Science and Politics

I would have to say I disagree strongly with the notion that science and politics are completely independent of each other. If we consider science to be the way the world is and politics the way the world should be than those two statements in themselves lead to acknowledgment of the other. When one says this is the way the world should be than they are also saying that it is not that way right now, making it clear that there is a way the world is. When one says that this is the way the world is, it is that way because of the decisions people make, decisions made on how they they think the world should be. Additionally you would not be able to have one without the other if the world is the way everyone would like it to be then there would be no need for politics , however this is not the case. Science is a fact and Politics are goals, you could not have a goal without knowing the facts of the situation or wanting to somehow change that which is.

Reponse to Weber's "Science as a Vocation"

\

relations among science and politics (Christine Porcaro, Week 14, Reflective)

I believe that science and politics do mix and they should. I mean if science is trying to figure out how the world works/is and politics is looking at what the world should be, it seems to me that they need each other. I guess more specifically, politics needs science. Science promotes understanding of the world. For politics to work more successfully I think that it would be beneficial to understand how the world works. What shouldn't be done, is use politics has science. Trying to understand the world by having a preconceived notion of how it should be would give faulty results on how the world actually is which could be dangerous. I guess what I am saying is that politics and science cannot remain separate. We just have to make sure that science is understood so that when politics come into play people can make more informed decisions.

Terrorism Discussion, Week 13, Dialog

I feel that the discussion on Tuesday, while good, strayed off topic. The intent was to see how the world has changed after the attacks on 9-11, but the class got caught up on pointing out each others misuse of words. The focus should not have been whether or not drunk driving kills more people than the war in Iraq, but rather why we are targeted. We are targeted, because of our presence in the Middle East. I was hoping to have a discussion about if by responding to their hatred of our troops by sending more troops is really the best solution.

I realize our country holds the stance of not negotiating with terrorists, but I feel that doing the oppose of what they want is just going to strengthen their cause. For instance, if there is someone in Iraq who wasn't convinced that our presence in the Middle East was a negative thing but then they see US troops increase and their lives get worse, it isn't unreasonable for them to begin to protest our involvement, not matter what our intension really are. This isn't to say that the troops aren't there because they believe they are helping these people, the point is that the people don't think they are.


This next paragraph is in reference to the post I commented on earlier titled "Physical Victory is Better and Concessions." If the United States was capable of setting up a democracy in Iraq (as they say they can) I don't see how the Iraqi people could possibly accept this as a trustworthy government. Any country would be uneasy about a government facilitated by a major power, especially one that has been under the rule of major powers for a large period of its history (first the Ottoman empire, then the British). Their fear of being manipulated by another major power, let alone perhaps the first hegemony, is real and I don't see how it can be overcome in this situation.

Science and Politics (Kelsey Hunter, Week 14 Reaction)

I was a little disappointed our discussion didn't go further today in class, but I too like everyone was tired and worn out at the time. Also at the time I didn't really have an answer to whether science and politics should be kept separate. My answer is that they must interact, but I'm not sure if they can be practiced simultaneously by the same individual.

Let's say we see science as the way the world is- explanations for the world as it is- and politics as the way the world should be- actions taken to make the world change to fit personal beliefs. When I explain these concepts to myself in this way it seems obvious. A politician must take science into account before acting. Judgments about the way the world should be have to come from somewhere. In the most likely scenario (or at least I would hope) that the way someone decides how they think the world should be is based at least partly off the way the world is now. Also, that person must understand the scientific explanation- how and why the world is the way it is- in order to judge whether the world ought to be different or remain the same in the future. So maybe the scientist and politician are not the same person, but they at least must understand each other.

I think Halliday wanted us to understand this point. He described the tension between theory and politics (or science and politics), but he said that theory and policy making should go together. I learned in my Environmental Science class though that scientists and politicians speak different languages and often have a hard time of understanding each other. This is something that must be overcome, no matter what type of "science" we might talk about. This is also the reason I don't think the scientist and the politician can be the same person. Politics is about practical applications and sometimes science is too abstract or narrowly focused to apply to everyday situations.

"The Discreet Charms of Indian Terrorism" Week 13 Substantive

The author talks of a "Gandhian vision" which focuses on "politics as a dialogical encounter which, set within that moral univese, can reduce the area of human violence." (11)

Though I feel that Gandhi's view is respectable, I do not feel that it fits within the international system today. I feel politics post 9-11 have become more of a catalyst for violence than a reducer. Terrorists today use politics in what is called "spoiling" meaning they purposely target citizens in democratic countries, knowing that they will respond by electing leaders who will use violence in response. These leaders attack the areas with the terrorists, and end up killing citizens. These areas then allow terrorists to promote, in this case, anti-American sentiment and allows terrorist organizations to gather support for their cause.
There is also the case of corrupt leadership or promoting violence to ensure personal goals, such as oil revenues, rather than for diplomatic or humanitarian purposes. For this reason, I believe the war on terror has made politics a catalyst of violence.

Physical Victory is Better and Concessions

The class discussion yesterday about terrorism was an interesting one for me mostly because I disagreed with a lot of what was said. To me it seemed that there was a lot of contradiction and idealist talk that I felt was unrealistic and wrong. The idea that terrorist like those in Al Qaeda are motivated to kill Americans is because we are a consumer culture and can buy more than them does not hold much weight with me, mostly because it is wrong. Al Qaeda attacks the US with the express purpose of ejecting our influence from the region so that they can overthrow the “un-Muslim” governments of many states in the Middle East and establish a new Caliphate from which they can expand their brand of extremist Islam to the rest of the world. Salafists believe that Islam should be the world’s religion but before it can be they must take back historically Muslim lands from oppressive un-Muslim rulers. With this in mind I do not feel that Afghanistan or Iraq now are overreactions to this type of terrorism. Afghanistan because it was the place from which 9/11 was planned and Al Qaeda members were trained. How could the US allow Afghanistan to continue to function in this way after 9/11? Invasion was necessary to change this state of affairs because the terrorists there were not going to stop using Afghanistan as a base just because we would have liked them to stop. Iraq is more complicated because of the controversy of the initial invasion and the reasoning behind it, but that is a debate that I believe is unimportant to the future of Iraq since Al Qaeda has made it a point to fight the US in Iraq and regardless of how we got there Al Qaeda has decided to stand and fight us there now. In this regard I would like to point out that the so-called Surge strategy in Iraq is working to perfection. American forces there recently recovered a map drawn by now dead Al Qaeda leader ABU Musab Al-Zarqawi which outlines how Al Qaeda moved men, weapons, explosives, and money around Baghdad. US forces used this map to cut off these routes one by one forcing the insurgents into the desert surrounding the city where the 30,000 surge forces were waiting to pick them off. Now days pass without bombings in the city which has not happened yet in Iraq until this point. Think for a second, how long has it been since you have turned on the news and heard about a massive car bombing in Iraq? This by the way is all reported by Fox News at the following link http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312343,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iraq. This peace will create an opportunity for the Iraqi government to take control and move forward instilling confidence in the Iraqi people in their government. The US strategy to pacify Iraq is working and if allowed to succeed, it will provide in the end a safe and stable democracy in the Middle East that will go a long way towards hurting the terrorist cause and presenting a favorable view of the US in the Middle East. What my point is is that I believe that physically defeating Al Qaeda and other terrorists in the Middle East will do more to damage their cause and ability to attack the US then making concessions will because that will only embolden terrorists towards their ultimate goal of ejecting the US from the Middle East and expanding radical Islam to the entire world.

Discreet Charms of Terrorism

In the account of the first hijacking I i found the reactions of the hijackers and the passengers towards one another after the ordeal not as surprising as they seemed. The vision of attackers and the attacked crying together and signing and receiving autographs sounds crazy, but in all reality its not. It is safe to say that a major cause of conflict is the inability to identify with the other individual. Which is why i think this attack ended the way it did. The attackers and the attacked had the opportunity to see themselves in the other, and in that moment they weren't different they were human. I believe that we often share much more with the other than we realize, but do not have the capability to see it. So in this realization I how a "terrorist" must feel inside... This thought is so beyond my reach that i can not even begin to imagine a possible answer which is why i think it is so challenging to deal with this problem. Individuals of terrorism have experienced something so intense they are willing to not only jeopardize their own lives but the lives of other as well and in most cases they can not tell us if it was worth it. But maybe these articles can give us a clue. If a suicide bomber was somehow able to reconnect with their victims would they experience this same kind of remorse? Would the victims sympathize with them? How would a potential "terrorist" or someone about to commit a terrorist act react to this story?

IR in theory and practice (Kelsey Hunter, Week 14, Substantive)

The relation of academic study of IR and practice (policy making) should be one of tension (p. 734).

Halliday's piece "International Relations and Its Discontents" gave me a lot to think about. The quotation above especially struck me, because all semester I have been struggling to apply IR theory to actual events, and I have found it to be a difficult task.

Because I have struggled with how to apply IR theory to policy and current events, I enjoyed Halliday's discussion of the roles of IR as a social science in education. It allowed me to see a bigger picture (one that I already knew) of why we study IR and why we should study IR. He feels that International Relations must be judged by the following criteria: 1) formation of the mind (thinking, writing in a rigorous manner; think clearly and conceptually, formulate ideas, think independently), 2) transmission of theory (to put the facts and "givens" of the world in a conceptual framework, place issues of contemporary life in context), 3) training for area of professional expertise, 4) provide knowledge that will help solve contemporary issues (in the creation of foreign policy. Halliday believes that universities are failing to adequately "train the mind" due to a preoccupation with contemporary issues and events. He would say there are too many courses on current events and not enough on things like methodology (which shouldn't be in the IR department anyway according to him), writing and research skills or perhaps even courses that force students to debate and discuss (seminars). However, I do not feel as though I am necessarily missing any of those four requirements. I feel now as though I could apply what I've learned at Lehigh in a more policy oriented environment. I certainly feel as though I know how to think (something that I have been developing even more with the process of writing my thesis).

In application to my thesis, I found Halliday's discussion on scientism to be interesting. "Scientism" is one of his biggest complaints- the application of quantitative analysis to IR. He calls it a "distraction" Uh-oh, let's hope Halliday does not read my thesis. Halliday would have me believe that I have fallen into a trap of trying to "predict" civil war. He does not believe social science has the obligation to predict anything, but instead social science should explain. Beware of merely "understanding" and "interpreting" the situation, as these exercises become too subjective and lose any quality of objectivity. Fortunately, I think I've recognized that I have not lost sight of how IR theory should work. The reason I've struggled so much with my thesis is because I'm trying to fit theory and quantitative analysis together, something that I feel the contemporary literature on the economic causes of civil war fails to do. Also, I am not using quantitative analysis to predict civil war: I am using it to explain civil war and what causes it. Through a quantitative analysis I hope to prove the connection between poverty and civil war in order that we may address the underlying conditions that may lead to conflict.

I also found his lament over the disconnect between IR theory and actual policy making to be interesting. He points out that most in the "outside" world believe that IR is irrelevant to policy debate and is merely a "commentary on the news" (p. 739). Halliday feels that there are important debates in the academic world of IR that could contribute substantially to formation of policy, thereby grounding policy in theory, which I suppose he believes would make the policies stronger. I think that in order for IR theory to cross over into the mainstream of economics and law, scholars need to continue applying IR theory to contemporary issues, but also need to make those applications more accessible to policy makers and the general public. Sometimes I read academic articles on IR theory and I am completely lost, and I am an IR student! I can only imagine how policy makers feel when trying to de-construct theories and apply them to real life on their own.

"The power of formulating one's own argument" (Christine Porcaro, week 15, substantive)

When I first printed out Science as a Vocation I was not very excited at all to read it. I did not think it was going to be interesting and I was really dreading it. BUT, as soon as I started reading it, I became very interested. I am sure that this was Prof. Pervez's intent, but I was able to see a strong connection between the reading and our class. Throughout this semester we have been given facts about IR theory, opinions about different theories and varying opinions from the varying articles we have read. Max Weber talks about how a lecturer should not impose his/her opinion on the students. "It is irresponsible for such a teacher to fail to provide his listeners, as is his duty, with his knowledge and academic experience, while imposing on them his knowledge and academic experience, while imposing on them his personal political opinions."With this said I feel that this semester we have been given the tools to create our own opinion without being overwhelmed or persuaded by the opinion of the professor. I think that is important because when trying to form your own opinion it can easily be over shadowed if you have been presented with biased facts. I do, however, encourage within a class a "devil's advocate" kind of discussion to occur. In a lecture structured type class this is not something that can happen...so in this case Max Weber is correct in saying that personal opinion needs to be left at the door if one is going to do the lecture any justice. But in a smaller type classroom to be able to present an opinion or argument, not as one's own but just as an alternative argument, I feel that that can create even more discussion and more ideas to come forth. It makes students think more about how they view something so that they can form their own argument based upon the facts already presented to them. So when looking back on this semester I feel that this class has done a good job of combining a lecture based class and discussion based class. Max Weber claims that it is very difficult as a teacher to have students think about things independently, which I completely agree. It is very easy for a student to just shut off their brain right after class. What I thought was interesting was that I feel that the final paper does just that. It makes students think independently about how they perceive international relations. Of course no argument will be perfect but as Max Weber states, "to be superseded scientifically is not simply our fate but our goal. We cannot work without living in hope that others will advance beyond us. In principle, the progress is infinite."

Educating and creating understanding (Christine Porcaro, Week 13, Substantive)

During our class discussion on religion about 2 weeks ago, someone brought up the point that maybe by educating people about different types of religion and culture that there wouldn't be as much blind hatred and more cooperation among people. The point was also brought up that there have been may ways in which people can learn about different religions and cultures but the people that usually choose to take advantage of these opportunities aren't the ones that need the educating. When reading "An Anthropological Excursion into the Muslim World", I kept replaying the class discussion that we had. I know that this reading was assigned for the terrorism week but I feel since religion and terrorism seem to be very much intertwined I still feel that it is appropriate. In the reading the author says "I would redouble my efforts to help non-Muslims and Muslims alike appreciate the true features of Islam and thereby forge a bond between them. Without that common understanding, the entire world would sink deeper into conflict." When I read that, I thought of what Professor Pervez said when she was talking about Osama bin Laden . She said that he was a very well educated man. Knowing this, it is hard to think that he doesn't have an understanding of our culture. He understands it and hates it. I would like to think that that educating people would create a mutual understanding but sometimes educating people created an understanding but the hatred still exists. There is also a chance that the hatred could just increase with increased understanding. So in the end it could just be a question of is blind, ignorant hatred better than educated, informed hatred.
I feel that I learned a lot from this article because it presented Islam and its complexities. People in the US so readily think Islam and terrorism are synonymous. I love being able to read about different cultures because I feel that having a better understanding makes my opinions less ignorant. With saying this however, I feel that a lot of people that should read this, probably wouldn't. And as I said above, further understanding doesn't always lead to a person gaining compassion for anothers cuture. I do not feel however that this should stop us from trying to educate each other. I do feel that terrorism and the Unites States' retaliation to terrorism is fueled a lot through ignorance. I do not claim to know a lot about the Middle East but I would put money on the fact that our President doesn't know a whole lot either. I do not think that increased understanding will eradicate all problems in the world, such as terrorism, but I believe that understanding something that seems odd and foreign will make it seem, in the end, more personal and close to home.

"The Clash of Civilizations" (Kelsey Hunter, Week 13 Substantive)

Akbar Ahmed's chapter "The Clash of Civilizations" makes some very interesting and important points about why the problems between the West and especially the Muslim world may exist. There are several important quotations I'd like to discuss.

"Many observers agree that responsibility and awareness are being abandoned as a result of globalization, even among political leaders" (p. 198). Ahmed discussed the emphasis placed on individualism in American society and how it takes away from the community, which is an important entity in Muslim societies. Globalization is responsible for individualism being emphasized around the world, as Americanization accompanies globalization and may be the same thing. As other countries are forced to compete with American products and in American markets, those countries must adopt individualism and abandon some of the responsibilities that were formerly inherent in their societies. He believes that Americans live in bubbles, especially those white-upper class Americans, and they are out of touch with other races, cultures, and ethnicities as well as out of touch with events happening globally or in other parts of their own city. Most importantly, while little is done to engage these other groups, even less is done to dispel stereotypes about these groups. The stereotypes, especially against the Muslim community, are being enforced by video games, tv, movies, and the news and even go so far as to discourage tolerance of non-Christians. (I was really appalled when I read this, because I had no idea such things existed. However, I was not surprised they existed.) The "climate of fear and hatred" is being perpetuated by the media, Hollywood, and talk show hosts. Ahmed dedicates several pages to discussing this climate of fear and those who have perpetuated it. My post about the Lehigh Center for Islamic Studies was exactly about this climate of fear and hatred, a climate that still exists and seems to be worsening 6 years after 9/11. This is further evidenced by the incident on Jerry Klein's radio show in 2006! (p. 208).

Another quotation is from the end of the chapter "a giant step in the way of creating trust and goodwill would be to reach out to the Muslim world and emphasize respect for its culture and religion" (p. 243). This followed his discussion of the disastrous attempts of Americans to "help or control" the Muslim world, including the U.S. actions in Iran in the 1970s which created such a backlash against America and the American backed government that the Ayatollah Khomeini was able to take over. So Ahmed believes that the U.S. shouldn't back allies of convenience in the middle east (like Pakistan) by giving them military support, but rather give them support for their educational programs to create alternatives to the radical madrassahs that have become so popular as a response to the increased distrust and hatred for the West. I think this view is exactly how the U.S. should proceed, but proceed with extreme caution. The attitudes of both Americans and Muslims (well at least the radical segments of these populations) will not change overnight and more will need to be done than just provide funding for education. Stronger diplomatic relations, rather than military, need to begin. Promoting cultural and religious understanding both at home and abroad is also important, but as pointed out in class, these need to be more broad based than just exchanges between elites.

I do believe the clash of civilizations is here, but I don't think it has to be here to stay.

Akbar and The War on Terror

Akbar Ahmed’s “An Anthropological Excursion into the Muslim World” makes the case that people, led by their governments need to appeal to the principles universal to all religions in order to bring clashing groups together. This would be an ideal situation, on in which the United States could reach out to the Muslim world and hope to persuade moderate Muslims to dominate the dialogue so that extremists would have trouble gaining a foothold in the Muslim world. This is an excellent long-term strategy for fighting the War on Terror, but what about combating short-term threats posed by extremists who we are not going to change in this lifetime and who are still focused on their terrorist goals? Ahmed does not really address the fact that it is just as crucial for the West and especially America and Israel to deal with current terrorist threats. Americans living today want security now as well as security in the long-term. The invasion of Afghanistan was necessary because 9/11 was planned from there and America needed to destroy that safe haven for terrorism I order to combat the current wave a irreconcilable extremists. It can be debated whether or not it was necessary to invade Iraq but now that al-Qaeda, as evidenced by intercepted communications from Zawahiri, wishes to make a stand there we must fight them and keep them from getting control of any part of Iraq. I do believe that more needs to be done though in the way of influencing moderate Muslims so that they can force extremism out of the Muslim world. Whether this is accomplished through aid or perhaps something radical like changing the regime of one of our oppressive allies in the Middle East, more needs to be done. The United States and the West need to continue their offensive operations aimed at destroying the current extremist movements’ ability to attack us but do more to fight the extremist mentality by appealing to moderate Muslims as Ahmed says we should.

The War for Globalization?

Globalization has created many struggles between people along certain lines and religion is one of them. These struggles are seen as isolated and not united. But is it possible that these outbreaks of tension along social, cultural, and religious lines are actually all part of a grater war on the everyday level of IR to combat ignorance and division that we could call the war for globalization? During our class discussion yesterday the issue of the Islamic Student Center at Lehigh University was brought up. I did a little research of my own on the issue and discovered that in fact there are many who oppose such a center because it “supports terrorism” or because if “Muslim do not respect our way of life, why should we respect theirs?” This first thing I thought when I looked at this debate is that it is a good example of IR in everyday practice. An effort by a leading US educational institution to promote awareness about a predominantly foreign religion is under attack by citizens who are afraid of the implications. Normal people are displaying the divide that exists on a global level between West and East in their everyday practices. How do you correct this? With an Islamic Student Center! By having such a place on its campus, Lehigh is moving forward in spreading awareness of Islam in a country that obviously needs it. Before I came to Lehigh I was also ignorant of Islam. No Muslims live in my hometown in Massachusetts and so all I really had to base my view of Islam on was what I got from the media after 9/11, some of it good and some of it bad. I am in ROTC with Gabe and his Muslim roommate is in my military science class. Meeting him and interacting with him has defiantly given me a great opportunity to learn about Islam. I think that the ignorance of Islam on the part of many Americans is something that needs to be corrected if we are to win the war on terror. It is ignorance that got us to the point of having to fight this war, so why would we not fix that state of ignorance now? Also I have to address this issue of Muslims not respecting our way of life. Who does “our” represent? It better not represent “Americans” because religion does not determine if someone is a citizen of the US. An example of this is Gabe’s roommate. Like I said, he is an ROTC cadet who is looking at contracting and becoming a doctor and an officer in the United States Army. Whether or not he contracts, he is still one of the best cadets in the program. I have no doubt that he could make a great officer. Going back to IR, ignorance on the part of people is not something that can be fixed by a government and ignorance of Islam is what got the US attacked on 9/11 and into this war. So there is nothing that the state can do to fix the root cause of this war (sorry realists), but there is something that can be done by the people themselves. IR in everyday practice comes into play here because it is people who must fix their ignorance through meaningful experiences and interactions that they create for themselves, for example by making an Islamic Student Center at a major American university. A major front of the war on terror must be fought at home to battle existing social norms and beliefs. This struggle reflects that on the everyday level, globalization is in some ways a battle to bring down social, cultural, and religious barriers that separate people and limit their ability to come together and expand globalization. Perhaps globalization is the third world war and the battles that take place between people along social, religious, and cultural lines are just battles in the greater war to destroy these barriers and peaceful globalized world.

Media Coverage

In considering the question if whether or not there has been a religious resurgence in the 21st century I think it is important to take into account globalization and its effects on media coverage and the way news is spread around the world. Maybe the reason religious wars seem to be so prevalent now is because they are getting more coverage, we're actually hearing about them. Religious wars have been going on for centuries and it is my belief that the conflicts we are witnessing today in the international realm are not that different. What if the same types of technological advancements we have today we're present during the Crusades or the Protestant reformation in Europe? Im sure we would hear about them much like we do the middle east today. Additionally I believe that faith has always been present in humans regardless of how advanced or inadvanced the society has been. For that reason i think it is also hard to say there has been a resurgence because religious beliefs and thus conflicts have pretty much always been present. People have been fighting over there differences from what seems like the beginning of human existence, religion is just another one of those differences people choose to fight about.

Facts not Secularism

In "The Politics of Religion and Turkish Succession" Hurd writes that "Judeo-Christian Secularism is a form of political authority and a political project in which Judeo Christian religion and modern secular politics commingle in a realization of a Western religious tradition (409)." This Judeo-Christian Secularism is described to be the basis what is 'European' and serves as a template for how European countries engage in policies and build relationships with other's. Because Turkey does not share the same "Europeanness" as the other EU member states. However i don't think that this really matters because regardless if this is the reason or not, the Muslim nations continue to engage in conflicts with themselves and others. Have been for quite some time now. Turkey amongst other muslim nations have shown how difficult it is for them to cooperate with one other nation. How are they going to cooperate with 27? Additionally the EU has been doing remarkably well. In the article Hurd points out that if Turkey is let into the EU it opens up the doors to other countries such as Georgia, Armenia, Moldavia...maybe RUSSIA. Given the history of these countries (and other Central Asian countries that could be admitted) I don't blame the EU for their decision to not want Turkey. The Soviet Union was one of the two major world powers and within a fairly short amount of fell off the Map (literally). Russia is what's left of the former USSR and given that little bit of history i don't believe the EU is ready to jeopardize the success they have attained thus far, especially for countries that for whatever reasons they just don't seem to like very much. It's their Union, they formed, and they decide who they want to Join. Maybe if Turkey gave the EU more of a reason to want them, they would.

Religious Division

Elizabeth Hurd’s “Negotiating Europe: the politics and religion and the prospects for Turkish accession” discusses the issues surrounding Turkey’s possible entrance into the EU. This is an important issue in IR because Turkey is a massively Muslim country and its entrance into the EU would make it the only Muslim country in the Christian dominated EU circle of states. The fact that Turkey’s majority Muslim population is even an issue in this process of joining the EU supports my belief that religion is the most conflict-causing issue in IR. But this is paradoxical because religion is supposed to something that unites people and teaches tolerance and peace. I find that if you look at the most fundamental practicers of any religion, the people who are supposed to be the closest followers of these religions that promote peace are extremely violent and divisive. For example, look at Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These are three peace-loving religions in doctrine but the people who adhere the strictest to that doctrine are not peace-loving and accepting. Fundamental Christian groups protest outside the funerals of dead soldier chanting that the soldier is “burning in hell.” Would not the tenants of Christianity teach followers to try to help the family of the deceased instead of protesting outside their funeral? In Judaism there are Zionist groups within Orthodox Judaism who promote the policy of not negotiating with the Palestinians but instead using Israeli military power to wipe them out so they can establish a new temple. Finally in Islam there are fundamentalist groups such as Salafists who use the peace-loving religion of Islam to justify spectacular acts of violence. All three of these religions talk about love in their doctrine but the most literal of those interpretations results in intolerance and sometimes violence. What and interesting paradox. Back to Turkey, while the governments of the EU are not fundamentalist Christians they are acting in a prejudiced way towards Turkey. If Christianity teaches tolerance (and I happen to know that it does because I am one) then why would the EU states not consider Turkey just as they would any other state seeking to join the EU? The answer, in very simple terms, goes back to religions being divisive instead to uniting. The divisiveness of religion has got to be the most important conflict producing/inflaming issue in IR because it not only makes conflict easier because of religious differences but because it has the power to work its way into high politically issue such as the potential accession of Turkey into the EU.

Religious Identity (Kelsey Hunter, Week 12 Substantive)

I found the Beth Roy piece to be very interesting, especially her use of the accounts of different people, Hindus, Muslims, and Namasudras to tell the story of how people conceptualize their history and identity. Each person she spoke with had a slightly different version of the riot in Panipur that was crafted out of their own "experience" of the event that was based on their religious and class distinctions, but also that Roy says was altered through time with each telling because of the other events that had happened since then. Further she addresses the idea that "collective memory" is a "social action... and is part and parcel of every historical act" (24). The idea of collective memory, to me at least, often follows very strict lines of identity and of self versus other. Almost every account of history has a bias, whether based on nationality, religion, gender, because history can be used as a tool to create a sense of unity, commonality, nationalism, etc.

Roy moved on in the chapter on identity to ask why the riot broke out between such specifically defined communities on religious lines- Hindu versus Muslim. She says that religion overlaps both the public and private spheres, which is why it is so powerful in determining community lines. Religion dictates how to dress, conduct home life, what to eat, how to worship, etc. I think the reason religion is so divisive is because it overlaps the public and private spheres. First it creates a sense of community inside and outside the home, people can identify themselves as clearly belonging to one religious group or another. Once a conflict starts however, religion is a community rallying point, but also because it is part of private (domestic) life, the conflict spills into the home. The reason people become so emotional and violent during religiously based conflict could be that they see the other side as personally attacking their way of life, not only as a community but as a private citizen. This is also why the differences between religious groups that are focused on the most in times of conflict are those that are ordinary and domestic- what people eat, wear, etc. The examples given by the storytellers in Roy's piece confirms that idea.

"Differences" Christine Porcaro (11/14 reflective)

In reading Elizabeth's post of the blogging group http://luir105.blogspot.com/, I feel that she does show how much gray area there is when we talk about religion. But a point that I want to comment on is when Elizabeth mentions that she feels that "it sometimes seems like religion inhibits free thinking, tolerance, and acceptance." While I do agree that sometimes people interpret their religion in such a way that is does cause these side effects I believe, however, that when boiled down ALL differences between people can "inhibit free thinking, tolerance and acceptance." When referencing the creation of the new Center for Global Islamic Studies I feel that the negative reactions by the Lehigh and the surrounding community are not just based on peoples religious beliefs. I feel that people have a bias against culture, appearance and what they believe to be an enemy. I am not saying that it is then justified, iI just don't feel that the root cause of this bias is solely religious. I feel that conflict is more likely to arise when there are many differences and a lot of the time religion is picked out as the sole reason when there are many differences that are logrolling to create such a conflict(where religion can still be part of the reason but not the only reason). Living in a world today where there are so many differences abound, conflict, disagreements and misunderstandings are hard to avoid. I do feel that religion does play a role in why conflicts may arise...but in the bigger picture it is not only religion but the many differences among cultures that create conflict and disagreement.

"A Reevaluation of being secular" Christine Porcaro (11/13 substantive)

The subject of religion is very hard to discuss when talking about both state and international politics. While reading the article Negotiating Europe: the politics of religion and the prospects of Turkish accession by Elizabeth Shakman Hurd I was shocked that " the European Convention on Human Rights had not been violated by the Turkish refusal to allow Leyla Sahin, a Turkish medical student, to wear a headscarf while pursuing her studies at the University of Istanbul." As the article was arguing the European Union, if Turkey is ever to be allowed to be a part of the European Union, it must reevaluate what being secular is and how different cultures may approach this. "...successful negotiations will require that Europe both acknowledge alternative cultural and religious formulations and foundations of secularism and revisit its own collective assumptions.."I was shocked about this headscarf incident because it made be think of the ban of veils in French public schools (later mentioned in the article). I am not an expert in this field by any means, but before the elimination of veils, were crosses not allowed to be worn in the schools? If they were and are still allowed to wear crosses it is no longer a question of the secularization. It is just keeping Islam out of Europe. I understand this need for secularism but I agree with Hurd that there needs to be some serious evaluation of what being secular is and how it may be different for various cultures. With this reevaluation I hope that people will be able to wear a headscarf or veils if they so choose as people are allowed to wear crosses. With a greater understanding of secularism by Europe and Turkey, it might make negotiations for Turkey's integration into the European Union less controversial because Turkey's government and the way that it is run will not seem as "backwards" and non-secular. Standards and expectation need to be defined but also calibrated to different cultures as it can be easily seen, different cultures have different understandings of what it means to be secular. I do not know if it is a real possibility if Turkey is going to be a member of the European Union, but I do not feel that religion should stand in its way of being a part of it..

Is Globalization Inevitable?

Throughout our class discussions about globalization a question that has ocurred to me several times is: Is globalization inevitable? Was globalization impossible to avoid and therefore unable to be stopped? I believe that the onset of modern globalization was inevitable given the technological advancements and historical events of the last century. Events such as the two world wars and genocides that have taken place over the past century have revealed that national independence from the rest of the world on the part of states and international law and organization were not suited to stop such events. States answered this realization by expanding their levels of interdependence for stability. More important though to the inevitability of globalization I believe are the technological advancements that have recently taken place. Technologies such as the internet, instant communications, and faster travel around the world have made it impossible to ignore the influence of the rest of the globe in one’s own country. Technology has essentially forced economics to take on a more global reach. It is impossible to imagine companies in liberal countries ignoring the benefits of technology in making capital movement, communication, investment, and manufacturing across borders easier. Companies in liberal states are essential by nature forced to take advantage of these advancements which allow them to expand their markets and increase their profits with ease. But can globalization be stopped or is its continued development as inevitable as its development so far? I think that as integration increases among states, citizens may see their traditional cultures fading away into an international hybrid culture. In response to this fading, people will want to find something to cling to and call their own and I think that this would result in extreme nationalism which would be characterized by people sinking into small groups of national identity and trying to avoid more global integration. A historical example of just such a case of this is ancient Rome. The Roman Empire encompassed most of Europe at its height and integrated into itself the many different nations it had conquered. The Empire collapsed though, and the nations that it had integrated sunk into themselves and lead to the creation of the nationally fractured and warring Europe of the Middle Ages. We can even see something similar to this happening in the Middle East in the form of Salafism lead by Osama bin Laden. Salafists see the states of the Middle East being dominated by Western states and as being un-Islamic. Salafists want to see in response to this a return to the original state of Islam under a literal translation of the Qur’an with all Muslims living in a reunited Caliphate in the Middle East. This is an example to a group seeing its identity fading away as a result of integration and globalization and responding to it through extreme nationalism. I think that the future of globalization will depend on how people see their identities. If they see their identities as changing and embrace that change then globalization will continue to be inevitable. However, if people see their identities as changing and do not embrace that change and resort to extreme nationalism then I see globalization hitting a major road block or even imploding.

What is American Culture? (Kelsey Hunter, Week 11 Reaction)

So today in class today, the question, "what is American culture?" was asked but not really answered. So here are my thoughts about what American culture really is:
America is a melting pot
Agata touched on this briefly, but I believe the most significant fact in determining what American culture is, is to recognize that America was founded by immigrants and was the major destination for immigration throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. America is a very young country and if globalization has been occurring for many centuries, I would say that American culture is a product of globalization. People came to America, brought along their own home countries traditions, cuisines, music, religion, etc. American culture has adopted many of those things as its own.
There is not really such a thing as an American ethnicity
Okay, so that statement is not really true, but if you don't count the Native Americans (who have been completely marginalized by society anyways), we can say that there is no such thing as a true pure-bred American. Most people can trace their heritage back to somewhere else and most people would identify themselves with that heritage regardless of how long their family had been in the U.S. (I am of Ukrainian, English, Polish, German, Irish heritage etc.) So if a criteria for culture is ethnicity, then there isn't a singular American culture.
American culture has evolved
While I believe that American culture is a product of globalization and may not have such a long history of tradition as some other cultures, I do believe that there is a distinct American culture. Our culture includes competition, work ethic, hamburgers, Hollywood, ideals of freedom, the American Dream, self-sufficiency, Thoreau, Emily Dickinson, very low personal savings rates, democracy, and so many other things. There are distinct differences between the "California surf culture" and the "New England austerity" or the "Midwest friendliness" or "Southern hospitality." There are so many aspects of "Americanism" and so many subsets of culture and they are all allowed to thrive in America. I do not see this as a bad thing.

My point is that why is it so bad for American culture to spread around the world, if in fact American culture was created by borrowing from other cultures in the first place. I know, I know. There are aspects of low culture we don't want to spread, but in general, our culture has become so rich because we have allowed it to be influenced by others, so perhaps other countries could take a page from our book and become more open to the possibility of learning from others. I'm not necessarily advocating other cultures to adopt Americanism but I am suggesting the benefits of allowing other cultures to influence one's own point to the benefits of globalization.

Global Babble - Substantive Week 10

Janet Abu-Loghod talks about how wide the concept of globalization is, and uses the concept of a "two-way street," meaning that not only is the west influencing the rest of the world, but the rest of the world is influencing the west. Though I always considered globalization as a mostly American influence on the rest of the world, thinking about it in terms of how Americans are affected makes perfect sense. Just like developing countries today, the United States formed its values and customs based off of what they saw worked for other countries. Developing countries see that America is successful, and therefore want to replicate its culture. The main difference in my mind is that this change occured several generations ago. The interesting thing about the United States is how influenced it has always been by other cultures. For instance, some argue that prohibition was originally intended to target the Germans, who the United States was at war with. Whether or not Americans adopted German culture doesn't necessarily determine whether globalization took affect. In other words, when the United States actively made policy against what German culture was, globalization had influenced policy.

Globalization in Everyday Practice

In “Going Beyond Global Babble” Janet Abu-Lughod refers to the process of globalization as a “two-way street” of assimilation between the self and the other. My first instinct after reading this article was to ask the question what does it mean for me that globalization is a two-way process? How does globalization affect me and my life from an IR in everyday practice standpoint? Abu-Lughod’s point is that globalization is happening to me right now just as it is happening to citizens of other states across the world. I unique experience that I have had in my life is living in Germany during my childhood. While I lived there with my family we of course attended Oktoberfest festivities in our village. I got to experience first hand Oktoberfest in Germany in its pure form. When my family moved back to the United States we noticed that own town in Massachusetts was hosting “Oktoberfest” festivities and we decided to go. It was very different from the Oktoberfest that I saw in Germany. In Germany Oktoberfest consisted of huge tents in giant fields in which people stayed all day and night drinking beer and eating french fries and some other German foods. There were also some game booths and toy-selling tents for children but it primarily centered around eating and drinking in these giant tents. In the United States Oktoberfest was much more “German.” I say “German” because it seemed like it was the American idea of Oktoberfest that was taking place, not the actual German celebration. Everyone was wearing Lederhosen and listening to German folk music and eating German cuisine, but also a lot of American food as well, mostly grilled things like hamburgers and hot dogs. Overall there was a good emphasis on German culture but when it was involved it was taken to more extreme levels (I did not see any Germans in Germany wearing Lederhosen to Oktoberfest), but you could tell that it was definitely an American event. I don’t think that this is a bad thing, I think that it is understandable that Americans would want to put an American spin on a German tradition. It is similar to the way in which foreigners put their own spin on an American tradition like McDonald’s by turning it into a fine-dining restaurant or social center of their community or by altering the menu to fit their tastes. Another example in America is Chinese food. The Chinese food we eat here is not the Chinese food that is eaten in China and that is because we have put our own spin on it by adding a lot of frying to the process because Americans love their fried food. The same goes for pizza. The pizza you find in the US is not the pizza that you will find in a traditional pizza place in Italy. Going back to my point in looking at the “two way street” in terms of IR as everyday practice, I think that the easiest place to see the sharing of ideas and culture between nations in globalization is to look at the simple things we do everyday like eat, listen to music, or watch television. I think that people are more likely to assimilate to the simple everyday cultural aspects of other states than they are to assimilate to their form of government, law or economic policy. The face of the “two way street” that Abu-Lughod refers to can be seen in the everyday activities of people across the globe.

Our own Isle of Dogs (Kelsey Hunter, Week 11 Substantive)

In reading David Morely's chapters "Borders and Belongings" and "Cosmopolitics," I kept thinking back to an article that was in this week's Brown and White about reactions of the Bethlehem community to Lehigh's new Center for Global Islamic Studies. There has been a bit of a backlash in the community and comments that the program supports terrorism and disrespects the courage of America's founders. These comments came back to me as I read Morely's piece; the Bethlehem citizens have become like the whites living in the Isle of Dogs by their rejection of anything foreign and strange, and especially anything that threatens their homes and community. While the Center for Global Islamic Studies does not in an way threaten the lives of people in this community, the idea that Lehigh would accept "the Other" of Islam and attempt to learn about the culture, traditions, politics, etc. of the Islamic world is abhorrent to those who are frightened by anything outside their own level of comfort. The comment in the article by Professor Richard Matthews, the chair of the Political Science department, perfectly reflects the conditions described in Morely's article, he (Matthews) says "Their opinions are born out of fear and ignorance, and that is a dangerous combination." Morely discusses this phenomenon in his summary of Hoggett's interest in the periods of social and economic change that "[destroy] social networks and traditional patterns of loyalty and security, of triggering, at the individual level, such a strong sense of anxiety that fear can no longer be effectively 'contained' but must then be projected outwards on to some demonised other" (page 216). The demonised other in this case is the Islamic community, which since 9/11 has been viewed by Americans as a collective, one indistinguishable person from another, to be blamed for the tragic events of that day. Unlike mere immigrants, who may invade communities and bring along new cultures, Muslims today are still viewed by many with suspicion as "terrorists." A further observation that reflects Ignatieff's beliefs that "the more strongly you feel the bonds of your belonging to your own group, the more hostile, the more violent will be your feelings towards outsiders," is the fact that after 9/11, one of the first instincts of Americans was to wave the flag and rally as a nation to stand unified to the threat of the Other. Now that we have spent considerable time battling the Other in Afghanistan and Iraq, for some the feeling of patriotism has faded, but for others those feelings of hatred remain etched in stone.

By establishing a center for Islamic studies, Lehigh is seen as forcing the "Other" (in this case "the terrorist") onto the community. However, my feelings are more in line with Janet Abu-Lughod's on this topic and I think the motivations for establishing the CGIS are similar. that the best way forward is one of "mutual awareness, sensitivity and, if not acceptance, an attempt to interpret and evaluate the beliefs and acts of others on their own, not our, terms" (page 135).

Response to Arguments Opposing Globalization

When we hear American politicians or activists take a stance against globalization, we often hear this one criticism reverberating over and over again:

"Globalization will put decent hard-working, blue collar Americans out of work."

And why wouldn't it? Those opposing globalization love to vividly paint corporations as soulless, money-hungry elitist organizations that will sell their services to the highest bidder (or in this case, most atrocious human rights offender). The thought that there is this "Race to the Bottom" held by Corporate America to get countries to lower their wages, living standards, and working condition laws to attract foreign investment is substantiated.

The countries American companies are investing in the most are China and India (taking away all those precious call-center jobs from us hard-working Americans). Both of those countries are experiencing an enormous increase in Foreign Direct Investment, which is helping to create a better image of America in these countries.

The PRC is right now sitting on over $1,000,000,000,000 that it gained from Foreign Direct Investment. For western countries, this is a huge bargaining chip that can be used to influence a nation of over one billion people to play by our rules. Because of this investment, China is able to undertake many new mega-projects that will sustain its people for generations to come. Among these projects are a 150-mile tunneling project to divert the water from a river in the south to a dried-out river in the population-rich north. The government is also getting started on building 400 new medium-sized cities (think: Allentown) that will allow for the Chinese economy to be transformed; instead of having millions of Chinese getting by as subsistence farmers, China will be exporting cars and technology, allowing it to import any food items its people will need.

All this investment in China has already started to reform China's standards of goods, which is something that must be improved before China moves on to join the ranks of the world's strongest powers.

To advocate for American jobs to be lost is wrong, but being that we are from a land with such incredible opportunities, shouldn't we hold our citizens to a higher standard than Indians or Chinese? There is nothing wrong with working in a toy factory or call center to get by, but for people to think that they can make a career out of it in America is foolish. There will always be nurses, doctors, teachers, toll collectors, service workers, maintenance workers, and technicians of all varieties that will be needed in America. Those jobs cannot be outsourced, and even if outsourcing does cost some Americans their job, globalization will go a long way in creating American allies around the world, and eventually this rising tide will even raise our boat.

"Unwelcomed Guest" Christine Porcaro 11/7 Reactionary/Comment

After reading Meredith's post, in the blogging group http://thoughtsontheories.blogspot.com/ I can definitely see what she is saying. It almost does seem hypocritical that democratic states, such as the United States, go around promoting democracy but when the international system is looked at as a whole the United States does not act democratically. I think that in the past the United States has been viewed as a benevolent hegemon but in the past few years, due to unilateral action and the United States inaction in such places as Darfur, the United States in not viewed upon so positively. As the world seems to be more and more interconnected and since right now the US is viewed as the most powerful state, I feel that the US has a great responsibility in acting more democratically. Though the international system can be viewed as anarchic, there are, in my opinion, international institutions that can make a difference. If the United States works with these institutions then countries will feel less threatened and will be more willing to work with the United States. These international institutions give developing countries a say that they might not have and it also gives them a forum to work with the United States where they do not have to feel that they are being exploited or abused. I feel that through international institutions the United States can appear less like an authoritarian and more like a democratic nation. I mean if the US would have listened to the UN, Iraq might not be what it is today and maybe the US could have given help where it is needed and moreover WANTED. I am sure that this has been said before but with power comes responsibility but that does not mean that other who are less powerful are less important. Their opinion and input is just as important and deserves the respect of developed countries especially the United States.

"The inability to pursue well-being" (Christine Porcaro, Week 10?, substantive)

In my opinion globalization is a very hard topic to talk about. I say this because I know that when I view globalization it is very hard not to view it through a "Westerner's" point of view. Yes I can try to understand how globalization affects the Global South and such, but I feel that since many people in the Global North have experienced globalization in such a positive way that a full understanding of the pros and cons of globalization is really hard to truly comprehend. After reading the article, Globalization and Inequality; a Plea for Global Justice by Fred R. Dallmayr, it reminded me of how even though it seems we have an understanding of the inequality that globalization has perpetuated, I still do not feel that the Global North fully comprehends or really wants to. Towards the end of the article, Dallmayr starts to talk about a man by the name of Amartya Sen. Sen explains the concept of poverty as not just invoking a "low well- being," but rather "the inability to pursue well being." When I read this I thought about or discussion in class when people were talking about multinational cooperations placing factories and such in other countries that help provide jobs that pay better than other jobs that they might have had originally offered to them. While at first I agreed that maybe the amount payed and the type of jobs created do not seem like great opportunities in the eyes of the Global North but for the people in the Global South this seems like a greater and better opportunity than they had before. After reading what Sen had wrote I realized why I was so unsettled by just accepting this fact. It seems that globalization might be creating these new job opportunities but I still feel that these jobs create an "inability to pursue well-being". People that are left to work in these factories are never given the same oppotunity as a person from the Global North and it seems that globalization is going to keep it that way. While these multinational cooperations are creating these jobs, people from the Global South are never allowed to pursue their own vision of well-being, just well-being presented to them by the Global North. Yes these cooperations might be bringing these people more money but they are not given the opportunity to become a bigger part in globalization. They are really just exploited for the benefit of the elite. I know that this cannot be fixed in a day but I still feel that there needs to be more emphasis on educating people and allowing them more opportunities than just working in a sweatshop for twelve hours a day. They may be making a better living, but is this the best that globalization can offer or is this just the least common denominator that will keep the Global South satisfied?

Class Discussion - Globalization, week 10, reflective

After our class discussion today, I am torn about my opinion regarding globalization. I agree that the uniqueness of culture suffers from the spread of globalization, but I'm not entirely convinced this is a bad thing. On one hand, I am certainly against the United States pushing its culture into others, but on the other hand these markets are readly accepting American culture, or at least its influence. There are definatly groups that feel strongly against American influence within their country, but is it something that America should try to stop? If these people are allowed to have their own culture and ideas are they not also just as free to adopt the culture of others? I'm not trying to say that the United States has a superior culture, but we should look at the possible advantages of having a global culture. Perhaps if we all have some sense of a shared culture and understanding, it would be difficult to go into conflict looking at the enemy as being the "other." Also, as someone mentioned in class, it would be in theory more difficult to ignore problems such as the conflict in Darfur if we look at everyone as apart of our group. Perhaps the rise of globalization could be the remedy to the massive amount of conflict caused by nationalism.

Can help really hinder growth? (Christine Porcaro Week 10, Reflective)

The discussion in class about Band Aid, Live Aid, and other such fund raisers was quite interesting. After leaving class I asked other people what they thought about these such causes and I got a mixed set of opinions. I feel that it very much mimicked what happened in class. I feel like a lot of the time many Global North countries get so caught up in helping that they never really listen to the people that they are actually helping. Or they get so caught up in what they want to do that they overlook maybe the bigger underlying problem (such as food distribution). If this keeps happening I do feel that the "good" that we are doing in the world will end up only hurting countries in the end by never getting to the root of some major problems. I also feel that if help is always given in a way that doesn't promote self help I do believe that the dichotomy among states will only be perpetuated. I mean I guess this is kind of corny, but I do believe that it is kind of relevant, it just goes to show that if you give someone a fish they eat for a day. Teach someone to fish they eat for a lifetime. This just leads to the questions...who should be the teacher? Do they want to be taught? When does the teaching stop? I don't know. But what I do believe is that ignorant giving cannot keep going on. Yes it might help temporarily but it will not be something that will be beneficial in the long run. Giving/helping with a sense of purpose and understanding I feel can be more effective even though it appears more difficult or even impossible. Blind giving almost seems to keep everything at a status quo and never really tries to solve the real problems facing many societies today.

Poverty Discussion, Response, Week 9

I came out of our discussion last class having a very different viewpoint than when I entered. Like most people, I am of course in favor of helping out those who are less fortunate around the world. I hadn't given much though before last class though about the idea of benefiting from donating to charity, via rock concerts or wrist bands. Having worked at a bicycle shop, I would frequently see customers pass up the opportunity to donate to cancer when we didn't have the livestrong bracelets available. At my high school, I would constantly be asked when my store was getting bracelets in, yet not one person would ever just put money in for the cause the bracelets were raising money for. This could be thought of in two different ways. My initial reaction was that the money for the bracelets could be counted as additional money for cancer that never would've been donated without the bracelets. My reaction yesterday was sorrow for the very fact that people no longer donate to help others, but rather to help themselves.

"The Beautiful, Expanding Future of Poverty" Week 9 Substantive

Nandy's "The Beautiful, Expanding Future of Poverty," while convincing, was demoralizing. Nandy talks about how in democratic states, the poor are often forgotten about, because the average person is well off and doesn't need to deal with it. Though I'm sure that I am also oblivious to the poverty in the United States, I'm still convinced that there is significantly less poverty in democratic states than in other places. It is better to have the majority of the people be well off than to have a few number of people make money and the rest live in poverty. That being said, I feel there is still significant room for improvement within the United States. Our problems with poverty probably can't be fixed with policy change, as to my knowledge there has never been a country with no poverty. At the same time, improving disaster relief response, and creating job programs can certainly help.

Humanitarian Aid, Kelsey Hunter, Week 10 Dialog Post

I'm quite disappointed I missed yesterday's class discussion. However I was at the Fed Challenge in Baltimore all day. So I'm not quite sure what was discussed yesterday, but I am sure that I can respond to Erik's post below mine.
What is advocated in his post actually really shocked me, because I know that Erik is in the ROTC program here at Lehigh and I know he has a lot of knowledge about the military. My questions are: where are we possibly going to get these extra U.S. soldiers to go on "humanitarian aid" missions when our military is already stretched so thin all around the world? Does the question of sovereignty not arise? Why not advocate overthrowing their government if that is who is stealing the aid? Have we already forgotten about Somalia in 1992-93?

If we are going to talk about humanitarian aid, we need to clarify what it actually is and why it is important and why it is not appropriate to send in U.S. troops to use force if necessary to kill people stealing aid.
Humanitarian aid is assistance in times of humanitarian crisis; its purpose is to alleviate suffering, save lives, and maintain human dignity. So yes during times of humanitarian crisis, which can be wars, natural disasters, etc. it is likely necessary to help the people of the country to survive. Food aid, disaster relief, and refugee camps are the usual methods.
The reason I believe it is inappropriate to send in U.S. troops to ensure the proper distribution of the aid stems from my belief that allowing U.S. troops to kill people during such a crisis is a recipe for disaster. In times of crisis, yes some order is necessary, and while U.S. troops could provide that order, they would likely increase fear and anger the home government if they were allowed to use force. Unfortunately for the U.S., the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to raise questions about the U.S.'s capability to engage in purely humanitarianistic aid missions. Although I do actually know about many of the successes the U.S. military has been responsible for in these two countries, the majority of what we hear on the news does not focus on the good they do, but rather on the very, very bad. I think any country facing a humanitarian crisis would be reluctant to allow U.S. soldiers to come in to help.

I want to switch now to why I think it is better to engage in development aid than humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian assistance is much more romantic than development aid. I do not want to downplay the importance of helping people in crisis, for example I am not saying we shouldn't have been engaged in tsunami relief in Southeast Asia. However, in many situations if the country had received adequate development aid help, the effects of crisis could be averted or mitigated much easier. Improving the underlying socioeconomic structures and processes in a country can help prepare people to better deal with crisis. Learning agricultural techniques and building irrigation systems can help people learn to cope with droughts and floods (which are very severe humanitarian crises at times). Helping governments build appropriate infrastructure and institutions helps in any crisis. Combatting corruption (which is why governments steal from their citizens in times of crisis and normal times) through transparency advocation and encouragement of freedom of press and speech will improve the chances that governments won't steal the aid. There are so many things that can be done before the fact to set up the foundations to help people once a crisis occurs.

There are problems with both humanitarian assistance and development aid, the biggest being corruption, but I still do not think allowing soldiers to shoot people will discourage corruption. Corruption is at the root of the problem and serious attention must be paid to the development of a country if corruption is to be eliminated.

Aid at the Barrel of a Gun

The presentation on ethics in IR led to an interesting discussion about the ethics of humanitarian aid. I came away form that discussion frustrated because of the lack of seriousness on the part of western countries towards aid. Many governments that receive aid turn corrupt and take the aid from themselves or sell it for a profit to the people who need it. This angers me because these governments have a responsibility to their people to get the aid to them, not to steal or exploit it. Western countries however, anger me even more because they lack the fortitude to make aid work. Western countries like the US need to take drastic steps to ensure that aid gets to the people that need it. I would like to see something like foreign aid enforced by the military of western nations, not the UN and not nations shy of letting their militaries do their job. For example, the US could deliver aid to another country physically carried out by the Red Cross or UN at set distribution points monitored by US soldiers, flying overhead in Blackhawk helicopters if necessary, to make sure that nothing goes wrong. If government forces try to steal this aid from these distribution points US soldiers would be allowed to engage and use deadly force to stop the stealing and ensure that aid is delivered. There is no point in delivering aid that is not going to be properly delivered or in sending UN peace keepers in blue helmet who are not allowed to fire their weapons even in self-defense. There needs to be a serious commitment to getting the aid delivered even if that means delivering aid at the barrel of a gun. The system of delivering aid that has existed up to now has not worked. I think that if the US is going to get involved in delivering aid to nations in places like Africa it needs to get serious and make sure that the aid it delivers gets used. If that means that the US needs to use the threat of and actual force to make aid count, then so be it. This make seem like an extreme policy but the alternatives are not getting the job done so something drastic, not necessarily my idea, needs to take place to change the system.

More and more questions (Christine Porcaro, Week 10, Substantive)

When reading Ian Holliday's "When is a cause just?" I was getting quite frustrated. Talking about ethics seems to do this a lot. I feel that with every statement about ethics and what it is I feel that more questions are raised. Holliday goes to state that "the presumption against war often held to stand at the start of just war debate should be replaced by a presumption in favor of justice." When I first read this statement I then thought to myself, well then what defines justice? Justice can be defined in many different ways and Holliday does not deny this. However Holliday sees that there can be a convergence in the idea of what justice is. While this may be true I just still find it too hard to define. I find myself just always debating between whether one can even truly define just war without being biased to what you feel is just. I don't feel that a majority opinion on the issue of ethics can be sufficient in defining what just is. When taking in the circumstances for war and all the ways one can approach it, it almost seems impossible to reason whether it was just or not. I feel that regardless, people would be able to argue whether or not is was just. This dialog is good though in a sense that it helps us understand the actions of others, regardless of whether we feel that they are ethical or not. I am not saying that I don't look at wars and find them just or unjust, I just feel that for a lot of wars there seems to be a way for someone to justify actions that may be deemed ethical or unethical. After reading this paper I just feel that it shows that the question of just war creates even more questions, which breeds more question, which in turn asks more question...without ever definitively answering them. I don't believe there really is an answer that will satisfy everyone but that seems to be a common theme in International Relations.

The Ethos of Survival Makes Sense

The article by Louiza Odysseos about the ethos of survival makes some very good and valid points about ethics in IR. Odysseos focuses on the views of Hobbes in relation to the nature of man. Hobbes believed that the nature of man drive him to seek power and that this quest for power is caused by a lack assurance of his survival. This is where the state comes into play and provides that security of life for individuals. Odysseos calls this security “man’s natural right” and that it is “his responsibility to himself to ensure that he does survive.” So by trusting the state with this responsibility it becomes the ethical code of the state to protect the right to life of its citizens first and foremost. I agree with this analysis because it is consistent with the actions and inactions of states. States fight wars for their own interests and rarely if ever take any kind of serious action to protect the right to life of others. By serious action I mean by relying on more than a UN peacekeeping force with its hands tied to protect the lives of others. War by its very nature supports this analysis because when a country goes to war with another country it does not take into account the right to life of the citizens of the other country. This analysis is also supported by the fact that the most popular contemporary IR theoretical standpoints, realism, liberalism, functionalism, and contructivism, do not try to claim that states act selflessly in support of other states and their citizens. IR theories like idealism that try to go there are unsuccessful because altruism is not part of the ethics of states. Not that states do not ever give foreign aid or get involved in humanitarian endeavors, but states do not put in a serious effort motivated by the indelible right to life of the citizens of other states. If this were so states would not focus the majority of their resources towards the benefit of themselves. I think that this is why Odysseos connects this ethos of survival to realism, because whether we like it or not states are going to choose to protect themselves and their citizen before they act to protect other states and their citizens. It would be unethical for a state to put the citizen of other states first because it has a responsibility to the people that belong to it first.