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.