The Alien Ambassador

If, as news reports are claiming, the UN does in fact decide to instigate the post of ambassador to extraterrestrials, there will be a precedent set that the world will have to take notice of. By appointing someone, potentially the current director for the Office of Outer Space Affairs, as the individual chosen to make first contact with any alien life, the UN will be sending a distinct message to the world—a message that they are open and willing to embrace the future, and any possibility of life on other planets with an open mind and a willing spirit to explore. The UN would be wise to prepare for the many prospective, albeit sometimes unbelievable situations that could arise from the future of space travel and technological advancement. If, for example, aliens were to arrive on earth, like in the simulation during class, it would be prudent to have a practical plan or at least some measures set in place to react to the situation. Ensuring that there is in fact someone designated to receive these non-human visitors presents a degree of preparedness that we would not have otherwise had. When we talked about the potential outcomes of an alien landing in Washington DC, there was so much uncertainty and discord in the method in which different groups wanted to deal with the event. One instance where we had to make a difficult decision was determining who we wanted to greet the aliens. There were too many options dealing solely with American officials, and if the alien encounter were a global thing, the decision of denoting who would be the first to greet the aliens would be made even more difficult. By creating the position of ambassador, we effectively solve this problem. From a liberal point of view, the creation of the alien ambassador would be a good idea. Liberals believe in furthering the common good. By appointing this ambassador, both aliens and humans would be benefited, as Aliens would have an expert prepared to greet them, and would most likely experience a warmer reception then they would with no knowledge about them, and the paranoia that comes with sending a foreign head of state to greet an unknown creature. Humans would feel relief that someone capable of dealing with aliens was in charge of greeting them, and the general public would be put at ease. Proponents of constructivism would also embrace this new foreign official, as it exhibits adaptation to change, and a fundamental shift in the identity of the world from self-centered, to thinking about the possibility of something other than earthly beings.

Ambassador to the Aliens?

The schools of thought, we have recently discussed include realism, liberalism, and constructivism. When studying these schools of thought their modern application to society today is quite apparent. Recently, the U.N. is is set to appoint Malaysian astrophysicist Mazlan Othman as the world organization's space ambassador for extraterrestrial contact affairs. This recent news article brings up several questions scientists and citizens alike have concerning about the United Nations affairs. Could it be that U.N. officials know something that we don't know? Othman was quoted as telling scientists during a recent talk that the search for alien signals "sustains the hope that someday humankind will receive signals from extraterrestrials." If contact is made, "we should have in place a coordinated response that takes into account all the sensitivities related to the subject," she said. "The U.N. is a ready-made mechanism for such coordination." This issue of an alien ambassador appointment carries with it some of the underlying assumptions and values of the constructivist theory of International Relations.

What would cause the U.N. to have the desire to make such an appointment? According to Wendt, a constructivist would view this appointment as an attempt to lead members of the U.N. to redefine its interests and identities in the process foreseeing an open future. This potential open future of communication would have such an ambassador learn about communication with outside forces for increased protection of the global interests if such aliens were to manifest themselves. Thus, unlike rationalist theories such as neorealism and neoliberalism which hold interest and identities constant in order to isolate the causal roles of power and international institutions, constructivism considers how structures shape the very way actors define themselves--who they are, their goals, and the roles they believe they should play.Social constructivist scholars view learning as an active process where learners should be encouraged to discover principles, concepts and facts for themselves. Therefore, a social constructivist would specifically view the alien ambassador appointment as an attempt to become immersed within a culture of this sort- where one is learning all the time about how to interact with a part of that culture on many levels through communication.

It is interesting to look at the United Nations methodology regarding this appointment because there is already an international group designated to address the issue of potential alien contact. The SETI Post-Detection Task Groups is charged with developing a protocol for dealing with the discovery of signals or other evidence of the existence of an extraterrestrial civilization. This formation of an ambassador to handle the potential circumstance regarding how future extraterrestrial visitors should be greeted would be viewed by a constructivist as a mechanism to highlight the U.N. or our world’s dominance as a supreme territory. Acting as “greeter” to the aliens (as the ambassador’s prominent role would essentially be in the constructivist viewpoint) a way to manage the balance of power and encourage peaceful interaction during the initial communication.

When examining this rather outrageous and spontaneous declaration by the U.N., it is important that present day IR theorists recognize the constructivist attempts of learning and communication with other states (or in this case extra-terrestrials visitors) to better understand that the world is always developing and changing. Professor Stephen Hawking said “he imagined they (the aliens) might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. The outcome for us would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.” Perhaps, the U.N. really does know something we do not know with the sudden interest in appointing an alien ambassador.

Sources:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com

http://www.space.com/news/united-nations-alien-ambassador-100927.html

Ambassador to Aliens?

If aliens ever came here, they would be directed to this ambassador for aliens. Considering these aliens as another state with culture, and not simply dismissing them as extraterrestrial creatures, is establishing an ambassador for them a helpful move to the states of the Earth?

Taking a realist approach to this issue, appointing an ambassador is not necessary, because instead of trying to establish a friendly relationship with the aliens, it is better to be prepared militarily to secure the survival of the states against these unknown extraterrestrial creatures once they come. However, considering the situation, it is possible that a ambassador for aliens can be beneficial to the states from a realist point of view. Because there have been no previous contact between the Earth and aliens, there is no way states can evaluate these creature's capabilities and intentions. Once the information necessary to make the assessment becomes available, then a realist approach would devaluate the importance of an ambassador and the position can be eliminated; however, ambassadors can still serve a purpose for realist international relations approach. It applies to both unknown and known states in the sense that these ambassadors can continue feed information back to their homeland. Their information would be limited in number of ways, but nonetheless, they can supply information for future assessments.

The important aspect of realist approach to the position of ambassador is that ambassadors are not necessarily an instrument to promote diplomatic ties and friendship. Instead, it serves to be the connection between the aliens and the states through which information travels in both directions. Therefore, in a state where there are no knowledge available about each other, it might be helpful to have an ambassador; however, once knowledge about each other becomes available, realists can use these information to take appropriate measures. A prime example is during the Cold War, the US and USSR both established their embassies which served to be somewhat of a center of clandestine service to secure information. Countermeasures were taken and surveillance on embassies became important. This shows how embassies and ambassadors can play prime role in intelligence gathering.

To sum it up, for a realist, a position of an ambassador is not necessary in this case; however, it could serve a realist purpose very well by serving as a source of primary information to assess these aliens until other intelligence gathering services have been established.

Ambassadorship towards Aliens

Ambassadorship has become one of the important tenets of diplomatic relations around the world. Consider the impact of a country removing its ambassador in the event of political or armed conflict.

In the specific case of the United States, the lack of a presence of an ambassador can also mean significant implications to American citizens traveling abroad in those countries. Looking into current events, the complications that arise without the presence of an American ambassador can be seen in the hikers who supposedly (according to the Iranian government) crossed the Iraq/Iran border while hiking in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. After 410 days of imprisonment, the Iranian government released Sarah Shourd. However, the United States had no direct role in her release because of the lack of diplomatic ties with Iran. In our place, a Swiss ambassador and embassy was acting with the best interest of the hikers’ health and safety in an attempt to secure their release. The current imprisonment of the two hikers Ms. Shourd was traveling with continues to be the responsibility of the Swiss embassy in Tehran. If we apply this to the possibility of an alien presence on Earth, it would only make sense for an ambassador to be ready to receive them.

One must consider the proposition of the United Nations to elect a “Space Ambassador for Extraterrestrial Contact Affairs” that was proposed during the current reunion of the General Assembly this week in New York City. As reported by Space.com, a Malaysian astrophysicist would be appointed if the position were approved. This significant step in a new direction for diplomacy can be seen as a leap towards accepting all visitors to our planted. Mazlan Othman’s credentials as the “director of the UN’s Office for Outer Space Affairs”, her main job since her appointment has been to facilitate “international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space,” referring [most likely] to the ambitions of industrialized nations to incorporate their own technology in the vast space that surrounds our world. Her impressive title refers simply to the interactions of human uses in space; therefore, the assumption of her usefulness in the event of alien contact seems plausible and she seems to be the most qualified to welcome aliens to our world.

Others may see the appointment of Ms. Othman as a gross misuse of resources. The United Nations, some say, should be focusing on international, armed conflict here on Earth instead of looking towards the heavens in an attempt to distract humans from the conflicts that exist on earth. Some may also bring Ms. Othman’s credentials into question. Her position within the United Nations as well as her work back in Malaysia, some could propose, does not qualify her to represent the world as a whole. Would the study of a space, not a people, qualify someone to represent the human race as a whole? This also brings up another debate. If Mazlan Othman is not the best qualified, who is?

Reflection week 5

Looking back at the week, the class discussion that really stood out to me was the one on Tuesday regarding clothing and authority. In the world today, clothing completely influences the mentality of both the person wearing the clothes and the mentality of those forming opinions about the person wearing the clothes. Authority and power can be communicated purely through the way someone dresses. If, for example, someone consistently dresses in formal wear, such as a suit and tie, they are subsequently perceived a certain way by society. PTJ is a professor, and as such, garners almost immediate respect. But would he have the same amount of instant respect and image of authority if he dressed in sweatpants each day for class? I don’t think he would. First impressions are essential, as most people learn through business interviews and other interactions. The way you dress is especially crucial to this first impression others form. PTJ came to class the first day fully dressed in a suit and tie, and continued doing so throughout the following classes. This cemented his persona in our minds, and now, if he were to come to class in sweatpants, we would first assume it was a teaching mechanism, simply because the image the suit presented is still firmly entrenched in our brain. The cultural impression of a suit is one of power, responsibility, intelligence, and authority. Individuals wearing suits inevitably command respect from those they interact with. The fact is, it is very difficult, as we discussed in class, to shed that respect and authority associated with the suit. If PTJ were to come to class without his suit, rather than losing his authority, it would be assumed that he was using it as a way to educate us. Even when another student took over the traditional role of authority by playing teacher, the eyes of all the students automatically flicked to PTJ, signifying the degree of respect that could not be lost, even with a sort of coup. The role of a suit directly parallels that of certain countries in the world, Europe for example. Although it has been decades since Europe has had a formidable army or been the leading economic power in the global economy, they still hold onto the past authority gained from the World Wars.

Reflection Week 5

This past week I enjoyed our class discussions and our trip to the European Union. In preparation for Thursday’s alien inspired simulation we talked on Tuesday about self-image and social norms. It was interesting to hear everyone’s perceptions regarding the way in which they view the normality's of appearance and behavior at American University. I have noticed how differently both males and females in our age group tend to dress in D.C. As compared to the West Coast where I grew up. Even on a late night around campus I have yet to see anyone walking around in shorts and a T-shirt. This difference stands out from many of the schools I visited or had stayed overnight in the West Coast. Our class discussion brought out the fact that not only the social environment someone grows up in play a role, but also one’s family and environment influences how a person dresses, speaks, or behaves from location to location.

Tuesday’s class was a great experience for me to be taken from my role as the student and put into the front of the class in PTJ’s seat as the “leader” of the class. From my perspective I was trying to watch how many of the students looked away from me and still glanced toward PTJ for guidance regarding what to do next. It easily could have been out of respect for the lesson being taught or “playing along” with the simulation, but nonetheless the classroom dynamics did change when I was at the center of the room. I believed because I held the light saber that everyone did look to me in order to be called on to speak. A constructivist would argue that it is possible to change the perceptions of people in a situation similar to this one as we did in class; nonetheless, it was still a stretch for us as students to break our mindset of PTJ’s role as the professor.

The constructivist IR theory that we analyzed on Thursday rejects the basic assumption of the neo-realist theory that the state of anarchy (lack of a higher authority or government) is a structural condition inherent in the system of states. Rather, it argues, in Alexander Wendt's words, that 'Anarchy is what states make of it'. That is, anarchy is a condition of the system of states because states in some sense 'choose' to make it so. Anarchy is the result of a process that constructs the rules or norms that govern the interaction of states. Thus, constructivist theory holds that it is possible to change or alter the anarchic nature of the system of states.

In our alien simulation, the advice a constructivist would give is for the United States to approach the aliens not with hostility,fear, or anger, but rather approach the aliens with professionalism and acceptance in order to have the aliens return the same behavior to the United States. However, I strongly agree with the class when we discussed to need for the United States to have all major defense organizations on alert and ready to respond if need be. Even though the United States would want to appear welcoming and non-violent, it is important to have reinforcement to act immediately if violence should occur.

Communication with other countries is extremely important in this scenario. Just because the ship landed in Washington D.C does not mean that the United States should disregard communication to other countries. Establishing communication and the unification of other countries when a crisis occurs is important for the protection of the entire population. On our visit to the European Union this week it was interesting to hear about the history of the EU and their goal to establish peace by unifying countries with entirely different cultures under a common cause. The EU is a great example of Wendt’s belief that it is possible to alter the attitudes and social normality's of states. The adoption of the euro alone was an idea that today still amazes many economists about its success in establishing trade and monetary protection of it’s members. While the European Union still has flaws, its overall success serves as a great example of the constructivist IR theory in influencing the nature of states through strong leadership and a common cause of peace and protection with others.

Reflection-Week #5

This week sparked the most interested from me in relation to our discussion of IR theories. Constructivism seems to be the theory that I find easiest to relate to. I think that realism is too rigid to provide the progress that new states need and liberalism tends to be too individualistic which, in turn, can also inhibit growth. In my mind, constructivism seemed to offer a happy balance between these two.

Our trip to the Delegation of the European Union offered a great perspective into the thinking of the European Union on international affairs. It was a perfect contrast to the trip to the State Department the week earlier. In my opinion, the differences between the way Americans think about global politics and the way Europeans think about global politics is a fascinating topic. The origins of the cultural systems that provide the foundations for decision making between these two groups could prove to be a deciding factor in the way our world will function and change in the coming decades and centuries. In addition to hearing the European perspective on global affairs, finding another possible internship opportunity was a great thing.

I enjoyed class on Thursday more than that on Monday. Simulations seem to grab my attention more and offer greater opportunities for everyone to get involved with each other. Discussions can sometimes be polarized, with a certain few dominating the conversation. While the simulation was not perfect, I did notice that more people got involved and nearly everyone was heard from. Sure, having a ship from Stargate be the “alien” was a bit farfetched, but learning about IR theory using an allegory seemed to have made things make more sense to me.

Reflection Week 5

The Thursday's activity was one of the most interesting activities that I did in the 5 weeks I have been in this class. Applying (or at least trying to) one of the IR theories to give an advice against a crisis was challenging, although the scenario was quite extreme and a little bit unrealistic.

One thing that I realized myself thinking all the while the discussion was going on was that preparing for the worst seemed always the best choice available when dealing with an unknown society/civilization/group of people. This arises from the idea that since you do not know their capabilities of and their intentions, you cannot assume that they come in peace. Of course, this would not be relevant to today's international system, since there is certain knowledge about others available to everyone; however, this idea would be relevant when we go back in history to see how international system came to be. When tribes came in contact with another tribe, or a nation with another nation, they were unaware of each other's intentions and capabilities, thus, they would have been cautious and adopted attitudes that were prepared for the worst possibilities. This would have then started off the cycle of realist international relations. It might be possible that this whole system of security-comes-first is breaking down right now, but it seems that this realist idea was the starting point for today's international society.

However, I also would like to agree to Wendt's argument of constructivism. People adopted realist approach when they encountered new people, yet these attitudes shaped the other nation's attitude and it kept going on in a cycle. It is irrefutable that the act of one side affects the attitude of the other party. Yet, it is naive to think that every reaction was shaped by the other party's action, because these actions were reactions in themselves. Following this train of thought, we fall into an endless cycle of reactions causing other reactions, and this just doesn't seem plausible, because there must have been a starting point for a reaction. Thus, I think that constructivism plays a huge part once the cycle of reactions started, but the starting point for this relationship between countries were the realist ideas.

"Gagaism"

Whether it be her wild, eccentric hairdo’s or her unpredictable attire, she never fails to deliver a surprise. Even if the audience believes her latest creation is a fashion crime, when Lady Gaga walks into the public scene, all eyes and camera lenses are sure to capture a shot or two of her latest creation. With that being said, what if this superstar global phenomenon appeal that Lady Gaga embodies could be made into a state? This question alone carries with it significant weight in using the beliefs, demeanor, and personality that Lady Gaga embodies to represent her persona in the form of a state. Through her personality and demeanor Lady Gaga is a strong advocate of acting independently, utilizing her free will, and advocating social equality; therefore, if Gaga were a state her state would take on similar qualities of the free-will and individual thinking of a democracy. It should be noted that with Gaga as the state would hold a predominately liberal bias.

As Lord Acton said, “Liberty is not the ability to do what I want, but to do what I ought to do.” As Samuel Gregg points out in his book, On Ordered Liberty, our freedom depends on our ability to understand and live in Truth. What we deem as Truth sets our moral compass and determines the constraints in which we as a society should operate. Ideals such as morality or constraints are totally opposite to “Gagaism”. I agree with Samuel Gregg that the human person does not need to seek to be “free” from Truth or moral constraints (ala Lady Gaga’s “philosophy” of life)—rather we should strive to live in Truth as we are capable of knowing it. This leads to true Freedom.

Of course understanding Truth is something that is quite a task, but as Gregg points out the search for Truth and its moral compass is something that every human mind is designed to search for. Lady Gaga has no interest in Truth or moral guidelines. She appears to embody the concept of Relativism—that there is Truth (except her own). She is free to do anything she likes—free to defy all laws (even the law of gravity and jump off of a building should she get the whim).

According to a government designed by Gaga, Truth that governs our lives and behaviors is relative to each individual (as they see it). A state that has this underpinning is subject to confusion and disorder (such as the lifestyle of Lady Gaga exemplifies). Samuel Gregg points out that, “The most finely crafted constitutional democracy will not last if its people are insufficiently schooled in the responsibilities of freedom.” Responsibility is another word foreign to Lady Gaga.

There was a good reason why the Founders of our country spoke so much about character and virtues because without this underpinning a free society will not function and is subject to the threats of confusion and anarchy (such is exemplified by the life of Lady Gaga). A nation will lose its sense of reality and as Gregg points out tragedies occur in this environment such as what happened in Nazi Germany with the Holocaust. This “anything goes” attitude of Lady Gaga exemplifies the oft repeated statement that “If you don’t stand for something, then you will fall for anything.” In short, just as individuals ( yes, even Lady Gaga) need Truth as a compass to determine their course in life, so do Nations need these underpinnings to be successful in our world.

Lady Gaga and the International System

I would like to start off by saying that I am not familiar with Lady Gaga, because I was absorbed in my home country's popular culture. However, as Lady Gaga's reputation goes, I have heard about her and her eccentricities.

Obviously, if Lady Gaga was a state, then it definitely would be one of the most bizarre nation-state in the history, yet, we must first realize she is a human, albeit a eccentric one. What this means if translated in terms of states is that it would have a government, and it would have the bureaucracy to handle the day to day activities, just like any other state, because these two institutions are the basis of a surviving state. The manner in which these institutions work would definitely be not normal, but they will exist nonetheless. The fact that it would have the basic skeletal form of a state means that it would be accepted as a functional state, and more likely to be accepted as part of the international community.

So, other states would deal with country of Gaga just as they would deal with any other state. However, this new state, whether through realist, liberal, or constructivist view, simply cannot survive in the international system. From a realist approach, this new state would need some kind of an army, but the army of this state would be inefficient. Most armies around the world today follow the same general set of doctrines that maximize the strength, but Gaga would definitely advocate for an unconventional form, which is most likely to fail when faced with other armies. Thus, the army would be weak, and the state would be taken over. From a liberal point of view, the Gaga state would be way too bizarre to be dealt in a conventional manner and in an international system where interdependence is so crucial, Gaga would fail because of her eccentricity in dealing with other people. From a constructivist view, the people of Gaga, who are "weird" will project its idea on the state goal, so this goal would also be out of norm, and it is most likely to be not accepted in a favorable view.

Thus, a state of Gaga would definitely not survive in today's international system, which means that it will not have the power to affect the international system direly; it would fall before it projects any influence.

The Gaga Blog

The representation of Lady Gaga as a nation state would be embodied in a very specific type of country with aspects uniquely tailored to the nature of a Gaga-inspired nation. First of all, what role would the government take? Lady Gaga is inherently rebellious in regards to societal norms—purposefully flaunting a blatant disregard for conventional standards, and would assuredly impart these values to the governmental structure in “Gagaland”. Just as Lady Gaga creates nonsensical costumes representative of her distinctive message—"Well, that's your opinion, isn't it? And I'm not about to waste my time trying to change it", "You have to be unique, and different, and shine in your own way", "People will always talk, so lets give them sumthin to talk about"—her country would also hold dear the values of independent individualism.


And who would inhabit this new country? People inclined towards these values of creativity, eccentricity, and distinctiveness. The country will have few, if any laws typical of a new nation, and instead will embrace the different qualities of it’s citizens, making allowances for actions and lifestyles atypical of the average person such as homosexuality, unique modes of dress, sexual promiscuity, or other actions sometimes regarded as negative by our cultural ideals in America.

Lady GaGa: A State?

Whatever you make her out to be, Lady GaGa has achieved the status of icon. Her album sales are through the roof and her songs are popular all over the world. Sold out concert tours and political activism all rolled into one. I wasn’t around in the 80s, but from what I hear she’s like a Cher/Madonna combination plate, like a good Mexican restaurant you can get both an enchilada and a taco all on the same plate. If Lady GaGa were a state, it would become an amalgam of political theory. A combination plate, if you will, of realism and liberalism. In addition, large parallels can be drawn between current events in the United States and its international standing and the controversy that Lady GaGa causes.

Immediately, this brings up the idea of realism, primarily, the realist idea of landholding. What country would give up their land to Lady GaGa? I can see land conflicts emerging around the world between current territorial possessions and Gagaites. Considering the current land disputes, such as those in Eastern Europe, if GaGa had to become a state it wouldn’t have land. Also, for such an avid activist of peace, her state would lack the ability to defend itself. Peace may be ideal, but someone with a gun is going to strike down peace very quickly.

Liberalism would be one of the primary foundations of Lady GaGa’s state. The concepts of freedom and equality are two basic tenets that Gagaites crave. Her fans are mini powerhouses of individual freedom and rights. Having attended a Lady GaGa concert myself, I can tell you that she not only sings but also discusses her political views with rousing approval from her audiences. These speeches are warranted among the messages that her music sends. It was more like attending a musical. Songs intertwined with a themed message and a story. The attachment to the liberal persuasion would be one of the most significant parts of the State of GaGa.

The new state of GaGa can be developed as an allegory to the United States, similar to Orwell’s portrayal of the Russian Revolution in Animal Farm. Consider the history of the United States; in the 1800s people flocked to the United States in a hope for a new life. If GaGa were to become it’s own independent nation, her “little monsters” would flock from all around the world to create a new melting pot. People would cease to retain their own nationalities and become one people, one nation under GaGa. Her ability to shock and awe the public would translate to being able to retain power and dominance over the rest of the world, similar to the United States.

The global system would seem to be unipolar if GaGa became a state. People would look to GaGa in an attempt to form their own identities, similar to that of the United States. The world would shift to form itself around this new entity that has quickly become a powerful nation. Consider the way the United States rose to power; in relatively short amount of time, the world has changed into a society that is effectively ruled by one country. If GaGa were to become a state, people would begin to look towards it and form their allies accordingly. Also, GaGa could provide a new balance to the cultural divide. People seem to have united around GaGa and forgotten their differences in a united front for the music. Thinking about the positive things that GaGa stands for makes me Speechless and So Happy I Could Die.

P.S. Everyone in GaGa would be required to own a meat dress.

Reflection Week 4

This week was very interesting, both in class and out of the class, in which I had the chance to get a new experience and learn something new. Focusing on the issues we discussed inside the class, liberalism was an interesting view on IR theory, because the foundation of it is something that most people from a liberal state would assume is universally true.

The interesting aspect of our discussion that I want to point out was that we were talking about "liberalism," yet our focus shifted to a general concept of "democracy." It is true that liberalism usually goes hand in hand with democracy, but liberalism isn't necessarily democracy; if it was, we would call it democracy and not liberalism. As the discussion was going on, an interesting though I tried to wrestle with was whether liberalism is possible without democracy. Up till now this train of thought was largely unsuccessful, especially because it is so difficult to distinguish between liberalism and democracy, and usually, they are interchangeable. Furthermore, the basic principle of liberalism, which is individual rights, seem to point to democracy only, but it would be interesting if somehow liberalism could be separated from democracy.

Another interesting point was how liberal states don't fight each other, because this is largely true in the world we live in. However, I think we should alter this statement a little bit, because in my views, it should be "established liberal states don't fight other established liberal states." The main point is that the liberal states respect each other's sovereignty, which is only the case when the state has been recognized and is stable. This is the case of Iraq, where the US remained to stabilize the democracy and to make it established in the society.

Liberalism in general was an interesting topic to discuss about, especially because it was a concept that everyone was familiar with and was challenging to actually defend what we simply accepted as truth.

Reflection week 4

This weekend, I watched a French film about World War II. The film centered on Algerian troops fighting for France throughout the war. After watching the movie, I started thinking about how WWII could relate to our world politics class. The different nations involved in the war represent different political ideologies we’ve been learning about in class this week.

Germany personified the idea of realism, as their desire was purely for power and security as opposed to their ethical interests. Germany sought territory and used their acquired land and power to capture more land and subsequently gain even more power. Germany’s treatment of Jews and the holocaust relates directly to the realist perspective. The Nazis believed that Jews, gays, and others presented a threat to their national security, and as such, must be eliminated. Human rights and morality could not be allowed to seep into the Nazis viewpoints, as it would interfere with the necessary rational thinking that needed to occur in order to preserve the stability and security of Germany. Hitler epitomized Machiavelli’s realist point of view, as he emphasizes the need for rational thought and defense of the state at all costs, doing whatever necessary to expand his domain and keep his power intact.

The allies represented the liberal point of view. They held high values such as human rights, elections, capitalism, and free trade. The allies operated on the principle that the things that Nazis were participating in were inherently wrong and immoral. This is in keeping with the liberal point of view. Liberalist thinkers operated on the principle that political rights were inherent in all humans, and participation in the government is a standard and necessary procedure.

Liberalism and realism in WWII were polar opposites of each other, and the conflicting ideologies provided fuel to the fire of dissent already brewing in Europe. The fact that the opposing sides in battle also possessed separate political viewpoints resulted in increased nationalism and fervor to be victorious against the side with an ideology difficult to understand and apparently incorrect according to their opponent.

Reflection Week 4

Our class visit to the Department of State provided a great insight to many of the topics we have been discussing in World Politics. David Bame, the Director of Public Affairs and Outreach for the Department of State, was a great speaker who inspired me to do more research on the different policies and affairs of State Department. I especially am interested in the policies that have been implemented since the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

In 2009, Hillary Clinton created the Global Philanthropy Forum which she hoped would generate public-private partnerships with foundations, businesses, non-governmental organizations, universities, and faith communities through what Secretary Clinton called Global Partnership Initiative (GPI). The GPI stood out to me as a unique partnership that would attempt to implement partnerships in American foreign policy, with a more comprehensive approach to diplomacy, development, and defense. Secretary Clinton’s idea with the GPI has a similar tie to our study on the International Relations theory of Realism and Liberalism.

In the Realist’s perspective, cooperation with other states is encouraged by a common security thread. This is different from Liberalism where, if states feel they are both gaining, they can achieve greater success if they rationally chose to corporate. Nonetheless, these theories both stress some form of corporation between states as one of the best possible resources to achieve prosperity. While the GPI does not refer directly to state to state government cooperation, it puts more of an emphasis on government actions, corporations, religious organizations, charities and foundations to work in conjunction with each other. To foster the state agreement, Secretary Clinton makes the argument of how important building relationships with foreign governments and foreign people are to our nation in improving what compromises can be achieved.

I admire the non-government means of cooperation Secretary Clinton is working towards by establishing the GPI. On the Department of State website, Secretary Clinton refers to the need for partnerships. “Partnerships would create communication with seasoned, experienced professionals and experts leading the United States efforts on diplomacy and development and working, where possible, in partnership and coordination with the private sector and the not-for profit sector”.

The work Secretary Clinton has done to develop and maintain positive international relationships between the United States and other countries has been in strong contrast to her success. Secretary Clinton states on the Department of State website that the Global Partnership Initiative is a way “for us (the United States) to see if we can figure how best to better coordinate and facilitate the private sector and the not-for-profit and religious community of the United States on behalf of humanitarian and commercial efforts." My perspective, after reading Clinton’s hopes for the GPI, would be to guide the desire of the state, individual, or non-governmental organization from dominating their own self-interest when forming partnerships. Self-interest is a key matter in any IR theory, when discussing relationships between states, foreign powers, or organizations. While I am not advocating that self-interest is a negative philosophy, self-interest does have the potential to make this “partnership” Secretary Clinton advocates very challenging.

With the use of the non-governmental organizations, private sector, and religious organizations in American foreign policy, self-interest will not dominant the sphere of cooperation, as would the alternative partnership between government organizations (states). Secretary Clinton defines such public-private partnerships by the GPI as characterized by openness and transparency, mutual benefit, shared risks and rewards, and accountability. It is interesting to note how IR theories, such as realism and liberalism, have left very strong influences (as in the area of corporation) on many of the agreements made today. While it is debatable if the GPI idea Hillary Clinton established would be successful in encouraging foreign private organizations to develop these partnerships, her attempts at such an endeavor are extremely revolutionary. In her speech advocating the Global Partnership Initiative at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary Clinton called for the United States to “lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world”. These ideas strain from many of the philosophies (corporation, prosperity, and agreements) discussed historically in the international relation theories of liberalism thus leading to IR modern relevance today.

References:

http://www.state.gov/s/partnerships/

Reflection-Week #4

Life has become routine on Letts 6. We all have seemed to become accustomed to our schedules and are working diligently to get our work done. One month into the semester and we’re stressing over tests and papers, soon to be midterms.

Class this week was interesting. It was interesting learning about liberalism as an IR theory as opposed to liberalism as a political orientation. I think of the most important lessons that I took from this week was that people often confuse the two theories and use them the wrong way.

Our visit to the State Department was both interesting and informative. For lack of a better word, it was very cool to meet David Bame and hear both the information he had and his opinions on current events all around the world. It was also nice that the State Dept. focused less on recruiting us and more on answering our questions (unlike the DIA).

The Need for Elections Today

I would never chose to live in a society without elections. I consider the act of voting a personal duty as a citizen and a privilege that I alone make the choice whether I chose to exercise that right each election. Even though our electoral system does have its flaws, it provides the best alternative when compared to other electoral systems as a way to let the people have their voices heard regarding the election of their officials. For example, in some countries the freedom to vote is more than a privilege, it is a formal responsibility. In Australia, Belgium, Brazil, and a number of democratic countries, voting is required, and those who fail to vote can be fined. This law raises the question that in order to increase voter participation is it ethical to require citizens to vote in elections?

I believe that to increase participation in the electoral process mandating voting is not the way to go about getting the voices of the public heard. Political parties have attempted to increase participation through their “Get Out The Votes” style of campaigning. However, party loyalty and identification have declined over recent decades. Voters are leaning toward supporting one party over another not because of its policy stance but rather because through it they can obtain some personal benefit i.e. a government job or tax breaks. In order to increase voter enthusiasm and participation many candidates have turned to forms of entertainment (television appearances, social networking sites). Our culture today is much more able to increase candidate recognition through all the technology and media advances.

As we discussed in class, Americans have the availability to be as involved in politics, voting, or legislation as they so choose. If they have problems with a piece of legislation or an issue there are multiple outlets (interests groups, representatives, or protests) that they could turn to and make their voices heard. If individuals living in a society such as America want to make their government accountable to the people, historically gathering in groups to attract media attention has been most affective (for example today’s Tea Party Protests).

The privilege to participate in elections, especially the free and fair elections of the United States, is without a doubt the best way to make the government accountable and require a response back to the citizens. Without elections, officials would hardly feel any responsibility at all to address the concerns of anyone but their own self-interest. This injustice should never be tolerated. Even though our electoral systems have errors, it is important that America continue to look toward new outlets of change to increase the constituent representation that the public desires in our system of government.

Elections or no Elections?

As a person born and raised mostly in democratic countries, I support the general notion of democracy and government with the consent of the people. Thus, I would definitely choose to live in a country that has an election.

Why is the institution of election necessary? The answer is not so much as in the fact that election allows us to choose the officials we believe can get the job done, because this is not what happens; in elections, there are always a "loser" who wasn't able to harness enough votes. Yet, these "losers" still had their set of constituents and this means that in an election, there will always be an unsatisfied bunch of people, and advocates for elections may go on saying "well, the majority decided these people were the best choice," but they will never be able to show that each one of us will gain a satisfactory result from an election. Therefore, elections don't necessarily always represent the interests of all people.

So why elections? The reason is that elections are the string that holds the government accountable to the people; elections make the government legitimate in the eyes of the public and it must act on the behalf of the public, not on some personal basis. When this unwritten law that government should represent the people is violated, the institution of election is what gives the people the right, the mandate, the permission to reject that government. For this reason, election is the key tenet of democracy, because without it, there is nothing that gives the people the power to fight the government when necessary.

What this accountability means is that the people have some power over the government, and in states where the government is the supreme power, they can do anything and everything to its population without the fear of reprisal because the government has autonomy, authority, capacity, and power to do it without outside influences because they are sovereign.

However, an interesting point that comes to my mind, which I wouldn't discuss here due to its length, is the country of China. Politically, it is Communist and its ideologies and proceedings are far, far away from liberalism, yet, it supports a mildly capitalistic economy. People still do not have the power over the government through the institution of election, yet the government has been able to provide stability and remarkably survive despite not having the consent of the people through the institution of election. Therefore, if it is possible for a state to dispose the institution of election, yet maintain its sovereignty and legitimacy in the eyes of the public, then I would definitely consider living there, because election to me is largely a dysfunctional institution that only has one basic role that a democratic country cannot live without.

Would you rather live in a society that didn't have elections?

To answer simply, no, I would not like to live in a society without elections. Elections, at least in the United States, allow us to voice our opinions about the people we choose to make decisions about our well-being. Come each year, those who care about the welfare of their state and those who are of legal voting age come together to choose who will represent their interests. This system provides a balance. Though many think the American voting system contains its flaws, I think our long established voting system provides a balance to our society.

Consider some countries voting system lies in shambles or is newly implemented. One of the most significant new systems that come to mind is that of Iraq’s. According to an article published by the Washington Post in March,

“After the ballots are counted, voters will have provided the first conclusive evidence of what kind of democracy is likely to take root in the heart of the Middle East -- if one does at all. Beyond selecting candidates, Iraqis on Sunday will indicate whether they favor religious candidates more than secular ones and authoritarian-minded rulers over those committed to the principles of traditional democracies.”

Considering the rocky history that Iraq has endured over the past decade, mainly focusing on the horrors of the American invasion, Iraq endures a precarious voting situation. Reports from within Iraq on Election Day showed a nation still steeped with violence. This violence seemed to reflect the mood of the nation. However, the elections have also managed to bring a level of stability to the fractured nation. Women have found a new role as election supervisors and vote counters. The Iraqi nation seems to have come together with the common bond to vote. While I personally believe a democratic republic continues to be an efficient way to organize a government and provide order to it’s citizens, I do not believe it is the right system for each culture. In Iraq’s case, I think the damage has been irreparable and there is no choice but to continue towards a democratic state. This includes the presence of elections. The elections in March gave a glimpse as to the direction in which Iraq is headed.

In the United States, the existing voting system is undoubtedly flawed. A major flaw remains in the fact that we ignore those voices that have the most to say. Polling stations are located in places that are inconvenient or inaccessible by public transportation, thus making voting unattractive to those who may not be able to drive themselves to vote. Another major flaw is that voting occurs during a business day. Considering the lessons I learned in Lisa Dodson’s The Moral Underground, this fact means that all people who barely make enough to survive on will not have the time or the resources to take off work to vote. Yes, it takes more money and more resources to add polling locations, and yes, it may mean more commitment from the American public to include the votes of those people who’s votes may have not been received at first. However, voting provides a voice to many who may not have one otherwise. If America continues to ignore the voices of those who matter the most, we have failed our mission as a free, democratic republic.

In summation, a voting system is necessary for the survival of our nation. I couldn’t imagine living in a nation that prohibited it’s citizens from speaking out against those who are representative of their own ideas and opinions. Voting may not be the right system for every culture, but those that have adapted it or are in the process of adapting it acknowledge the fact that it provides a balance in society, no matter how flawed it may be.

Elections...

Personally, I would not be able to live placidly in a society that did not allow governmental elections. Perhaps if I had been born into such a society, and had no knowledge of other countries with elections I would be content to be unable to exercise any modicum of control over the future leaders of my nation. After being brought up in the US however, I couldn’t regress to a society where I was unable to vote. Last week, I registered to vote, and am looking forward to casting a vote in the November election. Although I am aware that the majority of political candidates are of a certain breed, and do not necessarily represent the nation as a whole, I am still grateful for the opportunity to influence which of these potential leaders becomes elected.

In class, we discussed the fact that elections are perhaps just a means of controlling a state, and making citizens think they have a say in the election, but in reality, they don’t. I can see this side of the argument, and I think that in certain countries with less developed political systems that are chaotic, such as Iran and many African nations, this is true. In America, elections certainly give people an outlet for political activism, but the amount of interest and activity in political matters doesn’t end at elections, as many go on to work for their chosen candidates, volunteer at polling places, campaign in their respective towns, or even run for office themselves. This shows that although elections mollify some who are not interested in being overtly political, those who seek greater influence in their country’s political system and election process will seek it out and not be satisfied with the evident de-politicizing of elections.

Reflection Week 3

This week's lab was the visit to the Newseum, where I got to see the impact of media in relaying information of two catastrophic crisis, Katrina and 9/11, to the public.

As a person who didn't live in the US at the time of these crisis, I was detached from the event and when the American people showed extreme reaction to these events, I was actually surprised. However, the visit to the Newseum served to explain these extreme reactions; through the displays of the front pages during the times of crisis, I saw how the media relayed the information in such a way that it aroused strong emotions. Moreover, when I watched the video of the 9/11 and how reporters were working on scene and just the pure emotion on the scree, I was actually moved and could understand how such extreme reactions could be expressed.

However, something I learned through this week's lab that is worth far more than understanding the American minds at the times of crisis, was realizing the power of the media and how it had the strength to move an entire nation. Of course, the events themselves were atrocious, but without the media publicly denouncing these acts, it may have been possible that American wouldn't have gone as far as it have. This can be related to our class discussion of realism, where we saw that public image as a means to gain security was part of realist ideology, and big part of promoting a good image is through the power of media.

It just seemed interesting to me that the media had so much force in today's society and has the power to gain security as well as motivate entire country, and also the fact that it has already been interpreted as a "weapon" of a sort for realists.

September 11th Reflection Week 3

Looking back on our visit to the Newseum this week, I was overwhelmed with emotion that I never thought possible from the presentations of the museums exhibit’s. I had visited this museum before, and while I was always impressed with the information displayed, this visit with the anniversary of September 11th especially impacted me in a different. The September 11th video had a very good perspective on the media’s role and impact on the coverage of the events of that day. In fact, our generation of college students today are very unique in that we had the ability to see the events of September 11th in a very different perspective. Even though we were young many of us could not comprehend the event of terrorism. We only knew that some terrible disaster had stuck our country and our nation would forever be impacted.

Going back to the year of 2001, our country was a very different place emotionally, physically, and mentally. The video shown at the Newseum about the September 11th attacks caused me to react as many Americans did at that time with a sense of determination and loyalty to America. Their was an emergency to prevent such attacks from ever occurring again. In our class discussions we talked about Nationalism and how such a powerful emotion like Nationalism can alter a country’s behavior. Even by reading How Soccer Explains the World is an example of how a soccer match can show the pride, loyalty, and patriotism the fans displayed toward their country’s team. Thus, I was surprised to see the reactions of many Americans this anniversary of 9/11.

At the end of 2001 it was hard not to drive down a street without seeing an American flag in a front yard or a sticker on a car window. Now wearing anything red, white, and blue on the anniversary makes someone stand out amongst a crowd of people. While this is not necessarily a bad quality, studying the behavior of Americans on this holiday is interesting regarding particularly their perspectives and how they could change so quickly. Over the weekend I visited a local coffee shop and felt an odd look coming from the employee behind the counter as I was wearing my American flag scarf. Then just as I was about to leave, she spoke to me about how amazed she was that so many people “forgot” to wear anything resembling national pride as compared to what how they reacted a few years ago. When I looked up at her I noticed that she herself was wearing an American flag pin on her apron. We both talked for a short while about the changes in our country’s perception of this holiday. Without a doubt the conflicts of the War in Iraq have been a constant struggle (especially in the last five years) and thus have played a significant role in altering our country’s feeling of nationalism. Coming from the younger generation I have found it very interesting to observe the different spirit of patriotism our country has taken the past years in regard to any holiday of remembrance for America.

Nonetheless the beauty of our country is not the fact that a person needs to feel obligated to have an American flag above their doorway or a flag pin for remembrance on a holiday or any day for that matter. The beauty is simply in the fact that Americans are blessed with ability to be as patriotic or nationalistic as we so chose. I do think it is important for Americans to remember to take note of this holiday and to reflect why we are fortunate to have the opportunities and privileges we do.

Newseum and Katrina--A Gulf Coast Point of View--Reflection Week #3

It’s hard to believe we have made it through our third week of classes. It has certainly been an exhilarating adventure.

Seeing the Newseum proved to be one of the most enhancing things I have done since I arrived in DC a month ago. I had been previously; however, on a private tour before it was actually opened. Prior to our visit, I was a bit apprehensive. My prior visit was not as spectacular. The Newseum hadn’t been completed yet and I vaguely remember being unimpressed. However, I must say that my mind was changed completely. Each exhibit had been planned and executed so beautifully that I felt like I was physically there for all of it.

One exhibit in particular resonated deeply with me. Exiting the glass elevator on the sixth floor resembled stepping back in time. Immediately I was home on September 1, 2005. The Gulf Coast still hasn’t been the same after the landfall of Katrina. The Newseum adequately expressed that. An often-unknown story is that of the reporters (many of whom became famous recovering the aftermath of Katrina). Anderson Cooper dedicated the rest of 2005 to covering the recovery of New Orleans. One of the most significant things that I heard Robin Roberts say about Katrina was that it was not a storm that hit New Orleans. Mississippi and Alabama bore the brunt of the storm. People only focus on New Orleans because the aftermath of the storm and poor engineering around the city were the devastating factors. What hit home with me was the fact that I lived through the aftermath of the storm. Granted, I was not in New Orleans or the Eastern Gulf Coast, but Houston felt the reverberations of the aftermath. Two weeks after we began our eighth grade year, Katrina hit. Hoards of people swarmed west along I-10 seeking sanctuary in Houston. To this day tens of thousands of residents of New Orleans, Mississippi and Alabama, who found refuge in Houston, have assimilated to become a part of Houston. Considering our reading this week, I saw a quote from The Prince that I found relevant to the situation of that summer of 2005.

“People are by nature inconstant. It is easy to persuade them of something, but it is difficult to stop them from changing their minds.” (20). While this may refer to political action needed to assimilate people into a prince’s society, I see it as an applicable theory to the way fellow Gulf Coast residents assimilated into Houston’s culture. Residents of New Orleans and the affected regions had to convince themselves that they were also a part of us. One of the best gifts Katrina gave Houston was also the insertion of culture given with the surge of refugees. Houston and its residents became a part of something bigger that summer. We all united with the Gulf Coast to help our neighbors. Refugees from Katrina were convinced that they were now a part of Houston, but they also couldn’t change their mind on being a part of the Gulf Coast. That is where Houston had to change its mind. Not only was it the fourth largest metropolitan area, but also it was a part of a culture, a lifestyle, and home to tens of thousands of new residents. Of those tens of thousands, each and every one was considered a part of Houston.

Reflection week 3

For this week’s lab, I was able to experience the Newseum. I saw three exhibits there, Hurricane Katrina, September 11th, and the Pulitzer Prize winning photography. I was really moved by all three exhibits, and seeing everything that had happened in the form of pictures and video made it all the more poignant. The really incredible thing that I noticed was how the media really shapes the world. For example, in the hurricane Katrina exhibit, there was a whole section of newspaper headlines and front pages showing the progression of the storm and the subsequent disaster. The reporters and staff worked tirelessly and in dangerous situations in order to publish their paper on time. Without the attention brought to Katrina victims by the media, who knows how long it would have taken help to arrive? One instance I found particularly relevant is when the mayor of New Orleans claimed he was unaware of the chaos and thousands of people at the Superdome, and the reporter interviewing countered that the footage of the Superdome had been streaming on national television, so how could the news company have better Intel than the mayor of the city.

The Pulitzer Prize winning photographs on display were striking, and it was interesting to note just how many of the pictures on the walls dealt with war, famine, death, or sadness. Some of the pictures taken captured important events on camera, and others exposed something occurring the world needed to see. One picture was of Vietnamese children fleeing their village after a napalm attack. (http://pulitzerprize.org/photography/kim-phuc/) thinking about this picture, I wondered how many people had no idea what was happening during the Vietnam War until they saw the pictures and video of it. I remember learning about how the media really became vital in showing Americans the atrocities occurring in Vietnam, and raising opposition to the war itself.
 
In the September 11th exhibit; the photographs they had on display were really striking. They captured the dust and debris, and it was difficult to look at some of the images. The fact that these pictures would forever be evidence of the tragedy—something that could never be erased with time made me realize just how important the media is to both society and world politics today.

We’ve talked quite a bit in World Politics about a country's image. The media is really the primary force that shapes this image. Machiavelli advises rulers to personify only the characteristics you want your people to see, but today, that counsel is outdated. There is so much media coverage of every little thing that politicians have an extremely difficult time hiding their true nature. Despite the aggressive nature of reporters and the media, and the negative reputation they sometimes accrue, I believe, especially after this week’s lab, that they are essential to our lives today, our accumulated knowledge base, and the formation of our political and moral opinions.

Machiavelli Response

To many, “fortune” is a result of of God's will, and there is no outside force that could change the predestined outcome.In this belief, precautionary measures or prudence is ineffective with fortune and God, and people are helpless while waiting for their own fortune to come their way. Machiavelli in his novel The Prince does not adhere to this belief of fortune created by God’s will completely, but he attributes fortune partly to human actions (as it occurs in their response to conflict areas such as war), to something human beings have control over where prudence can minimize the damages which fortune dictates. Another important aspect of dealing with fortune is people have to take the initiative to be forceful and aggressive, as chance usually favors the bold.

I agree with the notion Machiavelli makes in his arguments regarding the importance for princes(or rulers today) to consider that circumstances will change over time, and government leaders must be prepared to overcome adversity when it arrives. "Prince who bases himself entirely on fortune is ruined when fortune changes, he is happy whose mode of procedure accords with the needs of the time, and similarly he is unfortunate whose mode of procedure is opposed to the times." In chapter 25, Machiavelli is making the statement that to be successful princes must change themselves to be in sync with the current time. In today’s society this corresponds to representatives in our legislature representing the interests of the people. Leaders should be hesitant towards developing their own agenda independently before referring to the current problems of society the economy, healthcare, or unemployment to better address the changing times. In the 2008 election, the economic crisis grew in intensity and thus as a result the focus on the Iraq war took a step back. In response both presidential candidates had to alter their campaigns to better fit the changing issues of society.

Further in the chapter, Machiavelli advises the princes, simply go straight to whatever problem that arises and seize it. This is a very bold statement when compared to the other qualities Machiavelli had mentioned in previous chapters. At the beginning of the novel of the princes were advised to focus on the peoples’ interest and to better society through free will.

Exercising precautionary tactics and resistance of action in times of war is usually deemed necessary and leaders should be quick and decisive; however, they also should have the consent from other leaders and understand society’s interest before they act impetuously.

Machiavelli’s argument continues when he compares fortune to women as he says “I do think, however, that it is better to be headstrong than cautious, for fortune is a lady. It is necessary, if you want to master her, to beat and strike her. And one sees she more often submits to those who act boldly than to those who proceed in a calculating fashion”. (Machiavelli, pp. 76) Machiavelli is implying that women admire men who are ready to take control and who know exactly what they want. Despite Machiavelli’s poor representation of women, from the standpoint of a ruler the decisions one makes acted out aggressively and rashly, while perhaps somewhat efficient, could place the state on the edge of destruction and fail if not done properly.

In closing, the whole concept Machiavelli presented to the readers is the question of competency of human beings and our leaders to deal with the struggles of this world. I agree with Machiavelli that it is important to take the initiative in political life and political struggling to remedy a conflict. The need for leaders to adapt to the changing times is vital to properly address society’s needs. However, I disagree in his opinion of immediate and quick action without a clear consent of others as the remedy to deal with political struggles. Fortune both good and bad does a play a part in the majority of issues faced in the world, but our elected officials, with the joint consensus of others, can work within our Democracy and struggle today for the betterment of our Nation and its citizens.

Machiavelli's advice

One continuous theme that appears throughout The Prince is the emphasis on a ruler's virtu. Machiavelli mentions on page 75 that " She [Fortune] demonstrates her power where precautions have not been take to resist her..." and believes that fortune can be resisted through precautionary measures that rely on one's virtu, or strength. Furthermore, he makes a statement with a similar theme on page 18, which is "Nevertheless, he who relies least on luck has the best prospect of success." Moreover, a quote that goes along the line of saying that fortune favors the bold also appears on page 19, where it says "Without the first opportunity their strength [virtu] of purpose would never have been revealed. Without their strength of purpose, the opportunity they were offered would not have amounted to anything." This quote, and the theme that appears throughout the text clearly shows that fortune favors the bold, for it gives the wielder of strength, who will likely have boldness as one of their strong traits, a chance to realize his strength, but it is less likely that men with not so much virtu will be offered much chance.

Moreover, his idea that fortune favors the bold appears in various other parts of the text, such as on page 30, where he advises rulers to commit all the crimes he deems necessary at once, which reflects his idea that initiatives must be taken to consolidate his power rather than wait for opportunities. Another place is on page 53, where Machiavelli emphasizes the justification of using cruelty, which once again would not be an act a ruler would do if he didn't seize the initiative. It seems that his advice throughout the book carries the same theme and message as his last advice, which is that fortune favors the bold. However, is the advice itself a good one, apart from being coherent with his other messages?

The answer, in my opinion, seems to be a mixed one. In my view, struggle for power in political life is basically like a card game. One may take the initiative and seize the opportunity; he will attack his opponent vigorously and relentlessly when he sees a weakness in his opposition. Therefore, seizing the opportunity when it arises is vital in the world of political struggle, because if you can't catch that bus on the road to success, then you don't know when the next one will come. However, it is also important to be patient so that an opportunity arises where one can take initiative, and it would be suicidal to attempt to seize the opportunity when there is none. One famous historical example would be the Watergate scandal. Had the democrats allowed Nixon to get away with the sham, then they would have basically forfeited the chance to come out a victor; however, the democrats capitalized in Nixon's blunders and completely crushed him, shifting the balance of power. Another example would be when a politician makes a totally irrelevant remark, which is then used by opposing politicians to attack him. Without taking advantage of these opportunities that arise, one would not be able to rise to power in the political arena, where everyone is trying to do the same thing; seize the initiative and capitalize the opportunity.

Break Free-Reflection #2

Unfortunately this has been a slow week for me. Recovering from bronchitis made participating in the outing to the DC United game impossible. However, I did enjoy watching Bend It Like Beckham, applying it to our study of How Soccer Explains the World. Considering the radical hooligans of football as explained by Foer, Bend It Like Beckham gives a lighter, more humorous approach to English football. Through the movie, it became clear that Foer adequately explained the cultural divides football manages to transcend.

Looking at the Bahmra family, we see a microcosm for globalization. The elders long for their children to retain their culture, while the children explore the world around them and adapt to an English way of life. Yes, they speak the language of their parents and understand the basis of their Indian culture. They are also homogenous with their English counterparts. Jess grows up playing football as much as she can, but eventually her parents put an end to it in favor of her learning how to be a proper Punjabi. However, once someone tastes their passion and acknowledges their gift they never want to stop. This conflict encourages Jess to continue her passion and deceive her parents.

As the world becomes a more intermingled place, we will begin to experience the cultures of one another. I think that Jess only wanted to be more of an Anglophile. She saw football as a way to blend in with the world around her, it was also her passion and something she had been blessed to be gifted with. She saw the world as coming together. Traditional gender roles, as defined by her Punjabi culture were dissolving into the pages of history and she intended to be at the forefront of new wave of independent thinking and living for women around the world.

This was not the first time I had seen Bend It Like Beckham. After seeing it again, it was interesting to recognize how this movie could be used as a metaphor for globalization. I consider the film to be one of the most progressive forms of filmmaking in the modern time. Directed by an Indian woman, Bend It Like Beckham, reaches into the depths of Indian culture and spits out a beautiful story about learning to be an individual in a world that encouraged everyone to fit into the same form. As our weeks turn into months here at American, I hope to break out of the form and be my own person, just like Jess[minder] Bahmra (minus the football kit and boots).

Reflection Week 2 - Machiavelli

It was really interesting to read "The Prince" which I have always heard about as being one of the most influential text among the books that discuss issues of politic and power. Before I read this book, I have already heard about this book through my high school teacher, who summarized it in one sentence what Machiavelli was trying to say, which is "power must lie dominantly in the hands of the ruler." Until I read "The Prince" on my own, I accepted his summary as what the book was about, but interestingly enough, when I finished reading, I realized that this book, written about 500 years ago, is not about dictatorial rule or absolute power, but a book about democracy.

Just taken at the face value, Machiavelli outlines his advice for ruling a principality, which in Italy's case is in the form of city state most of the time. There are 4 things that I want to mention in his passage. Firstly, he emphasizes virtu, which is the leader's strength, as the most important trait of a leader, which is reflected when he says in page 35 "... a ruler who is strong and bold will always be able to overcome such difficulties." Secondly, we can see how he places importance in achieving stability and peace, as it was mentioned during our debate on Thursday, as well as on page 51 where Machiavelli states" so a ruler ought not to mind the disgrace of being called cruel, if he keeps his subjects peaceful and law-abiding." Thirdly, he believes that rulers had to pick between being feared and loved, they should choose fear, which is reflected on page 51, "I maintain it is much safer to be feared than loved." Lastly, and most importantly, he places emphasis on having the people's support whether you are a dictator or a citizen-leader.

Although our debate team agreed that Machiavelli's statements were time-bound and limited to that era, I believe there are some fundamental aspects, which includes the four mentioned above, that are not the case. Moreover, I agree with Professor Jackson's comment that what Machiavelli was saying is that everything is contextual - everything changes according to the environment, but interesting enough, the four aspects mentioned above do not fall in to this category.

The emphasis on the skills of the leader is still important in today's politics; a leader who doesn't have the ability to pull together his cabinet and exercise the executive's power (of course, this is assuming a democratic regime, but it may apply to any other regimes) will more likely swayed by the public opinion and international pressures, thus resulting in the loss of some degree of autonomy. The weakness of a leader is not likely lead to the destruction of that country, but it definitely will have an impact on the country as a whole. For example, we could talk about the current Iraqi government, which lacks power and authority because of the weak executive power, which we may equate with the term "prince" or "ruler."

Secondly, achieving stability and peace is a major goal of any government and any ruler. Obviously, Machiavelli takes it too far, in my opinion, so as to state that any means is necessary only if you could achieve stability, but his main point, that the ruler should bring about stability, applies to current new and old regimes, as it applied to city states back then.

Thirdly, rulers choosing between being feared and loved. Let's define ruler in Machiavelli's term to mean the government in the modern society. I think that the fear Machiavelli is talking about is different from fear of the ruler in the modern sense, but I believe they are basically the same concept. Today, we don't have to be afraid that the president is just going to pick random people to execute as to promote fear, but the presence of law, severe penalties, and the simple fear that the government can basically try to carry out methods that will alter our ways of lives fall in the category of fear. It is not blatant, but the fear of the ruler = government is still there, and without the fear of government, we are more likely to fall into anarchy, which is a little bit away from peace and stability that Machiavelli promotes.

Lastly, Machiavelli continues to mention throughout his book the need for "support of the people." This is interesting in that he advocates absolute power, and power centralized in one ruler, yet he emphasizes the population. Whether it is a tyrant or a republican type of government chosen by the people, without the support of the people that regime is likely to fall, which is very similar to the idea of democracy. Of course, it is not the same; in Machiavelli's sense, ordinary population do not take direct part in politics, but by emphasizing the point that rulers, whoever they maybe, need the people's support is similar to the basic idea of democracy, which is that power lies in the hands of the people.

I really enjoyed reading Machiavelli, and although these four points mentioned above are my thoughts on reading this book, I believe there are plenty of room for criticism and I more than welcome any criticism that can persuade me otherwise on those points. Moreover, after having read Machiavelli, I am inspired to take a look at the political books from back then, which are famous in scholarly circles, such as Thomas Hobbes' "The Leviathan" and Rousseau's Social Contract.