (not everyone, just in general), it is in the best interests of a nation to be globally involved and helpful.

Besides, when we spend too much time with ourselves, we start doing/believing/practicing weird stuff.

Multilateral Aid!!!

Powerful countries should help less powerful countries, but through an international organization. I am an idealist: I believe in the UN and the ability for countries to work together multilaterally to create peace and prosperity throughout the world.  The process of lending aid to countries should be regulated by an international organization.  I think these organizations have some problems that should be rectified, but they work in the essentials.  Regulations on the help given can make it more effective in helping the people.  The type of help matters of course because monetary and military aid should be regulated differently. 

            When powerful (for the nature of this blog, powerful=first world, or developed nations) countries send money to nations in need, the money does not always achieve its purpose.  Many times foreign aid money goes straight into government official’s bank accounts.  Needless to say, this does not help the people of the nation.  If you would like to debate with me about the idiocy behind a “trickle-down” policy, I am ready and willing, just let me know.  Sorry, I digress.  The powerful nations also like to use policy strings attached to this bilateral aid to forward their own agendas.  When people are suffering, imperialistic tendencies should be pushed aside.  I am not saying that this will happen, but it should.  While I have issues with the IMF and World Bank and their policy strings, I think those organizations are more effective than bilateral organizations such as USAID. 

            Going on a slight tangent now:

            When individuals of powerful nations donate money to help other nations, they are most likely kidding themselves.  The money most Americans are trying to get to Sudanese refugees is not reaching them.  If you spend ten dollars on a “Stop the Genocide in Darfur” t-shirt, those ten dollars are not helping the Sudanese people.  If you want to make a difference, send those ten dollars as a donation to a legitimate organization.  Spreading awareness is fantastic; just don’t be ignorant about it. 

            Getting back on track, I have some strong feelings about lending military aid.  I personally do not believe that nations should send their own troops into battle, but should only deploy their troops as a part of the UN Peacekeeping Troops.  Physical conflict rarely helps when a nation is in dire straits, but when the world sends peacekeeping troops into a situation to send a message, the message is strong and impossible to ignore.  Of course there are counterpoints to this.  For example the fact that the UN Peacekeeping Troops left Rwanda sent the opposite strong message to the Hutus; go ahead, we aren’t going to stop you.  When the world bands together and takes a stand AND when the world is divided, the results speak for themselves.