Reflection on week 5

The visit to the state department was a grand opportunity to expand our knowledge of the United States and its foreign policy. What I found strange was that the US did not recognizing the Sri Lankan region under control of the Tamil Tigers (or LTTE). Even though they are listed as a terrorist organization, the US dismisses the fact that the LTTE were fighting for the soveriegnty of the Tamil people whom lived under oppression by the Hindu and Bhuddist population. Their refusal also contradicts the fact that the US and Western Europe supported the independence of Kosovo, a small province that was part of Serbia but had a sizeable Albanian population. If those people are allowed autonomy then why are the Tamil people and even the break away regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia refused that same oppurtunity?

On the subject of the Alien visitors, I was split on the idea ofregarding the visitors based upon identity. Should the visitors appear wearing armor, weapons and carrying flags or if they look like fierce beasts, we automatically assume they are a threat as they probably are. However, they cannot be easily deemed a threat based upon appearance. When the Zheng He treasure fleet sailed from China to numerous ports around the Middle East and Africa, the natives were frightened when they saw this sizeable navy ranging from small scout ships to treasure ships at the same length as the Shipliner Titanic, which carried army soldiers, cannons, and crossbowmen. What they didn't know is that the treasure fleet needed arm itself in order to defend itself from pirates particularly from the Indonesia. How ever we react to these visitors, we should wait and seee what they want rather than shoot them at approach.

State Dept, Aliens, and Constructivism, OH MY!

I kinda wish we had discussed our visit to the department of state in class or at some point, so I’ll share with you what I thought briefly. I must admit that I didn’t know a lot about what the department of state did before we went, so in this way it was an informative and enlightening experience. It’s pretty cool that we have such a huge and impressive network of people from our nation that deal with diplomacy. Without them, our country probably would not hold such great power because our extensive international relations give us indisputable authority in the world community. However, when Gregg Sullivan was discussing some of what he does for his job I found myself debating the ethics of his role. Did any of you? I have a problem with people pushing their ideas and beliefs on others, regardless if the other people mind or not. It struck me that some of his techniques used were similar to propaganda… his entire job is to get people to like the United States by forcing ourselves on them. Why can’t we just let them form their own opinions? If they don’t like us then there is probably a reason behind that that we should address before we force all of our programs and education on them. I do believe that it’s important for us to help other countries through education and various programs, but there is a fine line that we need to be careful not to cross. I firmly believe we shouldn’t be pushing ourselves on others, but simply focusing on helping only when help is asked for.


Moving on, class on Friday was pretty all over the place… aliens here, aliens there. One thing that PTJ asked but I never had a chance to respond to was whether or not we could actually take our analysis of aliens landing on the white house lawn and apply it to real world politics. I am going to be bold by saying that we cannot. Although it was an interesting situation and some parts of our responses are applicable, discussing aliens completely alienates this situation from reality. It comes down to the fact that we have no previous history with aliens to gauge how we would interact while we will have substantial history with any hypothetical human attacker/invader/peace-comer (whichever way you want to think about it) that would influence our response. Therefore in real world politics, we would have this history to rely on. Along these same lines, we can identify more easily with other humans and identity plays a huge role in interaction, according to constructivists. We would react differently to humans than to extraterrestrial beings… bottom line. It’s interesting to relate aliens landing on the white house lawn to a human invasion, but in reality there are so many differences between the two because of identity and lack of previous relations that the response from our government would be fundamentally dissimilar. So, it’s hard to say that our analysis of an alien landing could actually be compared to world politics.


My opinion on constructivism as a whole is positive… I think it’s a great way to view world politics. I’m not so convinced how realistic it is, though, since there are so many important points that it doesn’t address. But putting that aside, I’m really into social psychology and I think that if you bring it down to that level of interpretation you can pretty much explain everything and anything… ever! There’s so much gray in constructivism, so much up for interpretation and creative analysis unlike the black and white of realism and, in some ways, liberalism too.

Reflection Week 5

I found this Wednesday’s visit to the State Department very fascinating . As with anytime one enters a US government building, there was a lot of security to go through. I think that this is a good idea because our government has to regulate who goes in and out of these buildings. Once we got into the conference room where we were meeting the two officers, from the Bureau of South Asian Affairs. So each of the two officers talked about their jobs of which a big part seemed to be dealing with the press. They pretty much managed the press for the region as well as working with the press of the specific countries in that region. One of the two officers, talked about some of the student programs at the State Department. They talked about numerous internship opportunities, while here at AU, I hope that I can land some kind of internship there. One of the programs was the Pickering Fellowship, which involves working overseas as well as in Washington with the department. The area that interests me is that if East Asia and the pacific, so that where I’d try to go to. When we were able to ask questions, some people asked policy related questions which the officer answered. I’m not very well informed about the problems or US policy in southern Asia, so I was very interested to hear the officer talk about policy in that area. Also it was interesting to hear his opinion of some of the political situations in that area. While the talk was fascinating, I wish that the officers had talked more about the Foreign Service. If I go into government service, I would probably go into the State Department, and I’m most interested in the Foreign Service, because I particularly would like to be in an embassy. I’m really interested in working in this because working in an embassy would immerse me in that culture and as I rose through the ranks start to help shape US policy in that country.


I also want to comment on Luke’s running of class on Friday. I thought that he did a very good job. Being in control of the class, he was great at generating topics that stimulated everybody to have a good and thoughtful discussion. I personally hope we don’t do that every time, but I do think that once in a while it’s a good was to get someone else’s perspective on the issues.

Close encounters of a strange kind

It would be nice to learn that there is intelligent life out there but we should be hesitant about them making an appearance on the front lawn. Of course when we see UFOs land, we have a variety of reactions. Do we welcome these new people or do we organize a military confrontation? All these can be answered based on three things: What is the appearance of the ship and the visitors, why are they here and what do we get out of this?

By appearance of their vessel, I'm referring to what we see when we first view the ships. If they are these lumbering giant war machines as seen in Independence Day and War of the Worlds (not the Tom Cruise one) we have a tendency to attack but if the ship is small or looks unarmed we're more friendly to it. This is based not only on the fears of UFO invasions in popular culture but how we view nations and their armies in particular how the Europeans of the mid-1800s saw the Russians as a threat due to their size and ambitious claims. On identity of the visitors, I refer to how the visitors look. If they look fierce, have weapons or wear some brand of heavy armor (like the Alien and Predator), we panic thinking we're about to be killed. If small or human sized and carry human-like facial appearances we act friendlier as we see this visitor as one of our own kind.

Now the purpose of their arrival is another issue. Seeing as how the earth is isolated by other uninhabited words, we believe the likelihood of them discovering us is small. If they do find us and land then we should ask if this was just reconnaissance (scouting out the map) or there is another reason. They may have a particular interest in a resource we have on earth to which we respond positively unless that resource is limited like oil or if the object they need is humans (if that's the reason then we panic and attack). One particularly less reason for them being here is if they need to use Earth as a base. This poses a danger for we do not know if there's some other insidious reason for this or if this is to protect them from another alien race. If the latter is the reason, we tend to refuse the offer and maintain neutrality for numerous reasons like for one, we have no spaceships for defense and our current army is relying on outdated weaponry.

Finally we tend to concern what the outcome of this meeting produces. If this creates a new era of prosperity should the aliens give us parts of their technology, we openly welcome them and opt for an outreach to interplanetary civilization (kind of like Stargate). If the aliens act as a threat we either chooses to sign a peace agreement with them or we fight them. Overall this scenario is used as an example of how new nations who just discover each others existance react to one another.

IDENTITY!

Since I don’t usually consider the happenings of aliens and I am not a science fiction follower, this question caught me off guard. However, I know that PTJ is never one to be completely and utterly random even though it may seem so. This question is all about constructivism I believe…. and it’s a fascinating question!

First and foremost, what is an alien? We have no idea! We all identify an alien in our minds without having a clue what these could be…some of us may come up with an oddly shaped green figure with antennas who speaks in a robotic tone while others may imagine an alien to be grayish-brown creature with bugged out eyes and a long neck bicycling through the air into outer space. The only identity that an alien has is what humans create in our minds since we don’t know if any aliens actually exist or what they would look like if they do.

Another way this question pertains to constructivism is it gives us roles as humans versus the role of aliens. We create our own identity to oppose that of fictional creatures. Because we are humans, they are aliens. Therefore because we are humans, we should respond to aliens as “others” that could either be threatening or non-threatening to our security. Just as constructivists believe, self-other relationships are key to how we deal with situations.

The question is funny at first but when you start to think about it, it becomes very challenging. What in the world would actually happen?!?! It’s difficult to think about because it messes with our idea of identity as people. Why would aliens freak us out if we didn’t have them identified as the “others” in our constructivist self-identified minds? Because that is what would happen… everyone would freak out, that is if we were still alive. We have no written out plan of what to do or branch of government or department that deals with aliens, at least not that I know of. According to Alex Wendt, there would be many determining factors that would go into the U.S. response to aliens. First of all, would this be considered a passive arrival of aliens or a threatening attack? That depends on “social acts” like signaling, interpreting, and responding from both parties, which in this case are humans versus aliens. The first “social act” will pretty much predict how the rest of the freak out response will go down. Interactions to follow will create something Wendt calls “reciprocal typifications” in which the ideas that humans and aliens have about each other will reward and discourage both parties from certain ideas. Wendt argues that everything humans would do in an alien invasion is based on our identities and interests that are always in process and will be affected by different signals.

I tend to agree, but I like my terminology better: we would freak out. It would most likely consist of a rush for military forces and any person with a weapon of sorts would prepare for invasion. The government would first ensure the safety of the nation before attempting to communicate with the aliens. I like to think that the aliens would be pleasant, so the government would then continue to have peaceful interactions with these foreign creatures with whom we have a lot to learn from. However, this is much too idealistic of me (surprise surprise). It would probably be a bloodbath with super-technological weapons firing back and forth…eventually the world would come to an end. There I said it, happy?


Overall, I think the most interesting part of this week's blog is not the answer that we formulate but the way that people respond to idea of the question as individuals (oh how I love psychology and sociology!!!). The identity crisis that people would experience even in contemplating what would happen in an alien landing goes to prove that constructivism has a good point! Who are they? And then who are we?

If aliens landed on the White House lawn?

What would the US government do if aliens landed on the lawn of the white house?

Well, if aliens landed on the lawn of the White House that would be a new problem for the US government. First off, what the government did would depend on whether or not the aliens had hostile intentions. The first course of action should be to determine that, before any additional action was taken. If the aliens were here to blow up different parts of the United States, the government would react very differently than if they were here on a “diplomatic” mission. If the hostile intentions played out, I hope that the government would take a two step process. First off, I hope that our government would try to communicate diplomatically with the aliens in every way possible. Some compromise should be worked out with them if at all possible. If the aliens were acting aggressively, and were still acting hostile, I think that the US government would bring in the military. I believe this because that the US government is very concerned with security. So those two steps are what I hope would happen but with the current way that the US responds to the unknown threats I’m afraid that that differs with the real course of what the government would take. I think that in actuality if the aliens displayed any hostile intentions, the US government would straight away bring in the heavy artillery. I think that the government would bring in all branches of the military. I believe that they would do this because the government would feel that if there was a direct threat to the American people they would feel that there was no time for diplomacy, just time for action. This seems like it would be a very Realist response, if there was a security threat, that’s the first priority to deal with.

But let’s say that when the aliens landed they showed that they weren’t hostile and were interested in “diplomatic” activities such as intercultural communication and exchange. I think and hope that the government would have a completely different response. I hope that in this case the government would embrace this new cultural potential. This could be such a rich opportunity to exchange ideas and expand communications and learn about advanced technologies and discover that we are not alone in the universe. I’d like to think our government could see this as an earth-altering, life-altering event as a way to expand our cultural identity and not get bogged down in fear (which would spark the military response) and the politics of deciding what to do. I think they would send diplomatic emissaries to meet with the aliens and determine what they want and what the two species can do for or give to each other.

Well obviously aliens haven’t landed on US soil so there’s no real way to know what would happen and what the US government response would be. The US has fought wars with foreign troops on our own soil, such as during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. But in both of those instances, the foreign government representative, the military, showed clear intentions of what they were after, war. So there was no decision to make on what our response should be. So, with an unknown, totally alien group that just lands on the White House lawn with no previous communications, I hope that the US government would either defend the American people if needed, or start diplomatic relations with the aliens.

Idealism and Patriotism

Ok, wow, lots to reflect on for this week. I guess the main thing is my stance on idealism because I feel like it was delivered some tough blows in class, particularly on Tuesday. Andrew brought up the example of guns and how when someone is pointing a gun to your head, god forbid, you will lose your idealistic beliefs. First and foremost, that is irrelevant. Idealism isn’t about the “now” if you know what I mean… it’s about the future or long-term. It acknowledges obvious human nature like protection from danger so, yes, I would probably fight back against an attacker because it is in my self-interest to do so. Rather, idealism is a belief that things can be better. According to Dictionary.com, idealism is “the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc.” Everyone has their own set of beliefs and even though a person pointing a gun to your head would be traumatic, most people don’t lose your beliefs because of it. I’m sure no one would propose that cynics or religious people would lose their beliefs from an attack at gunpoint and idealists should be regarded the same way.

Sorry if I’m going into way too much depth about this, it just really bothered me that idealism got so much hate on Tuesday. It’s a way of life for me, but that is not to say I’m never realistic. I just think it’s wayyyyy more productive to think about positive change and constructively consider how to make the world a better place. There’s no point in dwelling on the past or accepting that nothing will change from its current state. I talked about this more in my other blog so you can go read more there. That’s my defense of idealism for the night though. By the way, I think it’s funny that liberalism and idealisism are nearly interchangeable terms in our class discussions ☺

The other thing that I never got to defend myself about is the fact that I said something seemingly “realist” on Friday and was caught red-handed by PTJ. Although I am open-minded and accepting of many aspects of realism, I think I was misunderstood. I believe the conversation was about interaction between the government and the people. I may have implied that the government knows what is best for us more than we do but I meant to say this in a way to show that the government is there to serve the people’s best interest. It is there to satisfy the needs of the people above any other duty. I didn’t intend to give the government the enormous power that realists believe it deserves. As long as the people are happy and content, the government is doing its job. It’s unrealistic that the people should know everything about its government because that is why we elect the officials, so that we don’t have to deal with all the nitty gritty stuff. On the surface, my comment on accepting governmental control on some matters may seem on par with realism, but that’s only because that best serves the people’s interest. In the end it is the people who are controlling the government and I think that brings my opinions back to the liberal side of the spectrum.

Hmm what else to reflect on? Oh yeah, we went to a National’s baseball game! I love sports, not so much because of the competition but because of the experience. It’s a social thing. I was impressed that the Nats recognized that the social aspect of attending the baseball game was their main selling point. And boy did they exploit it! The family atmosphere was overwhelming and somewhat artificial, but at the same time I would have loved to be a kid at the Nats stadium. It was bursting with national pride, which at the time really annoyed me, but what can I expect? I’m in DC and I am an Eagle attending American University that proudly wears the patriotic red, white, and blue. Coming from Vermont, this is a bit nauseating. Not to say that we’re not all about the USA, but you just don’t find the same vibe when you’re living in the Green Mountain State. I guess it bothered me most that patriotism was so commercial at the Nats game. It was something to be bought… Something to be shoved in your face. Maybe that satisfies some people’s need for patriotism, but it was too insincere for me. I want to be proud of what my country stands for, what it does for its people, and what it does internationally, not proud of the colors that appear on our flag. Anyways, I thought the anticipation before the game was the most exciting part of the experience but overall I had a fun time!

Reflection on Liberal/realist debate

The perspectives of realism and liberalism appear to be more diverse than we can imagine. Realism (concerns the security and military of the state) and Liberalism (concerns the rights of the individual and masses) vary from each nation due to their political history. Liberalism in Europe carried the same ideals of the rights of the individual as stated in the US constitution but the different working classes, which were affected by the dramatic changes brought on by the Industrial revolution, created multiple reactions and movements. However, I found that in times of war, the people sacrifice their individual rights and adopt a realist perspective for the safety of their nation.
This is evident in all European history but I found that it varies in the US. Ever since the Vietnam war, United States civilians adopt a new structure of beliefs on deciding if war is legitimate, which came down to three questions: Where we attacked first, by whom, and where did it occur? These questions have to be supported by proof otherwise the civilians will be reluctant to go to war. Pearl Harbor and the September 11th attacks are considered examples of legitimate acts of war for unlike the Roman empire that strikes before trouble occurs, we tend to attack only if we are attacked first. After those events, we pledged our faith in the government for we were scared of being attacked again. However the responses to these events differed in a way. When Pearl Harbor occurred we were set to attack two major military giants (and Italy) so we contributed everything to win. 9/11 was perpetrated by a group that is able to move their headquarters from nation to nation but is easier to fight with than the Axis powers. The public reaction was different for the effects of George Orwell's 1984, convinced them not to surrender all their rights for war effort. Indeed, the effects of that novel created a new perspective on the operations of the State that the baby Boom generation hasn't understood but which the post-Soviet generation (1989- current) could.

Tony Blair and Jon Stewart!

Who says that The Daily Show can't be a great source of information? I specifically remember PTJ saying that our news sources shouldn't be from The Daily Show, butttt I think on this occasion the show is totally applicable to what we're doing in class so I think he's make an exception. If you have 21 minutes to watch this, I suggest you do, not only because Jon Stewart is amazing and I'm completely obsessed with him, but because Tony Blair (former British Prime Minister to those of us who don't know about him) explains some of his foreign policies. He doesn't explicitly mention liberalism, but he does discuss how two democratic states will not fight each other (this is around he 8:00 minute mark) and he later discusses how there are other strategies to stop terrorism besides using military forces. Definitely sounds like he's a liberal!

Here's the link:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=185182

If that doesn't work then you can just go to www.thedailyshow.com and on the right side of the page has full episodes, this show was aired on 9/18. Unfortunately I didn't watch the show last night in time to talk about this for class, but it's pretty cool to see the stuff we're debating about in class discussed by a real powerful leader... or ex-leader I guess. Let me know what you guys think if you have time to watch it! Jon also has some funny stuff on Sarah Palin before the interview that some of you might enjoy.

The United Nations of Liberals

Question: Is the UN a realist or liberal organization?

I am no expert on the United Nations in any sort of historical way, but I do know a bit about its rudimentary purposes. Without going into deep analysis of the UN’s history, I am confident in saying that it was founded with a liberal agenda. Thus, I looked into the UN charter. Here it is:

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

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

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

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

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

Now there are chapters and chapters to elaborate more on these basic principles but I think this preamble is all the evidence I need to prove that the UN was founded as a purely liberal organization. The first point about war is completely anti-realism. Realists are all for using war as a tool to better your country while liberalism is largely against war. It recognizes that war is more detrimental both economically and socially since people won’t support a long-term war in a liberal society because it just means more death of fellow countrymen. This first point alone allows one to argue that the UN couldn’t possibly be founded as a realist organization since it is completely against war.

The UN, whether or not they actually accomplish their goals, are driven to achieve equal human rights. Liberalism is also founded on the concept of humanism and individual rights for everyone, not just those in power. Also, cooperation of states is emphasized in the theory of liberalism, just as it is in the UN charter. There need be an element of trust in the treaties and international law that the charter mentions; this falls under liberalism’s habit of compromise. Countries need to work together to maintain peace, unlike realism, which supports isolation from and mistrust of other countries (some maybe say paranoia).

Liberalism, just like the UN, is also established on the principle of creating the best standard of life for everyone. This is explained through the concept of absolute and relative gains. Liberals like the idea of relative gains because it means that everyone is benefiting (even if it’s not equally) and therefore countries will be able to cooperate more effectively whereas realists feel threatened by relative gains because if another country is advancing too it could, might, maybe, possibly overthrow your country.

The UN’s idea of being a good neighbor pertains directly to liberals who are all about cooperating because they think war is more harmful than beneficial. I guess what it all comes down to is that fundamental fact: the UN does not support war or use of arms unless it is absolutely necessary just as is stated in the theory of liberalism. What more can a person argue beyond this?

Well, the only perspective I have taken into account is what the UN was supposed to be, not what it actually is…. what it was supposed to do, no necessarily what has been done in its history. The idea of the UN is liberal even though there have been realist regimes bouncing in and out that may have effected the organization otherwise. On top of that, it is a liberal idea to have international institutions like the UN to maintain order and “help states achieve rational consensus” (PTJ liberalism lecture). The UN was founded on liberal ideals.
I’m eager to hear everyone else’s response… for me, mine was an obvious answer, which perhaps adds an element of doubt to my argument… like am I missing something? “Of course the UN is a liberal organization” was my initial reaction. Tell me what you think of my argument, I really want to hear from the other side!

Is the UN a liberal or realist organization?

Is the UN a liberal or realist organization?

I believe that the United Nations is a liberal organization. Liberal in this regard means that it is interested in advancing the self interests and institutions within the countries of the world as opposed to being a realist organization, which is military and security oriented. If you look at the UN’s total track record, I believe that it will show the United Nations is primarily a humanitarian organization.

The organization seems to have a lot of trouble getting things done militarily. The five primary veto wielding members of the security council, the US, France, England, China and Russia rarely agree to universally support military action. One of many examples of this lack of agreement is shown by the UN Security Council resolution for authorizing military action in Iraq. The resolution was brought by the US, UK and Spain. It was opposed by France, Russia and Germany. (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html) The statement by France, Russia and Germany explicitly states that they will not let a resolution authorizing force pass.( http://www.un.int/france/documents_anglais/030305_mae_france_irak.htm) Another example comes from the conflict with Rwanda. Even though UN peacekeepers went in, that’s exactly what their job was: to be peace keepers, not an active military force. The UN Rwandan peacekeepers’ rules of engagement, as written in 1993, were not restrictive in what measures could be taken against the rebels. The author Hikaru Yamashita writes on page 141 of his book, Humanitarian Space and International Politics that the commander of the UN Rwandan forces said, “I will morally and legally require UNAIMR (the peacekeeping force in Rwanda) to use all available means to stop them (the rebels).” The author says that this was written directly into the forces Rules of Engagement by their commander. (http://books.google.com/books?id=D6WKJHr0Kf4C&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=UNAMIR+ROE&source=web&ots=8l32sn8YeB&sig=1fnfHaS1DNxqvALCZMDsuVn2oDU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result) But the peacekeeping force didn’t seem to carry out the rules of engagement, and many people died. Then the UN peacekeepers’ headquarters in Rwanda was hit in 1994. Even though this attack didn’t cause any casualties it was decided the force would be greatly reduced in numbers. Also, because of a UN mandate at this same time, the role of the force was changed to, “act as an intermediary between the parties in an attempt to secure their agreement to a ceasefire; assist in the resumption of humanitarian relief operations to the extent feasible; and monitor developments in Rwanda, including the safety and security of civilians who sought refuge with UNAMIR,” the UN peacekeepers’ group. (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unamirFT.htm#HISTORICAL) So, these two examples seem to illustrate that the UN is not very effective militarily at the governing level. So, following the realist providing-security theory, the UN doesn’t seem to be effective.

Although the UN may not be effective militarily, it is good at providing humanitarian aid, which would seem to fit the liberal definition of an organization that provides for the people. The UN almost always provides this type of humanitarian aid after a major disaster or military conflict. A perfect example can be seen in what happened after the massive tsunami hit Southeast Asia in 2006. The UN, very soon after the scope of the disaster was known, started to provide aid. By December 28, two days after the disaster, they were already providing aid to the area, such as clean drinking water. (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12922&Cr=&Cr1=) The reason they are much more of a liberal organization than a realist is that the UN is much better at providing humanitarian aid than military aid. So by providing humanitarian aid, they are advancing the interests of a country by helping the people and making sure the country doesn’t become completely unlivable after a disaster. This is consistent with liberal theory.

Is the UN a Realist or liberal organization?

The UN has served its purpose as a world wide representation for the individual nations but it lacks any form of realism (the idea of strengthening military and security before anything else) in its function.

The UN has never served military purpose as the great powers in the UN are rarely able to agree upon the use of military strategy like when France refused to support the US invasion of Iraq. The UN's main purpose is to regulate international trade and representation based upon the decisions of the nations thus making them a liberal body. Refferring back to the UN militarily, the UN peace corps has always failed to prevent violence in Rwanda and Bosnia. In Bosnia's case, the civil war ended with NATO, a global military alliance aimed at protecting its members, commencing bombing raids on strategic Serbian military outposts. NATO saved Bosnia from disrupting into more chaos but the UN failed to protect the people particularly those massacred at Sarajevo.

The decisions of the UN also pose more liberal attributes like how they supply aid to impoverished countries and disaster zones like Indonesia after the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake. They can vote to impose economic sanctions on any country deemed as a threat to others like Iran and North Korea. However, if there was to be war, the ones most likely to protect the people are NATO and the other alliance groups. Overall, the UN directive is simple: they're keepers of the peace not soldiers.

Reflection on Class

I wanted to write this reflection because when I thought about our class discussion I changed ideas from what I said in class on Tuesday. We were asked to discuss what was the more appealing theroy to us, liberalism or realism? In class I said that liberalism was the more appealing theroy. As I thought more and more about this and heard other people bring up a discussion about a balance between the two, I said to myself wait, I think the balance sounds better then picking one theory over the other. Professor Jackson said that it’s hard to talk about liberalism because it is kind of the “air we breathe.” I agree with that because American seems to be a liberal society. But I think there needs to be a healthy mix between balancing a countries own self interests and the institutions within the state to providing security for that state. The realist point that security can be traded away is one that I completely agree with. I believe that there is a bottom “line” of items that cannot be traded . But I also agree with the liberal idea that a countries self interests and institutions in that country are important. But if we cannot defend the country where those institutions are then they might not exist anymore. So, all I’m trying to say is, lets create a balance of realist military security and liberal theroy. So, I believe that the military realists (yes I know this next part probably makes me paranoid) should always be ready to defend their country from the next and coming threat or attack. If the realists are busy defending the country, then others in the government can be working on advancing the self interests of the people and the institutions of that country which is consistant with liberal theroy .

My problem with realism...

It’s so incredibly tempting to become cynical while studying world politics and I am doing all that I can to remain idealistic here. Perhaps it is naïve, maybe even ignorant, but I have a really hard time just accepting some of Machiavelli’s theories. It would be easy to agree with him and other realists who just say, “this is how it is, there is nothing we can do to change it” but I refuse. If people don’t challenge society or the government or leaders then we have a problem. By not accepting that something just is the way it is, people can make change. Imagine if we had accepted monarchy as the best and only way to run a country… we never would have progressed toward democracy without challenging the status quo. So it’s unrealistic to squash idealism…that’s my problem with realism.

My main problem with Machiavelli’s theory that has stuck with me since I learned about him my freshman year in high school is the idea of choosing to be a feared leader rather than a loved one. Chapter Seventeen gets me going every time. Machiavelli specifically states that, “it is much safer to be feared than loved” and then continues to justify his claim with describing men as, “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain.” I wholeheartedly disagree with this chapter’s premise both from my belief system and also from evaluating my own personal experiences.

First of all, Machiavelli’s idea goes against my aforementioned idealism. The funny thing is I never even considered myself very idealistic before this class, but I truly think that there is more to people than Machiavelli gives us credit for. Sure sometimes people can have those negative characteristics that Machiavelli pointed out, but people can also be kind, caring, compassionate, and respectful. He continually ignores the positive aspects of human nature and that really disappoints me. Again, that’s why I have a hard time with realism.

When I try to apply Machiavelli’s theory to my own life I only find that fearing a leader has been ineffective. Have any of you had really really awful bosses? Well I have, she was probably the scariest person I have ever met. Like no joke, she gave me nightmares for a while. At first her fear tactic worked on me, it kept me in line and working hard. But eventually I just got so sick of her negative attitude that I rebelled against her, only in the slightest of ways, but still. On the flip side, my high school principal was the nicest guy ever. Everyone followed him because he was so cool and understanding… but he knew when to turn up the heat and be strict. He is an example of how I think a leader should be: someone to be respected but not revered, to be loved but rarely feared.


Ok lets take a moment to appreciate Emily’s rhyme…. It’s hardly a post from Rachel, but I’m still proud.


I realize that most of you will come up with a million reasons to disagree with my idealism, but I can’t crack just yet. As for other matters Machiavelli related, I think the guy was pretty smart for his time. When I was reading The Prince I was marveling at how he got all of his facts and information. Accessing history wasn’t so easy back then. Even though I disagree with his principles, I definitely see how some of his theories have translated through into modern time, specifically his ideas about arms. In Chapter 6 he writes, “all armed prophets are victorious and disarmed ones are crushed” which clearly is still the case these days. The Cold War was all focused on nuclear weapons just as the current war in Iraq originally was intended to remove another country of nuclear weapons. Most of our foreign policy has to do with the military as it did when Machiavelli was alive and theorizing. I tend to agree that this part of The Prince is still reality, whether or not I like it.

I thought it was interesting in PTJ’s podcast how he pointed out that realists don’t necessarily like the theory of realism that they so strongly believe in. That was comforting to hear because I don’t like it either yet simultaneously frustrating. How can they accept a theory that they don’t like? Why settle for inadequacy? I guess it’s a good thing that we have a variety of different theories to study because then we can create a more informed opinion, so in a way we need realism to balance out some of the other theories. Needless to say, I’m excited to learn about the other theories that hopefully will agree with me more.

Reflection #3

Does Machiavelli's wisdom carry significance to our current society?

In Machiavelli's the Prince, the author specifically wrote for the typical renaissance era aristocrat who ruled in the Italian states. During this period of history the different princes and kings were at a loss at controlling the local populace whose constant lust for wealth and power created a rebellious collection of people. However, parts of his speech like on the use of an army and the chapter on fortresses still relate to modern times.

Despite his constant references to the Roman and Greek armies, Machiavelli's stance on the use of an army can easily be referred to today. The author mentions how in the Roman army "they never postponed action in order to avoid a war for they understood that you cannot escape wars, and when put them off only your opponents benefit" (Machiavelli, 11). This act of foreign policy is still used today like the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2008 Russian intervention in South Ossetia. While this method creates international outcry, this has proven successful at protecting any threatened populace from harm like the Kurds in Iraq.

The chapter on the use of fortresses is another idea that Machiavelli uses in his belief on foriegn policy. While the use of fortresses became obsolete with the introduction of gunpowder (i.e. the Fall of Constantinople in the 1400s), their purpose is still vital in regions that seem dangerous. For example, after the invasion of Poland the French army created a large network of fortifications trenches and minefields in preparation for a German invasion known as the Maginot Line. Unfortunately, they didn't think to fortify the heavily forested region of the Ardenne so they were easily caught offguard. The practice of fortifications are still considered an necessity during confrontaions on the borders but so far very few nations have considered rebuilding these forts. Overall, Machiavelli provides brief refference to today's military use despite the technological changes that have occurred.

Territorial integrity

I agree with the fact that the security of territory is a great concern for world leaders. Throughout our entire history, we have fought for land conservation and expansionism. When Chechnya announced its secession from the Russian federation, the Kremlin were greatly concerned for this region covered most of the Caucus region and the fact that the people embraced Islamic fundamentalism which is a great danger to any nation. Looking back in history, let's review the secessionists in the US. During Andrew Jackson's administration, South Carolina was upset by a series of laws that endangered its economy so they opted for withdrawing from the Union. However, instead of sending military to crush the opposition, Jackson repealed the laws (even though he could have kept the nations from seceding in the future if he sent in the military). Since our current nations tend to focus on keeping our current borders from changing, the world leaders obviously wish to enforce the ancient ideal of the Balance of Power at the expense of increased security.

Blog Question Week of Sept 8th

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

I believe the answer to this question is yes, territorial integrity is a leader’s first concern. Territorial integrity means that the state should not encourage any separatist movements within the country. The leader of a state has many concerns to deal with such as the economy, trade, healthcare etc… but if a country doesn’t have territorial integrity then these issues that the leader should be dealing with, cannot be dealt with. The reason being is that the leader must focus on the squashing the separatist group, with the military. Sometimes when the leader tries to squash a separatist group this creates more problems for that country, such as war.

A good example of this is the recent Georgian conflict. The members of a providence in southern Georgia, South Ossetia, considered themselves Russian and wanted to break away from Georgia. The Georgian government obviously didn’t like this, so they sent troops in to South Ossetia. After this Russia, who felt like the Georgians were attacking their people, invaded Georgia. As I mentioned earlier, the Georgian government should have been dealing with this problem long before it spiraled into this war. Since Georgia dealt militarily with the problem, they ended up having to deal with a war and not dealing with some of the areas I mentioned above. As a result of not dealing with the other problems, Georgia was devastated by the Russians and it will take many years to rebuild Georgia. So again, Georgia is in a bit of a bind; now they have to focus on rebuilding and not other important issues. So, the moral seems to be if territorial integrity is dealt with as the first concern of a leader, the situation will not escalate. Once territorial integrity is being dealt with, then other issues such as the economy and trade can be dealt with. I believe that an example that shows a better way of dealing with Territorial Integrity comes from the Basque movement in Spain. I say better because even though the group still launches bombings against certain places but has not in recent history launched a full scale war, involving large units of the Spanish military. Although the current Spanish government officially denies it, there have been rumored negotiations with the group. So, probably the negotiations were a factor in defusing the situation but in March of 2006, they declared a permanent ceasefire with Spain, “a major breakthrough that could end Europe’s last armed conflicts.”(http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/23/world/fg-eta23) Since, the Spanish government focused on this threat, which was a territorial integrity threat, they were able to deal with other issues as well as being able to bring about an end to a major armed conflict.

Relection on Machiavelli class exercise on September 9th

For today’s class we had to have read Machiavelli’s book The Prince. So, when we got in to class we were told to split into two groups:those who agreed with Machiavelli and those who didn’t. I went into the group that did agree with him. After we were split into the groups, Jacquelyn, the PA, told us that we had to argue the opposite point. So, the group arguing for was now against and the group against was now for. After we had come up with points for the new argument, we had a debate. Each member from each group either had to bring up a new point or rebut a point that the other group made. My point was that today we need political alliances due to the fact that countries have shared societal values that countries cannot be isolationists trying to dominate other countries, like Machiavelli suggests. An example I used was terrorism. We the United States cannot defeat terrorism alone but we need alliances with other countries. That doesn’t necessarily have to be military alliance but could be the act of any group of the alliance of countries putting a group or terrorist-harboring-country under economic sanctions. Whereas Machiavelli said that one needs to be militarily stronger than another country. Then the stronger country will be respected, but if it is weaker, then it will be indebted. So, my point was trying to negate Machiavelli’s reasoning that there can’t be alliances in the world. I thought that this was a really good exercise to do in class for many reasons. First, it got everybody talking. Second, it got each group to talk about and find specific points to defend the point of view they had to debate. Third, since it wasn’t a lecture it wasn’t boring but engaging and hopefully people will remember the main points and will retain something about the book. I personally found The Prince I very dense read. I didn’t really like it, but I can see how its applicable to world politics. Even though I had to defend against Machiavelli’s statements in principle, I still agree with most of his points. I believe that having to argue the other side of an issue, the one you don’t agree with, makes you really understand it from all points of view. Although this was an interesting way to learn about the book, I hope this is not how we debate all debatable books because I felt that I was so focused on the groups next point that I wasn’t able to take any notes of my own.

Reflection on Week 1

At first, I was somewhat worried about Professor Jackson's class particularly on the use of sports as symbols for historical events (since I don't understand anything about sports). Now, I found the classes exciting especially during class discussions. The responses from the students assured me that they were experts in their fields of interest. I also loved the sudden outbursts from the other students particularly Michael when he accidentally fired that Nerf machine gun into one of the groups.

In the fist discussion on world politics, I found the debate very insightful. The use of plumbing as a metaphor reminded me of How Soccer explains the World and how it relates to the manner in which individual groups improve the standards of certain communities and how they eventually gain power.

In the Second debate on whether we should let large nations protect the interests of minor nations, I was annoyed on how the other groups were ignoring my group since we got the nice chairs of the room. I found that this relates to how third world countries and developing nations were gaining more voice in World discussion than the prosperous nations like the US and the European Union. However, I observe the fact that any form of union between certain nations can eventually break up like Yugoslavia did. Overall, the discussions were hectic but they were worth the effort for us to express our opinions.

Reflection numero dos!

It would have been interesting to write this reflection right after class on Friday… but I didn’t. At 11:20 on Friday, I would have gone on a rant about how frustrating it was to be isolated. Since our wonderful blog group was refused the speaking-baseball in class, it took serious self-restraint to not blurt out my opinion. I think we all deserve a little credit for that, after all what was stopping us from disregarding the rules of the baseball? Nothing! Except our respect for the simulation... In all honesty, I think the simulation did a perfect job of accurately portraying the complexity of world issues. We all fit right into our roles based on the situation and no matter how we got to the places we were sitting at with whatever resources we had I think we all would have had the same debates. Perhaps all of us would have been given the opportunity to speak had the situation been more fair… it’s interesting how that worked. At first I couldn’t really relate our position as the “richest” country to the real world… when has the United States ever been isolated to such an extent? When have the countries around the world rallied against us or other powerful countries besides in war? I’m no history buff… maybe one of you readers will have an example. All that I can come up with for a real life scenario is rebellion within countries… like the lower class population of the French Revolution rebelling against the bourgeoisie. So can our simulation on Friday also represent the dynamics of national politics? Does that change how we look at some of the events of Friday’s class? Hmm…

I don’t know about anyone else but I’m kinda getting frustrated that we don’t get to discuss our readings… in high school I feel like we read articles and then discussed them for way too long but it’s the opposite here! I find it very interesting how many political theories there are out there… realism, liberalism, marxism, neomarxist dependency theory, constructivism, etc… it gets me thinking, what is the point of having all these theories? Do they better help us understand history? It seems kinda useless to even argue which one I agree with most because why is it relevant unless it actually happens in reality? I guess it is interesting… of course I found myself agreeing with the concept of liberalism but Stephen Walt mostly dismisses this theory in One World, Many Theories as impractical next to realism. Does our country have the capability to change political ideals away from a power-centered mind frame and toward a peace-loving standard of ethics? Why theorize if we can’t change? So that makes me think that we can evolve to a better, more effective political style through studying theories of change.

Oh and one more thing… I forget who, but someone made a comment about how we, as humans, ONLY ever think of and look out for ourselves. That’s just the way it is, we can’t do anything about our nature. Sure we may be selfish creatures, but I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Maybe we’re not mature enough to realize it at our age (and I’m not saying that I am beyond inherent selfishness) but there is something to be said for love. In particular parental love is something that can be (notice I didn’t say “is” because I like to avoid generalizations) completely unselfish. Other loving relationships may produce similar feelings, but I most sincerely admire the strength of parental love. Yes you might think this has nothing to do with world politics, but it does, because we all are people and hopefully at some point or another will experience love. Love can affect world politics just as much, if not more, than war. Do you disagree?

That’s all for now,
Hippy Emily

Reflection for week of September 1

An interesting question came up in class on Friday. That question was, Is generosity towards other countries only done in the giving country’s own self interest? I believe that the answer is usually yes but sometimes. In this case I am referring to one country offering a generous act to another. Some countries such as the United States sometimes offer generosity to other countries in order to advance their own self interest and sometimes seem to be generous with no other motive. Countries offering generous acts do this in many ways, including stimulating a faltering country, providing military support for a country under attack or threat of attack and providing humanitarian support after a disaster. Before getting to a concrete example, let me begin with class. On Friday, our professor split us up into 5 different groups. There were 5 different areas to sit in the room, each area had a different configuration of table and chairs, ranging from a table with four nice chairs to a group who had to sit on the floor. Group one was the first that went in and they got to choose their location. Once the group went in, they allocated extra resources, chairs, that they had to the other group areas, with the purpose that hopefully everybody would get a chair. Did the first group or “country” do this out of generosity to advance their own self interest? I believe that yes, the other groups would have been angry with group one, who had the nicest table, if they didn’t have any chairs. So, the idea of allocating the extra chairs was to make the other groups less hostile towards group one. This is a small, simulated example that is supposed to be just like one country offering a generous act to another.

I believe a real world example of one country offering generosity to another comes from Iraq. When the Iraq war started, one of the ways the leaders of the United States talked about it was that the US was being kind and liberating Iraq from a ruthless and cruel dictator. Initially we thought that we would be viewed as liberators; we for the most part are not. Some theories have been suggested that our so called generosity in Iraq is actually advancing our own self interest. One theory suggests that we are putting Iraqi oil in the hands of a government that’s friendly to the US, so that we can have more control over it. I don’t agree with this theory that we went in for oil, but we did go in to Iraq for our own self interest to topple an unfriendly dictator.

Just as in my previous post about more powerful countries looking after less powerful, where I said that they only look after less powerful countries if they have a vested interest. I don’t believe that a country should only be generous to benefit itself. I think that countries should be generous to other countries because it’s the right thing to do. Countries like the US tend to vary between providing self interest generosity, what the theory about Iraq suggests, and true generosity, like the supplying of aid after the Tsunami in South Asia in 2005. So yes, maybe in class, group one was being generous in their own self-interest, but in the real world it’s very hard to say that a country either only provides self interest generosity or provides generosity for common good. This is because most countries are apt to do both.

Trying to be the devil's advocate...

My initial response to this question was… yeah, DUH! Growing up in one of the most “hippy” infested parts of the country, my whole deal is to spread the love. Butttttt, I’m gonna try a little bit of the devil’s advocate here just to challenge myself and also slightly for the sake of sarcasm. I’ll probably cringe about 67 times while writing this, but it’s good to get your head around both sides of the argument.

No, powerful countries should not look after the interests of other less-powerful countries and should feel no obligation to these countries. Survival of the fittest has worked long enough, why stop now? If every country looks out for itself and doesn’t have to worry about the well-being of other countries, then more will be accomplished and more individual citizens of each nation will have their needs met. Each country should focus on bettering the lives of its own people instead of thinking about the world population. After all, the people elect their government for themselves, not for the people dying in Darfur. Why would we want our tax money going toward causes that aren’t directly relevant to our fellow countrymen and ourselves?

I haven’t discussed power yet… what does it mean to be powerful? In terms of the United States (which is more or less recognized as a world power) it basically means that we could take over your country at any point and without reason if we so desired. We have the allies, the money, the arms, and the people to crush other countries upon a whim. The United States certainly did not get this power without hard work and determination, though. So if we can do it, (create the famous “American dream” of building oneself up from the bottom to the top), what is stopping other less powerful countries from doing the same?! It’s not like we received huge amounts of aid from France while fighting for our rights against Britain or anything… why would other countries need help to prosper?

As for human rights issues, we should probably just let every government take care of these problems themselves. If powerful countries get involved and start telling the less powerful government how to handle the situation then there will probably just be more unnecessary conflict. Powerful countries should not provide a country like Sudan with aid because that is the job of Sudanese leaders. It is each governments duty to do what they see fit for their people. Powerful countries should not be obligated to help out other countries in need. If all countries started sharing the wealth and prosperity then, god forbid, we would end up with a communistic world. It’s not like all people are actually created equal or anything…

Ughhh… Now, for the sake of my sanity I need to stop. I pretty much disagree with everything I just said. You get the point, though. I am privileged to be able to call myself an American, but not everyone was lucky enough to be born with this innate title. We are all humans so we should look after each other! Not to say that everyone should be involved with everyone else's business, just that when someone needs a helping hand it is the responsibility of those capable to give a hand!

Haha so yeah I guess the devil's advocate idea was not so successful... you should try it sometime though guys, it's so annoying that it completely reinforces your original opinion.

Word Politics question 2

Should more powerful states protect the interests of smaller states?

On this issue, I was at a near standstill. It's true that impoverished nations like Haiti, Albania, and Nigeria must rely on foreign aid in order to sustain themselves but the powerful nations should not intervene too much with these lesser nations. Such interference would bring about a new era of imperialism and many of these poor states fought devastating and bloody wars in order to achieve their autonomy. When the Dutch Netherlands proclaimed their independence from the Spanish empire, many nations like France and Britain treated this new territory as a weakling. However, its clear access to different trading routes allowed it to prosper. During the independence of African and Asian nations like Vietnam, European states believed that those states would be unable to sustain themselves and would plunge into civil war. This only happened in a few African nations like Rwanda, Somalia, and Sudan but the rest were able to support themselves both militarily and economically. Overall, we could support the extremely impoverished nations but we can only do so until they are at a level that they can sustain themselves.

Should more powerful states look after the interests of less powerful states? Question #2 Week of Sept 1

What a powerful state should do and what it actually does are often two different things. “Should” implies a need for a less powerful state to have the aid of a more powerful one. An example is the genocide in Darfur, Sudan or the killings in Rwanda in the late 1990’s. Every powerful state in the world should be outraged and come to the aid of these countries, but the moral obligation or the “should” in this case is not a strong enough reason to look after the interests of these less powerful. But the way the world works today is that the powerful state will usually only look out for the less powerful state if it has a vested interest in the less powerful state for some reason or in some way. Let’s look at the Russian/Georgian conflict. Russia invaded Georgia in an attempt to defend what Russia considers its own people in the southern breakaway province of South Ossetia. The US, although not getting involved militarily, has been working diplomatically with the Russians and sending aid shipments to the Georgians. The US is doing this is because this country has a vested interest in Georgia. Georgia has been an ally in the war on terror. They have sent troops to Iraq and have had troops in Afghanistan. They have been cooperative with the US in areas such as investigations into suspected terrorists. One reason the US is working to look after the interests of Georgia is because the US doesn’t want to lose the troops in Iraq or the cooperation of the Georgian government, which would most certainly be lost if the US stood by and did nothing.

A historical example of the US rendering aid only when it is in its own best interests comes from World War II. When Hitler came to power in Germany, he started systematically wiping out a whole race of people as well invading other counties in Europe. At first the United States vowed not to get involved. After the Japanese led us into the Pacific theater, with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we went to war against Hitler in Europe. While WWII was a horrible war, it was actually in our long term interest to go to war with Hitler. We didn’t go to war because we “should”, because it was the right thing to do, we went because it was in our best long term interest to not let Europe turn into one big hostile state. The US joined forces with European Armies and eventually this led to the downfall of Hitler. Even back in the 1940’s the United States had one of the best, if not the best military in the world, so the European forces most likely needed our help and probably couldn’t have defeated Hitler alone. Once again the US was serving its own interests here. Since the US fought Hitler, there are many countries in Europe, instead of just one. We also have many allies in Europe instead of one possible unfriendly or hostile state. So in closing, maybe a more powerful state such as the US should look after the interests of less powerful states, maybe it even has a moral obligation to look after the less powerful states, but that isn’t the way the world works. Instead the more powerful state seems to intervene only when it has a vested interest in who they are looking after.

A Random Reflection

Forgive me if this blog turns out to be random and scattered all over the place, I don’t really have a central focus. First of all… Bravo! Good job UC’ers, I think we had a good debate for a first class. The only problem I think we all had was progressing… we couldn’t seem to move on from several minute details (cough*plumbing*cough). It’s easy to get caught up with the little things, maybe next time we can cover more issues.
I do think, no matter how difficult it can be, that the idea of the baseball is actually very logical. There were many times when I felt like interjecting a comment while someone else was making a point and in a normal class that would probably be acceptable but it would cause tension. The baseball kept us from interrupting, though, and it brought a certain level of courtesy and respect to the class. It’s important to realize that everyone in our World Politics course is passionate about the subject matter so even though some are less outspoken than others, everyone has opinions that he or she feels strongly about. The baseball can help bring these people with interesting perspectives into the debate… so my hope is that we utilize the baseball. Let everyone speak, this isn’t a competition, we are all trying to learn from each other. I'm curious... any other opinions about the baseball?
Rob… in response to your question of privatization versus government services, I don’t think it’s a matter of either/or, rather how both of these groups can work together to produce functioning services. Both private organizations and the government have something to offer to the people of our country and of the world… both have strengths and weaknesses… both can help in different ways, so it’s most logical for them to work together. Also, I agree with your point about looking at each issue’s individually before proclaiming it to be “world politics” because, let’s face it, generalization is never a good thing nor does it work!
On a note of globalization, I think it’s pretty dang cool. There was a time in human history that globalization was impossible! Humans have worked toward this goal to be interdependent and connected for a very long time so no matter how many negative factors there may be we should all appreciate globalization. Sure, local can be the way to go, but why not work together with the billions of people around the world? Utilizing different countries more often than not will benefit our society and the world society… isolating ourselves will only limit growth. But of course, moderation in all things! Some globalization and some localization will bring about the most functioning society.
One last point I would like to make… just because it is human nature to put ourselves or our country before others, I think the human race is evolving into a more caring nature. People across the world want peace and that desire eventually brought about the United Nations. We are a compassionate being, so we should not dismiss the idea of the United Nations just based on the assumption that all humans have selfish and protective cavemen instincts. Give our race more credit… maybe I’m an idealist but I think the UN can work.