Last Relection

When our discussion on Friday turned to sovereignty, I began to question what determines sovereignty.  Is sovereignty determined by power, in the sense of ability to rule, or by power, in the sense of money and influence?  It has always been the former, but should sovereignty ever switch to the latter, the entire international system would be forever changed.  It would certainly undermine the realist perspective.  I do not think I would like my governing power to be McDonalds or DeBeers or any international corporation.  I think that while profit is a consideration for these groups, they should not have more power than influence.  As a representative for McDonalds, I know that we voted for whatever would help us increase profits and for whatever would improve our reputation.  If reputation is the only reason for corporations to help others, I do not want to put my faith in said corporations to actually accomplish anything.  Admittedly, money does help more than good intentions, and there are some people in corporations who have both.  However, such a drastic change with no understanding of the outcome is too risky to consider as a viable choice.  And for those of you who believe that Snow Crash is an example of the result, then such an option should really not be considered (for my personal feelings on this, see previous blog post). 

            On a personal note, I want to take some space in this post to mention how awesome this learning community was.  I would not have wanted my freshman year to begin any other way.  Living with all of you has been fantastic and extremely entertaining.  Sure, when some class conversations continued on the elevator and on L7, they tended to be less academically focused, but I enjoyed them nonetheless J.  Thank you all for being my classmates and good friends!  

Final Reflection, Woohoo.

Over the course of the semester, I've learned more about how to analyze global affairs in a critical manner. I can now look at an issue and say, "Well, this happened, but why?". This sort of skill is vital in any sort of economic or political line of work. I may not have learned a lot about various global issues, but that wasn't the point of the class. Rather, it gave me the analytical framework necessary to further success in international relations. It was a lot of work, but I found a lot of gratification when debates in class continued over blogs or in 721. These discussions played a large role in shaping the way class itself functioned, and our actions were really what shaped the way the course was directed and what was taught. In that regard, I found the class a fascinating experience. I certainly don't walk away from the class with any regrets, nor do I have any about my blogging experience. As to whether or not I will blog in the future, I can only really wait and see what I feel like doing. I've found it an interesting way to carry on debates, but they're only fun when you have other people discussing your ideas with you. As a result, this sort of involvement will likely only continue in a sort of community where I can expect regular feedback from a regular body of readers, like I had this semester.

One way or another, I'm glad for the things I've learned in the course. It's altered my perspective on a lot of things and changed the way I look at the world, and that is far better than regurgitating information that I would have learned in some of the other classes.

As Daft Punk would say...

One more time
One more time we're gonna celebrate yeah
Oh yeah all right don´t stop the dancing


Alright, we've reached the end of the World Politics course. Now what?
Who knows? But I'll reflect on it one more time (we're gonna celebrate).

This class has been...an experience. I'm not placing any particular adjective on that, partially because I am such a neutral person (really) and partially because no word could adequately describe this class. Not even 1500 words.

There were good times, bad times, what the hell are you talking about times and oh snap times...all in all, I think I'm glad I took this class. But I don't know.

This class probably has made me a lot more ambivalent than I ever thought I could (or wanted to be).

Oddly, I think that might be the point. PTJ said this class was about learning to argue, learning to make a point and then convince someone else that point is the correct one (or just the better one).

Whether or not I've learned how to effectively argue is debatable (lame pun), but...maybe by being less sure in what I've said, I had learned how to argue better.

If I'm not sure in what I say, then I'll listen more to what others are saying. By listening, I'll understand what they are saying....and then figure out how I agree or disagree based off of that, not based off of the assumptions I made walking into the discussion.

So...I guess this class made me less sure of who I am, but more sure of who I am because I'm less sure. WTF.

“I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.” (Socrates knows what's up.)

Oh, and totally going to say Venezuela kicked ass in the debate today. Why? Because my two goals were accomplished: get us kicked out of the debate [I actually wanted that to be the first motion, because it was going to happen anyway] and don't get a solidified development policy passed...whoo! The Venezuelan Way = the kick-ass way.

Question 14

I would prefer to live in Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong for one reason: the Rat-Thing.

Under normal circumstances, I would not call myself a realist – not by a long shot. However, that label is based upon the times in which we live, and the international political structure in which we find ourselves immersed. In the world portrayed by Snow Crash, security simply must be the ultimate worry. There are no laws, no international frameworks or organizations that govern conduct between states / franchulates. The only generally accepted, common rule seems to be that of sovereignty – and that is only accepted because of the security measures taken by each individual franchulate. For instance, one would not violate the Mafia’s sovereignty because, well, they’re the Mafia. One does not argue with Reason. Some of the security measures are preventive – the book describes the gate systems used by many franchulates, and how one needs a bar code signifying their citizenship in order to gain access.

One security measure seems to trump all others, however: the Rat-Things, the security measure implemented by Mr. Ng for Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong. A gate is insufficient; it can be bypassed or knocked down. A police force is insufficient; it can be tardy. The Rat-Thing solves these problems: by having equal parts ferocity and speed, nothing can get by them unless the Rat-Thing wills it to be so.

The Jews and the Native Americans have much in common. Well, okay, only one thing, really: genocide. Six million Jews and six million others died in the Holocaust in Germany; similarly, a massive proportion of Americans in the North, Central and South Americas were massacred when the Europeans arrived. It’s hard to think about genocide in a rational manner, and so my people, the Jews, dealt with the Holocaust with humor.

My favorite example: the Gestapo spent much time bullying Freud, and would not give him an exit visa permitting him to leave Austria without writing a letter stating that the Gestapo had not bullied him – that they had, in fact, given him total freedom in his work. He added a single sentence – “I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone!”

I like to think that America has done the same thing – dealing with horrible actions via humor – even when it is us perpetrating the horrible deed. Case in point: the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. We dropped more ordinance on Cambodia than on Japan during World War Two. The operation titles were: Operation Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Dessert, etc. If that’s not humor, I don’t know what is.

Question 13

“The man who finds his own country sweet is only a raw beginner” – that much I agree with. This, to me, invokes the image of the American hick who proclaims that America is the best country on earth, having not actually been to any other country in person. This sort of base ignorance is repugnant. If the quote is to be interpreted as saying that any man not yet jaded by his country is only a raw beginner, I would agree with that, as well; no country is perfect, and it only takes a small amount of insight to see that this is the case. Therefore, any man who does not have some gripe with his country is not looking very hard – and is therefore a raw beginner.

“The man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect”. Here, I agree also, but with a slightly different take on what the quote means, exactly. Here, I interpret it as being about the people inhabiting those foreign countries. “The man for whom each country is as his own”, to me, signifies a man who views his country as being equal to others, and so the people within those countries are just as important as the citizens of his home country. “The man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country” signifies a man who is entirely blind to the entire concept of a country, who views the citizens of his country as being equal to those of any other country the same as the previous sort of man based on the sole merit of everybody involved being human.

Assorted Ramblings

I've filled my blog requirement, so I actually want to use this occasion just to write about things important to me. I'm watching a documentary as we speak about genocide around the world and those who have tried to stop it as the years have past. I look at history as a realist. I don't hold a lot of countries accountable for not intervening in many cases. For instance, I see it as being so difficult to actually provide any element of stability in Darfur, and American intervention could make the situation worse. Yet somehow, I can't just sit by and look at something like the genocide in Rwanda and, knowing it's more than wrong, let it happen. Probably my favorite part in Quantum of Solace was the part where Felix Lighter was sitting on the plane with the American officer right after meeting with the movie's antagonist. The mustachioed American, when Lighter questions why the US was allying with someone with so clearly negative intentions in Bolivia, replies that if the US allied only with good people, there wouldn't be an ally to be had. I agree with this statement. Sometimes, allying with a Pervez Musharraf can be necessary to maintaining a status in the larger context of regional stability. But when I look at every instance of genocide around the world, the United States does not stand to gain from allying with a Juvenal and Agathe Habyarimana, Slobodan Milosevic, Omar al Bashir, etc.. However, I see the United States historically tying itself to Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of mentality, and I can't help but feel disgusted.

Genocide is an unforgivable crime. The fact that these situations keep occurring, even though we say "never again" repeatedly shows me how humanitarians are all too often all talk. They don't have the power to stop what happens. States are the only ones with those powers. If Srebrenica or Rwanda are any indicators, the UN only makes situations more disgusting when soldiers stand by and do nothing. It's why Romeo Dallaire nearly killed himself when he was unable to do anything for the people he had worked with for months before the genocide began following Juvenal Habyarimana's assasination, possibly performed by his wife Agathe and her inner circle (the akazu). But at the same time, I don't see states as providing the necessary stability in the recooperation of genocide-ravaged communities. When I view modern reconstruction efforts, I see the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia, the Iraq War, the Hutu-Tutsi tensions coming to a head in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (and their previous manifestations in Burundi), or the other numerous attempts at reconstruction, I don't think we've had a truly successful attempt at restoring a society since World War II. This provides so many complications to my ultimate instinct that intervention is vital to prevention of genocide.

As the documentary comes to a close, I see how TV can't possibly portray how horrific genocide is. It didn't even get the point across as strongly as I have seen done in literature, such as in Philip Gourevitch's We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families. Yet even this book can't display how horrendous genocide is. What shocks me more than anything about genocide as a crime is the instinct it creates, where people are more shocked to survive than to die. In Rwanda, Tutsis had just had this instinct driven into their minds that they would die. I hate sitting here knowing that I have these opportunities before me, solely on the basis of my birth in this nation, and other people live only awaiting death. I don't know what can be done about genocide. Don Cheadle isn't going to stop Darfur, no matter how many celebreties think he has the right idea. Ideally, yes we can stop any genocide. We can stop the janjaweed in Darfur. We could have stopped the genocidaires in Rwanda, or bombed the camps in Germany during WWII. But could we have done what is required to stop further perpetration of the crimes? Would American intervention in Darfur stop the JEM from coming into power and oppressing Arabs? Or would intervention in Rwanda have prevented the rise of Laurent Nkunda and his Tutsi backlash? Somehow, I don't think so. I just wish there was something that could be done.