Final Reflection

I can't believe its already the end of my first semester of college. Its been quite an adventure. I am so glad that I did the World Politics UC. I have made so many wonderful friends and I have learned a lot from Professor Jackson, Erin and all my intelligent peers. I enjoyed the opportunities that the Wednesday labs offered. I definitely went to areas of the city I may have never been able to visit.

I enjoyed the major simulation this past week. It was fun to be China in a World Bank session and it was also fun to haggle, negotiate, vote and legislate with classmates. I wish we could have continued our World Bank discussion because I think we, as a class, would have made some really interesting changes to the original World Bank list.

I am so glad that Winter break is so close! I can't yet imagine how wonderful its going to be without academic responsibilities for a month, but I soon will and I can't be more thankful.

Does Sovereignty Protect Difference?

I think sovereignty can protect difference, but I do not think it is necessary to protect difference. As a student at American University, I walk around daily with people of very different cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. America, the country, is full of people who are different and though they may not be as strongly represented in the U.S. government as white, males are, they are still protected.

Sovereignty, though it may protect the self against the other, it doesn't always protect the differences within itself. The banning of the burqa in France can be viewed as an example of when sovereignty could have protected a difference if it was in the hands of an Islamic government. Though sovereignty may be good for the overarching population, the exceptions to the norm may not be protected by sovereignty.

If the world broke into sovereign bodies based on differences, it would be a disaster. From a realists perspective, multiplying the amount of "others" would only be many times more threatening as the number of enemies grew. Continuing to evaluate from a realist perspective, sovereign bodies would then begin to take over other sovereign bodies and then potentially squelch the difference in the other body.

Reflection

Over Thanksgiving break I had a very detailed discussion with my Uncle Adi about the political debate regarding the building of a mosque two blocks away from ground zero. I began the discussion by expressing my outrage at how Renee Ellmers uses the terms "muslim" and "terrorist" interchangeably and how I think she is ignorant and offensive. I also told him that I think that a Muslim cultural center is a perfectly peaceful and pleasant idea for the old coat factory near ground zero.
My uncle, who is very liberal and very open minded and accepting of all colors, races and religions, asked me if I'd seen a particular video of the Dutch politician, Geerd Wilders, speaking. Geerd Wilders is a very radical politician who believes that Islam is spreading to the West because the Koran bids those of the Islam faith to conquer the West. Watch his video and see what you think.
<"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAe9ovNSTg8">

It seems very peculiar to me to think that religious persons are migrating westward in order to smother out other religions. When we visited the French Embassy for our Wednesday lab, the French diplomat told our group that the French government is worried because those who are immigrating into France aren't taking on a French identity. The same issue is happening all over Europe. Persons are immigrating into a country but still identifying themselves as individuals from their country of origin. The French government is trying to reiterate the importance of maintaining French culture and not letting it get diluted with other culture. These ideals are what prompted the ban of the wearing of burqas.
I don't know where I stand on the issue. I certainly don't think all muslims are extremist terrorists trying to take over the world. Learning about this Geerd Wilders and others who agree with him has definitely prompted my recent interest in immigration patterns and the muslim faith.

Time

Yesterday I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine. We were discussing our common interests in studying WWII and the Civil War (or the War between the States). We talked about the Battle of Gettysburg, the Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln, Pickett’s charge... the whole works. I was expressing how much I have always wanted to go to Gettysburg. She told that it is not a haunted place, but a hallowed place. My friend, Liz, began to tell me a story about a Union family taking in a wounded confederate soldier, and how they befriended him, loved him, and he became a member in their church two days before his death. She said that Europeans don’t think America has history, but we do. We have stories of revolution, love, war, strength and defeat.
Liz and I started talking about WWII and she brought up an interesting point. She said that our children will never meet a WWII veteran. They will never understand the level of gratitude we owe to them. I added that they will also never meet a Holocaust survivor. It just made me realize how peculiar it is that the world keeps turning and generations keep reproducing. WWII was the last war in which America united as a country to participate in. Pacific theatre, Atlantic theatre, and the home front were all war-centered areas. In a few years, the greatest generation will have to be told to our children by secondary sources or they will have to read, but they won’t be able to fully understand.
In my junior year of high school I had to read “The Greatest Generation” by Tom Brokaw and complete a corresponding project. I had to interview a WWII veteran. My mom introduced me to a veteran in our church and the next week I drove to his house to interview him. He told me getting his draft letter when he was 18 years old and leaving the North Carolina farm he had grown up on so he could serve his country. he ended up going to flight school, but because his vision was poor at night, he remained in the states to train other pilots in instrument flying before they were sent over. He was a precious person and he gave me a copy of his book. He has written a book that is a compilation of poems and stories that he wrote. I went home after the interview and started reading his book. It was the most beautiful poetry to his wife before and after her death. A few months later Mr. Betts, the WWII vet, became very ill and passed away. I felt so privileged to have heard his story and to have been able to share it with others.
Just think, there will come a day when there are no longer any persons alive who were alive on September 11th, 2001. It seems so strange and impossible but the clock keeps ticking and time is flying by us faster than we ever expect.

Indians

What a brilliant picture! I must first compliment Erin in her idea for the shot. Secondly I must point out that, in my opinion, both depictions of Native Americans is incorrect. The Redskins football team has a derogatory name and shows a very stereotypical drawing of a Native American.
The museum was built as a tribute to Native Americans, yet is just as incorrect and offensive. The museum, though it contains beautiful art, artifacts, and remnants of Nativa American culture, it omits some of the most brutal, yet important aspects of Native American history. The museum conveniently leaves out the numerous accounts of American repression and ruthless cruelty toward the Native American peoples. Even though I am not of Native American decent, I am personally offended that the creators of the museum could so intentionally left out a very defining part of Native American history. I say it is defining because the history of Native Americans, at least as far back as written documentation, has been shaped most violently by European settlers who soon developed into the America we call home. Native American peoples have suffered endless Supreme Court Case loses, brutal attacks, and stripping of rights. I am surprised the museum has gotten away with its silence on the subject for so long. It is as if the museum is determined to blatantly lie to the children and other visitors to the museum, looking to avoid marring the American image. Then again, it may be best to avoid sharing the stories of American evils toward the Native American tribes with children, because unlike the bad guys in fairytales, there is not hero that has sent the evils away, righted all the wrongs and saved the day. Who wants to tell their kid that the American dream they spend their afternoons thinking about is tainted by the red blood of Native American peoples.
There is no difference in the two depictions of Indians in the picture. Both are politically and morally incorrect.

A New Kind of History

This week has been crazy. I have had nine performances in 7 days. I really enjoyed hearing Ann Tickner speak. How are these things related? They are much more interrelated than one might think! The musical I was in, I Never Saw Another Butterfly, was based on a true story of a Czechoslovakian ghetto during the Holocaust in which a famous Czech artist became a teacher to the children in the ghetto and helped them paint and write about how they felt and what they saw. The teacher hid the paintings and poems in hopes that they would be discovered after the war. A suitcase full of the children’s creations was found in the 1950s and there was a book made.
How is this linked to Ann Tickner? She talked about rewriting history from the point of view of those whose voices were silenced. She said history is written by old, white men and she is attempting to write history from the view of minorities and women.
I thought it was interesting to evaluate the musical as a means of voicing a piece of history that would make it to the history page. The basic facts have been stated. Hitler, FDR, Winston Churchill, Terezin, and Nazi are all terms that make the page in the history book but in between the lines are so many stories. The show I was in was a means of projected the voices of the victimized children onto the ears of students and members of the community.
What if, instead of accepting the history presented to us, we meandered off the beaten trail and discovered more than what the well-known people said in each era? What if we began to see history as a myriad of voices, some deafening and others whispering, but all adding to history and its significance? Just some thoughts.

Election Reflection

In the past week I have been officially embarrassed. No, I didn’t trip on stage or have toilet paper stuck to my shoe. Its worse. I am now officially represented politically by Renee Ellmers. “Whats the big deal?” you might ask. If you haven’t stumbled across her before you are in for a surprise. As I shared with the class on Thursday, Ellmers has flaunted her ignorance for all to see. The pinnacle of her witlessness can be observed in her video entitled, “No Mosques at Ground Zero.” Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QvKOdiyFaw

Yes. Renee Ellmers just called all muslims terrorists, she implied the supremacy of the english language and she called places of worship “victory mosques.” Not horrified yet? Check out her interview with CNN reporter, Anderson Cooper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAqarG8l6w&feature=player_embedded

Just to clarify. She says that she is representing the people of district two of North Carolina. Well, I’m from the second district of North Carolina and I detest the ignorance that this new congressman sports with blind pride!

I must admit, I finally feel the sting of election loss. This was my first election and it is truly infuriating to watch one’s country prepare for destruction when all you can do is add your tally to the votes of the masses. I am embarrassed that this woman is even considered a productive and acceptable member of society, and I am mortified that constituents in my district have stooped to voting for such an inconsiderate, ill-informed person. This time, it goes beyond party lines. This is about co-existing, no matter what your person beliefs are.

Civilian vs. Military

This refelction is in response to 93 day’s Week 10 Reflection.
I wrote a paper once on whether or not the U.S. entered WWII soon enough, considering the moral injustice of the Holocaust. As I approached the paper I realized that it came down to the same issue you have discussed above; our boys or their boys? I came to the conclusion that there is a distinct difference between civilian blood and military blood. An individual that is in the U.S. military is armed for battle. Though at the time of WWII there was a draft in effect, now the members of the U.S. military have all joined on their own accord. A civilian, say a victim of the Holocaust, is unarmed and helpless. Its easy to see how those gassed to death in Auschwitz are drastically different from those killed in the line of duty.
That being said, not all civilians are as innocent and guiltless as the victims of the Holocaust. A world where guerrilla warfare, suicide bombings, extremist groups and terrorist organizations face our troops daily is not only scary but also makes it difficult to draw the line between whose blood is more important.
As a human rights activist, I believe that human lives are precious, yet its impractical to refuse to embrace the unfortunate fact that when innocent lives are endangered, it usually takes the acts of empowered lives to trade blood for blood.
The point is, though I understand your emotional appeal by talking about the Kentucky mother, I must point out that military personnel have sworn to give their lives for their country when asked to do so, and if America decides to spread democratic ideals, or help an ally, or halt an evil dictator, so be it. Our service men and women ay down their lives daily for whatever America decides to fight for.
I definitely agree that the U.S. must act wisely and purposefully in the international arena, since political decisions made affect individual lives. However, I think the political decisions made should revolve around defending our morals and not around safe guarding our troops.

Week 10 Reflection (10/25-10/29)

NOTE: This reflection will not include anything on the Stewart/Colbert Rally, I didn't go and everyone else and their mum is writing about it so go there if you can't live without it.

This week we tried to get back on track with the syllabus, the Risk game having gone on longer than expected and the schedule being thrown off. Anyway, the discussion in class were very interesting and raised some interesting points about security and what should be part of it and what should not be. But all that was covered in my blog post and while interesting, is not what I want to talk about today.

Last night I watched Black Hawk Down with some of my friends in the sky lounge. For those of you who don't know, the movie dramatizes the events of the Battle of Mogadishu when US forces attempted to capture Mohamed Aidid who had been inter-directing UN food shipments and intentionally starving hundreds of thousands of Somalis to death. 160 US troops entered the city and attempted to capture Aidid and his lieutenants. The operation initially was successful but soon Aidid militiamen began attacking the troops and successfully downed two Black Hawk helicopters. The ensuing battle pit 160 light US infantrymen against 3000 entrenched Somali militiamen. By the time the battle was over, 18 Americans were killed, 84 wounded and 1 captured (later released). Shortly thereafter, the main US combat presence was removed from Somalia.

I had known the general outline of the event beforehand, but seeing it dramatized put the issue in stark relief. There is, of course, a dilemma here: should we have even been there? Should we have restricted our use of firepower? Should we have left after we suffered such an inglorious defeat? This example, of course, dealt with food and a very clear issue of a despicable man starving millions -- but what about democracy? Should we spread that at the end of a sword?

Well, this certainly ties into our class discussion on Tuesday (guessing based on the readings) but I shall briefly address the matter.

It would seem to me that there isn't any sense to ask a mom in Kentucky to send her kid over to Iraq to die for a system we're strong arming onto the population. But just because we got into the war stupidly doesn't mean we have to leave stupidly. I still support the current, conditions based withdrawal that is on the table. The invasion of Iraq cost trillions of dollars, killed ~4,500 Americans and ~150,000 Iraqis. And for what? A corrupt, dysfunctional government susceptible to influence from malicious neighbors? A government that fails to provide services and basic security?

----

Astrik’s son Hambartzum listened politely. He assessed what he had just heard about democracy and new freedoms, and then pronounced:

“I am free to read the newspaper I want, but what I will read is that my mother is dead.”

- http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/defining-freedom-in-baghdad/

Now, I'm not totally unreasonable -- I do think there are situations that require a solid dose of hot lead and cold steel. Situations where I do think it is reasonable to send our boys over there to bleed for someone else. Rwanda, Serbia, Sudan and even the Somalia intervention mentioned in the beginning I would support.

But even there, we have tricky questions. Do we just send in limited numbers of SOF operators? Or do we go all out? Do we restrain our troops or do we allow them to use heavy weapon systems in the pursuit of their goals? It's all conditional, but I would support the idea that we could limit our influence to a small contingent of SOF operators to minimize the cost and antibody effect from the local population (warlords or militias not originally hostile to us but being convinced that we're occupiers and fighting us). And we should always endeavor to minimize civilian casualties, but not at the cost of our own men. Were I in charge during Mogadishu, I would have made full use of aerial bombardment and A130 gunships in Aidids stronghold. These weapons should be used carefully and sparingly, but we should not hesitate to use them in full force when our troops are engaged in combat and in need of assistance.

Being the most powerful nation in the world carries with it numerous ethical problems about when and how we should use our power. I look forward to discussing these issues in the upcoming class and week. I can already tell it's going to get.... heated.

My Privacy or Our Security?

My first thought regarding the limits of security policy is that security should not breech personal privacy. However, after thinking about it I realized that there are really no limits to security. Governments will do what they deem necessary to remain safe. One might think that since we are in America and we have First Amendment rights, the government does not breech our privacy. This is not true. The government can tap personal phone lines, and they do.
So, is this too far? I certainly feel stalked even though I know the Department of Homeland Security is not wasting it’s time on my phone line. Whats the point of Freedom of Speech if what we say can be secretly monitored and possibly held against us?
Though I can’t say I agree with the level to which the United States can tap into anyone’s personal business, there are some people I hope the government is monitoring. After all, it is for our security that such policies are in place! There are certainly some shady people that its arguably necessary for the government to keep tabs on.
I went to the official Department of Homeland Security website and, of course, got no specific information considering its a government website and the government offers limited information especially regarding security. However, I did learn one thing. Today the national security threat advisory is on yellow meaning there is a “significant risk of terrorist attacks.” I don’t know how often its on yellow, but its still a terrifying thought. Some random Thursday in October is a code yellow for national security threats! It makes me a little more satisfied knowing the U.S. government is monitoring lots of individuals and behaviors and incidents.
Perhaps this does not answer the question of whether or not security has limits or should have limits, but this is my brain dump on the matter. There is a double standard with security: I want my personal liberties and I want to be protected. Though I don’t want the government nosing around in my life, I certainly feel more safe with the knowledge that they poke around in some peoples lives!

Diplomatic Risk: Power Dynamics

On Sunday night I went to see “Alls Well That Ends Well,” at the Shakespeare Theatre Company. Keeping with this theme, its easy to look at our class’ game of Diplomatic Risk as “well” because it ended “well,” at least for the blue, black and yellow teams. The means, however, is the part that we must evaluate. Each team went through a struggle as each tried to secure a win as designated by their interests.
Though my team won, I would argue that the means were not just. Initially, my group attempted to remain loyal to our assigned objective to spread peace. However, as we began to lose and realize that we would be out of the game completely if we did not change tactics, we decided to engage in military combat in order to promote peace. A real pacifist would not have agreed with such actions, yet it is a truth of politics that sometimes you must decide whether the ends or the means are more important to you and your cause. We, the blue team, decided that the a peaceful ending was more important to us than a peaceful means of getting there.
Much like actual politics, when not designated as a political leader, its easy to get pushed aside and ignored. I was not the head of state or the diplomat for my group, and though I was working hard to remain aware of my groups activities, motives and action, it was hard to remain interested when I had no official sway or power. I wish our class had played two games, so that each person could have been actively involved in the game. I felt ripped off by only being able to add comments or informally discuss things with my group and other groups.

Diplomatic Risk Just Isn't Real Life

Diplomatic Risk is similar to real world politics in that it is modeled, at least more accurately than regular Risk, after world politics. It takes into account the fact that each country has a goal for international relations, be it maintaining and spreading peace, expansion, global dominance, etc. It also deals with two theaters of politics: military and diplomacy. Whereas regular Risk is based upon realist ideals and sets the end goal as global domination, Diplomatic Risk entertains the idea that there are different tactics and approaches to global politics, which is much like world politics in actuality. If I were a realist, I would argue that Risk is very similar to world politics, and it at least embodies the main theme of international relations. However, I am not a realist and thus I find that neither Risk, nor Diplomatic Risk resemble world politics too closely.

That being said, there are a lot of discrepancies between Diplomatic Risk and the real world. For one, there is no over arching power enforcing rules (PTJ). Allies can attack allies (ex. Germany’s attack on Russia in WWII), there is no order of play (countries act simultaneously), and many chiefs of state cannot be replaced as swiftly as allowed in Diplomatic Risk (U.S. president is elected every four years, dictators usually rule until their death). In Diplomatic Risk countries are working towards short term goals. A team’s goal may be to take control of certain countries, or regions of the world or their goal may be to encourage the formation of allies, or the destruction of allies. Another severe discrepancy from actuality, is a team’s special power. In real world politics, countries may have tricks up their sleeves (i.e. nuclear weapons, plans for sneak attacks, etc.) but there is no real way to ensure that at any given time a country can spring a super power out on the world, without being combated or defeated.

Though Diplomatic Risk is an example of world politics and is a way for our class to experiment with international relations, the boundaries and parameters of the game are far from realistic.

Let's Play Diplomatic Risk

I was home for fall break and over dinner I began to explain Diplomatic Risk to my family. I explained how each team had a head of state to manage troop movement and a diplomat to represent them in the World Council. I continued that each team had an objective and a super power, and that not every team was trying to conquer the globe. At this statement my boyfriend, Nathan, interjected, “The point of risk is world domination! Just remember that!” I reminded that it was Diplomatic Risk, but he didn’t care because he found our Risk adaptations to be superfluous.

As I reflected on the exchange I realized that many people may think this way about international relations. The majority of citizens on this globe have not studied different theories of international relations ad therefore may consider world domination or being #1 as being the most important thing in global politics. Is the majority of the world made up of realists? I wouldn’t go as far as to assert that such persons are realists, but I think it can be noted that realist ideals are instilled in us throughout our lives.

As a kid, I spent most of my grade school years in North Carolina, where they don’t hesitate to brag about the Roanoke settlement that birthed the nation. Though Europe wasn’t sending armies, they sent settlers to establish influence, dominance and trade ports across the ocean. The native peoples were mistreated and yet all of this is overlooked as we honor the early years of America. From the beginning of our academic ventures, we are taught that global dominance and forcing one’s control onto unwilling persons is okay if the result is beneficial (the end justifies the means). Popular culture is filled with books and movies recounting historic tales of bravery, conquest and victory. To many people, war and dominance, the objectives of normal Risk, are adventurous, courageous, and perfectly acceptable as a means for handling global affairs. Nature teaches us not to lose and not to settle for less when you can be number one. Why should international relations be any different?

As a human rights activist and a person who favors a mix of liberal and constructivist ideals, I find it extremely important to remind those around us that diplomacy is an option, and a favorable one at that! When the world views something almost universally through a realist lens, its vital that someone stands up and says, “Let’s play DIplomatic Risk!”

Week 7 Reflection

I was recently cast in a fall musical here at American University entitled I Never Saw Another Butterfly. It focuses on the terror and destruction that befell the Czechoslovakian jews who were taken to Terezin, a ghetto during World War II, and, most importantly the beauty of their hope. I am a jewish mother in the show, and thus have spent the past week of my life becoming an individual terrified by circumstances that have placed me out of control of my family’s or my own life. As an actress it is my job to become her mentally and thus make choices, both mentally and physically, that she would make. As practice has become more and more intense, I have begun to see and feel what it was like for victims of the Holocaust. Tying this concept into world politics, I know for certain that Machiavelli was entirely wrong in his assertion about two sets of morals. As Hitler rose into power, began the Nazi Regime, and started to transport, relocated, cluster, and murder the Jewish population of Western Europe, he may have been thinking and acting according to Machiavelli’s definition of a good ruler. He may have considered his actions impersonal, and necessary for his cause.

I consider my role in the show as an embodiment of every mother whose life was torn to tatters by the Holocaust. I have my children and my husband torn out of my arms and I can tell you that the politics of the Holocaust was personal to every individual involved. His choices destroyed millions of people’s way of life, their families, their societies... everything. It is impossible to say that his actions were moral. Machiavelli says that there are two sets of morals: personal and necessary for politics. He would approve of a number of human rights violations if they were deemed necessary to a political regime, because its on a political level and it doesn’t apply to one’s personal morals, but I contend that there is only one set of moral codes, because every decision, even if made by a political figure, is personal to at least one person.

Theory vs. Action

Our discussions this week about the relevance of international theory was intriguing. It has always seemed to me that theory is applicable to everything. The fact that theories of international relations conflict, is not uncommon. The very nature of theory is that it is an unknown that persons hypothesize about, leaving room for disagreement, contradiction, and controversy.

Whats important, is that nations do not act according to a theory, but theories are used to attempt to label and categorize the actions of states. As our guest speaker on Wednesday pointed out, those in the bureaucracy are not concerned with the application of international relations theories, but with acting according to the necessity of the state, and according to personal, national, and international morals.

As a student, I can see the relevance in studying international relations theories in an attempt to understand and rationalize the actions of states, however, I can also see the downfall in obsessing over the logistics of theories instead of focusing on the actions that states have made. There is a happy medium between being sensible about the actions of states, and hypothesizing their future actions and being concerned with the current decisions of one’s state and others in the international sphere.

Clashing Theories

The discussion of determining which international relations theory is correct and which are false is a waste of time. Like anything that contradicts another thing, a common ground cannot be found without compromising the essence of each theory. Religion is a perfect example. Two contradicting religions cannot be practiced by one person, because religious principles are stated in truths, and when these do not coincide a person cannot practice both religions without breaking the spiritual understanding of each religion respectively. To be more specific, Christians base their faith on the belief that Jesus, whom they believe is God’s son, came to earth and died so that believers could be granted forgiveness from their sins and, upon death, be accepted into eternal life in heaven. Hinduism is based on the recognition of Brahman, a three-in-one god, and the principle of reincarnation. The ultimate goal is to eventually reach Nirvana, the end of their reincarnation journey. Christians believe that one must believe in Jesus in order to receive everlasting life and since the Hindu religion does not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, it is impossible for Hindus to enter heaven. Another even more stark contradiction to both above mentioned religions is atheism. Aligning oneself with a religion that states the belief in a higher, holy power directly contradicts with the belief that no higher power exists.

Similarly, it is impossible to decide which IR theory is correct. All theories are subject to each individuals opinions and perspectives. Although there may be overlapping qualities in the theories, or there may be grey areas in which multiple theories seem applicable or no theories seem applicable, each stands on its own, unable to be meshed with the other theories. Individuals must decide for themselves as to which theory they find more applicable to world politics.

A Fear-driven French Identity

This weeks trip to the French Embassy was perfectly applicable to class. I really enjoyed the relevance because I was able to apply the theoretical aspect of identity that was discussed in class to the specifics of French identity. The French diplomat addressed the French idea of identity: French first, everything else second.

Since visiting the embassy, I have read several articles about the recent actions of the French government, specifically the controversial actions of the French Parliament’s ban on the wearing of burqas and President Sarkozy’s law to remove the Roma from their camps. Both actions, though carried out by separate bodies within the governmental system, reiterate a fear-driven mentality to maintain a pure French identity. Whereas the United States was founded by immigrants and has, generally speaking, been rather welcoming of immigrants through its history, France has historically been much less tolerant of meshing cultures. Banning the wearing of burqas is a perfect example of French assimilation and the erasing of previous identity to become solely French. This video news report (http://online.wsj.com/video/french-parliament-backs-veil-ban/C6F48A08-7B76-4422-8458-FCFA5D92D7B7.html) states that in addition to being fined if caught wearing a burqa, attending French citizenship classes may also be required. Is this legislation passed out of fear or hatred? Its hard to say. However, I think that the French government fears it may lose its identity to the new European identity officially defined by the establishment of the European Union (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703376504575492011925494780.html).

President Sarkozy’s dedication to destroying the Roma camps and deporting the Roma from France, seems to be yet another means of protecting the French identity. Sarkozy blames the Roma for acts of violence and other criminal acts, such as trafficking. Instead of addressing the issues within the Roma population, Sarkozy has chosen to further the issue of human rights violations by ruthlessly destroying the lively hood of thousands of individuals (http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGPRE201009131861&lang=e, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11243923).

Where should the line be drawn? Is identity what a population is comprised of or what a government molds the population to become? I think that the answers to these questions depend of the type of government that is ruling a country. In America, individuals can, for the most part, practice any religion, wear any clothing, speak any language, etc. This attracts many immigrants looking for a place to fit in and succeed. Many countries, however, have governments that forbid any type of personal of public identity that is not sanctioned by the government (i.e. China).

Though identity can be a complex aspect of international relations, it is vital. How world leaders, populations, governments, and organizations view themselves and other countries, is essential to how each actor will interact with all the “others” that exist in the international venue.

Blog 5

Government has existed as many different things in many different places throughout history. After acknowledging this fact, it is hard to discern what norms exist for governmental powers and actions. In America, the U.S. government is expected to remain, for the most part, out of individual affairs whereas, in other countries the governments may have established a norm of quite the reverse.

Despite these differences, however, a global norm of morals does exist. It is not acceptable for states to commit acts of moral injustice (i.e. genocides, murder, any human rights violation, etc.) and this expectation is held to standards made by the U.N. and other institutions. Unfortunately, this moral code is often breeched by nations on the road to power and self-interest. The blog question poses that there are either limiting social expectations, or all norms are reducible by those hungry for power. Both are applicable. Yes, there are social norms and expectations for the state, but everything is and has been overridden by governments thirsting for power. Just like the norms for a professor (cannot touch students, cannot physically, emotionally or sexually abuse students, etc.) can and have been breeched, global norms are often breeched as well. In the case of a professor, a violator of any major norm will result in a loss of the teaching position, and thus a loss of power. Similarly, a state that breeches the moral code is often approached by the U.N., often occupied or attacked, and in a sense losses some of its power as well.

On a personal and individual level, social norms are very powerful. Unfortunately, states are not worried about embarrassing themselves, or disrupting class when their phone rings. As realists often point out, states, especially developing states, have a thirst for power and will do anything to quench that thirst.

Week 4 Reflection

This week we discussed the most vital aspect of government, its method of replenishing itself. When we traveled to the Department of State and spoke with David Bame, I began to think about the inner workings of the United States government. This very important man was discussing politics with a troupe of college freshman. Thats a big deal! The United States government is, for the most part, open with its citizens. We have a government such that we, the citizens, vote officials and leaders into office. There are lobbyist and interest groups that appeal to congress. There are non-profit organizations that work for worthy causes. In contrast, many countries would never allow citizens, especially students, into a federal building because no aspect of such governmental regimes appeal to the popular sovereignty of the people.

There are certainly downfalls to our government. Many point to education, balancing state and federal powers, the electoral college and many laws and policies as culprits of negatively affecting our government, and it may be true. However, our government has lasted. When other governments have struggled to survive, the United States has stood strong. Why? I believe it is because there is hope in democracy. If someone dislikes something they can advocate for change. For example, if I dislike our current president and oppose his policies, I can plan to vote against him in the next election and I can actively engage in politics elsewhere to lobby agains his actions. Our government is also built on a system of checks and balances. So, if I vote and my candidate does not win, I know that the winning candidate will still have to clear his actions with other actors in the political world.

Somehow it just works, and it wouldn’t work without voting, or democracy, or people like David Bame who defend the rights of U.S. citizens and correspond both internationally and with a bunch of freshman.

Voting: Educated vs. Non-educated votes

If I were a candidate for a political office I would want as many votes as possible, educated or not. In fact, I might even rely on propaganda to win votes. I wouldn’t care about how educated my voters were. This is the political game. However, after taking a step back and analyzing the situation from a theoretical standpoint, educated votes are a necessity for sustaining democratic ideals. The object of a democratic government is for the citizens of a nation to express their political opinions through the election of officials who represent what the majority of voters think and care about. The full benefits and beauties of democracy are not fully reaped unless every citizen votes, and every citizen’s vote is educated. By “educated” I am not referring to the scholastic exposure of the voters, but to the extent of their knowledge of the political race, the candidates and the current issues in society. A democracy cannot represent the opinions and convictions of a population if the votes are not backed by knowledge about the candidates and their platforms.

That being said, democracy, by definition, is government by the people, and thus it is against the very fundamentals of democracy to deny any citizen, of proper age, a vote. Voters cannot be filtered by their knowledge of government, history, current events and/or candidates. It is simply non-democratic. If the government controls who votes, the government can then control its own affairs, elect officials that coincide with its current policies and thus destroy the democracy, for this type government would be dictatorial.

Having established that voter education is important, yet it is unconstitutional and undemocratic to prevent voters from casting a vote based on electoral knowledge, I must state any vote is better than no vote. At first, it seemed more logical to say that a non-educated vote is more harmful, however, upon further thought my view was swayed. Most voters align themselves with a political party that most accurately represents and upholds their political ideals. At the polls, the voter is either highly versed in the candidate’s platforms, in which case they may vote for the candidate of either party, or they are poorly acquainted with the elements of the election and vote along with their party’s candidate. This is key. A voter, uneducated in the platform of a candidate, still casts a vote for the candidate merely because of party association. It could be argued that this is why, in U.S. politics, a third party candidate is rarely acknowledged as much of a threat. Uneducated voters have not taken the time to research candidates within or outside of their party and will thus default to voting with their party’s candidate. Although this vote may be considered “uneducated,” the fact that the voter has aligned him/herself with a political party, backs their vote with at least a basic amount of knowledge regarding the meaning of the placement of their vote and is thus more important and “better” than no vote at all.