End of Ze World

After watching Dr. Strangelove and doing the WMD and terrorism readings, the idea of “the end of the world” sort of stuck in my brain. Obviously, this is a pretty depressing thought, and one that is hard to make light of—but I am going to attempt to do so using a Youtube video…Ah the wonders of Youtube.

The video is fittingly entitled “End of Ze World” and I am sure many of you have seen it at some point or another. Yes, it may seem stupid and it may have a few too many curse-words, but it does fit into our discussion of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the possible end of the world. So in order to continue to read this blog post, it would be helpful to watch the movie. Here is the link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE

“Hokay, So,” Moving onto how this relates to our discussions in class, the clearest message from this beautiful piece of film editing is the fact that once one country launches nukes, every other country with nukes will respond and end up obliterating the earth, leaving us in a “nuclear winter.” This idea of mutually assured destruction present in the proliferation and possible launching of WMDs (especially nuclear weapons) indicates a possible stabilizing characteristic with such proliferation. As the movie shows, the cost of nuclear war is quite high—in fact it represents the “end of ze world—” thus it should make nuclear war unacceptable.

Despite this apparent stabilization provided by the presence of WMDs in our world, I think the movie proves that they are a lot more destabilizing, in that the US (in the movie) arbitrarily decides to nuke China, for no apparent reason. This could be due to a crazy leader or simply a miscalculation on the part of the U.S. government. Furthermore, the initial launch of one nuclear weapon sets off the chain reaction where every country with nuclear capabilities launches their missiles (France does after they “have a nap”).

In short, I thought this movie presented a comical yet accurate look at the presence of WMDs in our world today. No I am not suggesting this video be played at UN nuclear non-proliferation meetings, but for our sake, it both summarizes (in a relatively entertaining way) and mitigates the possible end of the world. And, in addition to the anti-proliferation message the movie also plugs the immense detrimental effects of global warming, thus encouraging change in the way we treat our environment.

What really is the rational thing to do?

It is an American assumption that, given the choice, any rational person would choose democracy over any other form of government. So what is rational, anyway? A few of the articles we read for the last few lectures pointed out that several government officials believe that religious extremists lack reason, for example. This seems to be an idea left over from the Enlightenment. Religion is just as reasonable a motivation as nationhood in many senses. The dedication to the protection of an artificial definition of territory made up of an ethnically heterogeneous population and that includes territories separated by oceans may seem a bit strange and unreasonable, too. I have heard arguments that religion is man-made, and therefore, fanatic dedication to a religious cause is silly. But if this is true, it still doesn’t give any more concreteness to the idea of a nation. If both are manmade, as some insist, why is the nation more rational than religion?
But I’ve digressed. I want to discuss the apparent inherent rationality of democracy. It is assumed that any government that isn’t one is oppressive in the American popular view. The literature on nation-building we read addressed problems of building democracies, but they never seemed to challenge the idea that a democracy is desirable in every society. Sometimes, in my view, democracy just can’t work. Some societies neither want nor function under democracy. I recall reading an article in Smithsonian magazine about post-Cold War Russia and, at the time, was surprised to find that the Russians interviewed lamented the transition to democracy and preferred a more authoritarian government. These were not people who had benefitted particularly from the USSR, but ordinary people. In Russia’s case, this seems to make sense- it is an enormous country that covers landscapes difficult to traverse. This kind of place might need a stronger government that can’t depend on the people to govern efficiently. Democracy in fact seems to be fading in Russia these days when at one point it seemed to be improving. Maybe this gives us a glance at what is actually needed or accepted as a government in this society.
The New York Times published an article on Monday that reported that many in Bhutan prefer to maintain the autocratic government in place rather than transition to democracy as the current government plans. In this case, it is those in power who urge democracy, not the average citizens. In fact, the government must use a lot of persuasion for popular support for democracy to catch. Of course, one could argue that it’s fear of changing the status quo that makes people reluctant to embrace democracy. But this doesn’t explain why populations often keep away from democracy even when their governments are in transition anyway. The United States and United Nations has to take into consideration that different populations have different values that may be incompatible to begin with. Therefore, imposing democracy is destined to fail in many situations. Maybe before we study the inputs and outputs of nation-building and the nuances of success we should find what makes a democracy tenable in the first place. Democracy may not always be the rational option.

Terrorism

I was reading the news on CNN.com and this article caught my eye, since it seemed to relate to Tuesdays lecture about terrorism. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/24/somali.fighting.ap/index.html)

The major issue I can see with Somalia is the sharp division between the cultural and political ties of the country. The article mentions that since 1991, when the dictator in power was overthrown, the government has been anything but stable. As the current government is backed by the West, the question of how to peacefully combine Western policies with the culture of Islam has arisen. And as part of the growing trend of terrorism, Somali extremist Islamic insurgents have felt the need to take this question into their own hands through acts of violence.

What really caught my attention however was the last line of the article:
"Last week, Islamic militants here welcomed being added to the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations, saying they only wished the designation had come sooner"

At first I found it a little funny - I mean who in the United States would actually find it honorable to be considered a terrorist? But the more I thought about it the more I began to wonder the criteria for this list was. What had these Islamic insurgents done that made them all of a sudden be terrorists in the eye of the United States? Does being on this list change the way the United States approaches these terrorists? Is this list even actually effective?

According to the US State Department website (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm), there are currently 42 groups around the world that the United States designates as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (or FTOs). The purpose of FTOs are that they “play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.” The terrorism business? Alright…

To be defined as an FTO the State Department looks “not only at the actual terrorist attacks that a group has carried out, but also at whether the group has engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains the capability and intent to carry out such acts.” The site is also quick to point out that, “The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States”. By providing for threats of foreign relations, the United States gives themselves an official reason for acting against a specific threat anywhere in the world.

So are these Islamic extremist insurgents rightly called terrorists? Obviously yes. But what defines them as so?


To me, their actions appear to fall under the category of religion. Although from this specific incident it is difficult to say whether or not non-religious issues are addressed, as the insurgents are simply defined as an Islamic extremist group. This terrorist “clan” as the article describes them, used discrete violence in the instance the article discusses, as there were minimal casualties. I would have categorized this group as an international terrorist organization, but with the United State’s recognition of their activities, I think it could be argued that they are instead using transnational terrorism. I think this can be debated since this group is trying to not only influence the government in power in Somalia but also their Western support. While at the same time existing as an Islamic group helps to create ties to their “plight” across the Muslim (and in particular the Muslim extremist) world.

Why can't we be friends?

After reading the articles on Military Occupation for today, I started to realize just how complicated it is to occupy another country. It's costly, takes a long time, and success is a relative term. The hippie that I am makes me say that we should never go to war, but I am definitely aware that not many people agree with me, and that we have to react to threats throughout the world. But military occupations are even more complex than just going to war, and carries repercussions.
I just got a letter from a family friend who is stationed in Iraq- one of his good friends in the platoon was killed last week, and he reacted to it much better than I did, and I didn't even know Jon very well. I honestly don't believe that Bush, Cheney, or anyone in their administration takes the individual losses into account of the overall costs as heavily as they should.
US invaded Iraq because we saw Iraq as a threat and wanted to secure their nation. However when you consider the three factors for a successful occupation described by Edelstein, we can see where we may have started to go wrong. Iraqi citizens did not see the invasion as necessary, there is no perceived common threat, and we have not proven ourselves to be a very credible ally. Considering we started poorly, it's not too surprising that it's still not going well. And of course we don't want to leave until we can call ourselves successful. If we could just be more autonomous--let other countries do as they may, maybe we'd have a more stable economy, and not lose as many men and women overseas.

Smart Power and Selective Engagement

Hard Power or Soft Power? Neither!

          No More Direct Engagement, Please!

Because of the Iraq War, many people—especially IR scholars—have accused the United States of solely using hard power to get what it wants. And that is not good. Due to its use of hard power and unilateralism when it comes to making some decisions, the US has been losing legitimacy in the eyes of fellow liberal states. The United States has mostly disappointed Europe in some events such as the 1956 Suez Canal crisis, the fifties’ and sixties’ “Ban-the-Bomb” movement, the late sixties’ and early seventies’ Vietnam era, during the eighties’ positioning of intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Germany, and of course the current Iraq War.

 

Robert Kagan argues that the US’ need for hard power and sometimes unilateral decision-making in the afore-mentioned cases is justified by threats and “twin dangers of weapons proliferation and terrorism” (Of Paradise and Power: American and Europe in the New World Order).

 

Joseph S. Nye, on the other hand would counter: “Multilateralism helps to legitimate American power, but paying attention to allies also shapes our policies … [because] the United States cannot meet the new threat identified in the national security strategy without the cooperation of other countries” (Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics).

 

I would have to say that both scholars are right in some ways. Sometimes it is only aggressive and coercive hard power that can get things done the right and quick way. But we cannot ignore Nye’s assertion either. It is true that there is a national and international security threat today and the US, being the hegemonic superpower that it is, will need to appease its allies in order to have them there when the time comes to protect the international system.

 

I believe that there are aspects of hard power, as well as aspects of soft power, that are essential to the US’ success in world politics and international relations. I do not think, however, that the US has to solely pick one side; I think that it should extract the most beneficial aspects of both and use what Nye has dubbed “smart power.” The US will be able to better achieve this through “selective engagement,” a term Robert J. Art coined in his book A Grand Strategy for America. Selective Engagement, as Art defines it, would be “choosing to prevent or to become involved only in those conflicts that pose a threat to the country’s long-term interests.” Sounds like it would fit Nye’s sphere of smart power to me. And it is exactly what I believe the US should do. Mostly everyone thinks this would be obvious. But then why does it seem so hard for the US to follow this approach? Perhaps if the nation were to answer this question many foreign policy issues would be resolved. We should seriously listen to Art: “Selective engagement is not a strategy for all times, but it is the best grand strategy for these times.”

Tibet and China

I know, seems like an old story....but China and Tibet were in the news again recently.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_as/india_tibet_seeking_help

(I'm not sure that worked as a link...you might have to copy/paste because I'm hopelessly bad at blogging.)

This article raised a lot of questions for me – I just wanted to pose all of them, propose some possible answers, and then see what everyone else thinks.

Tibet obviously cannot and will not use military methods to fight the Chinese, and their peaceful ways make winning support through soft power a viable and attractive option for them. Do Tibetans have any hope of winning autonomy by simply making powerful friends and putting diplomatic pressure on China, or is this a pipe dream? Will restrained strategies like those called for by the Dalai Lama be more effective than calling for economic sanctions and boycotts of the Olympics by stronger nations? I believe that the Dalai Lama is promoting a smart strategy all around. From the realist perspective, Tibetans will avoid drawing the military wrath of China and will avoid evoking a balancing response by lowering the level of involvement of foreign governments. From a liberal perspective, Tibetans are seeking the support of multilateral institutions, which will increase the legitimacy of their cause, and are using moderate approaches that will attract support from a greater number of allies.

My other major question is: how will China’s rising economic and military status affect worldwide support for Tibet? Will countries that have economic ties to China drop the issue to avoid angering the growing giant, or will more powerful states like the US try to use issue linkage to attach the end of oppression in Tibet to trade benefits or increased power in international institutions? I think that the answer depends on the relative power between the nation in question and China. The US, as a global superpower, can still afford to try to influence China’s actions, and may try to enhance its reputation as a supporter of human rights by doing so in this case. On the other hand, less powerful nations that arguably face a greater risk from China as a result of geographic proximity and historical or regional ties (for instance, India) may be more willing to appease China. These nations might be less likely to show public support for Tibet’s bid for autonomy because, using balance of threat logic, it is more expedient for them to befriend China as it rises in stature than to support a relatively powerless non-state entity.

Was Uribe Completely Wrong?

My post is on and related to this editorial from the Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004275870_latined12.html

The recent conflicts in Ecuador involving a Columbian military attack against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) stationed in Ecuador appears to address many key concepts we have discussed throughout the course including the roles of non-state actors (e.g. terrorist groups), issues of national sovereignty, balance of threat, etc. Moreover, “use of force” reading and lectures from this past week also are relevant to this conflict.

Firstly, the importance of non-state actors is quite apparent in this conflict. FARC, as defined by the editorial “is a terrorist organization using mass kidnappings and drug trafficking to finance its activities against the Colombian government.” Colombia, the United States, Canada and the European Union all classify the FARC as a terrorist organization while Cuba and Venezuela classify it as an insurgent group. Since the raid in Ecuador, Chavez’s has demonstrated an unsettling level of support for FARC. Regardless of what the various states classify the FARC to be, all such classifications fit under our non-state actor definition, as articulated by Professor Nexon in one of our very first lectures and by many other international relations scholars. So with this conflict in particular, can we deny that the FARC is in fact a very important actor in the international system, as seen by not only the conflicts between Columbia and Ecuador, but also between states all throughout Latin America (Venezuela and Nicaragua in particular)? I think the obvious answer is no, we can’t. Thus a realist ideology would not fit in this issue, believing the naturally anarchic world’s primary actors are states. I think with the innumerable and ever-growing amount of terrorist groups around the world, it is safe to say that in this day and age, states may be playing first, second, and third base, but non-state actors— such as terrorist groups—are batting 400 from home plate. (I’m an avid baseball fan…I apologize for the cheesy metaphor).

Columbian President Uribe saw (and probably still does see) the FARC as not only a four-decade old nuisance, but also a serious threat to his administration. He evaluated the FARC to be a large enough threat to go so far as to infringe upon another nation’s sovereignty to balance said threat. This presents us with an interesting situation: a state actor—Columbia—must balance the threat of a non-state actor—FARC—by entering another (secondary) state—Ecuador—by force. Clearly, this infringement of Ecuadorian national sovereignty not only angered Ecuador but also the other nearby states (and potentially non state)-actors, only creating more conflict.

So the basic question is who was right in this situation? We may naturally side with Ecuador, the secondary victim in the conflict, but realistically, Columbia may not have had a choice. Uribe and other Columbian government officials perceive FARC to be large enough of a threat to respond with military force and with violating a neighboring country’s national sovereignty, not only severing diplomatic ties with Ecuador in the process, but also losing Venezuela and Nicaragua (as of now). Uribe realizes that he may have made a mistake and has since issued a public apology but was he acting in the best interest of his country? Is it better to ensure national security by forcefully fighting a terrorist group or to maintain regional diplomatic relations hoping for assistance in fighting said terrorist group?
Thoughts/ Comments?

The trenches are alive with the sound of music...

While you may be used to my realist assigned rants during recitation, I can assure you that this post offers a nice, light-hearted response to Beth's post, "Music to their Ears." A nice change, no?

Our studies and analysis of international relations has seemed to follow the course of a recitation of theories and concepts created by intellectuals in order to bring about intellectual fame and praise. However, with phrases like soft balancing, constructivist realism, and intractable autocratic regimes, it seems quite possible that one could forget that we are talking about people and, most importantly, relationships between people. Therefore, I'm going to talk plainly about music, I think the lack of jargon has its merits.

In December of 1914, German and Allied forces were pitted against each other on the western front, both sides engaged in trench-based, defensive postures. You probably already know the stylistic details of the fighting, so I'll spare you. What you may not know are the events that transpired on  that year's Christmas Eve. While commanders, politicians, and kings looked to their maps and war reports, the average man confronted the night with the hope that some semblance of civilization and humanity could be regained. To celebrate, both the Allies and the Germans sang of their common rejoices and memories. It was not long after that both sides realized a mutual desire to sing and enjoy Christmas rather than fight. Many soldiers described the night as, "the greatest of their lives", although to us, singing several songs might seem insignificant. However, the result was a three-day truce across nearly the entire western front by French, Belgian, British, German, and Colonial soldiers. The fraternization went so far as international soccer games, masses, bartering sessions (for lack of a better word), and even a performance by famous contemporary tenor Walter Kirchhoff (who received a standing ovation from opposing French Brigades). 

These events demonstrated several things, 1.) Each soldier realized that his enemy was no more than a common person forced to fight, 2.) The desire of the common man often differed from their leaders, and 3.) That greater progress could be gained through diplomacy far outweighed the option of war. 

Upon learning the events of what happened, unit commanders confiscated letters posted for home to stop the leak of information, and then proceeded to "regain" control of their armies by reprimanding soldiers and shifting entire units.

So what does this all mean?

Well, Itzhak Perlman, one of the world's foremost violinists would say that music is the soul of a culture.

That is to say, music provides a conduit for true exchange of ideas among the average and common person and that music makes seems to actually touch people in an almost spiritual way, not the way Cascada is talking about in, "every we time we touch", but in a way that can make millions soldiers disobey orders during one of the bloodiest wars of the century. 

And if you believe this story is just about a bunch of Europeans being European and I sound like a crazy, peace-preaching liberal, well then tell me why the folk songs of Korea (and most of East Asia) and Ireland (and most of The West) are based around the same pentatonic scale. 

Also, check out this video. It's a violin composition called "Czardas" written by Vittorio Monti, that is, a Romanian gypsy piece written by an Italian. Best of all its played by a Chinese man on the ErHu (a Chinese stringed instrument). Watch it and you might believe in the "soft balancing power" of music.

-That Liberal International Politics and Culture Major

McCain on China and Empire

As the 2008 presidential election draws nearer, hot topics in international relations are receiving much attention from the leading candidates. In December’s issue of Foreign Affairs, John McCain laid out his view of the international community. He offers his take on a few of the issues raised this semester including the rise of China and the accusations of the United States as an empire.
McCain states:
When China builds new submarines, adds hundreds of new jet fighters,
Modernizes its arsenal of strategic ballistic missiles, and tests antisatellite
Weapons, the United States legitimately must question the intent of such provocative acts (29).
McCain recognizes that China’s actions are defended as peaceful. So is a security dilemma at hand? McCain points out that China cannot be trusted due to a lack of transparency surrounding its “peaceful” arms build-up. As a result, McCain accuses China of building up for aggressive purposes to destabilize democracies in the region and reinforce autocratic regimes. Because of McCain’s interpretation of China’s build-up as aggressive, will a security dilemma and potentially war become likely if he is elected president? McCain suggests dealing with China by bolstering our alliances with democratic and friendly nations surrounding it and to establish a greater American presence there- essentially, he suggests offshore balancing. China might see this as an aggressive move and might be further provoked to build-up forces. The cycle of a security dilemma could continue until war is almost certain. Or is he pointing out a case of threat inflation? It is interesting to note that in the same issue, Hillary Clinton does not mention China as a threat to American security. In fact, she sees China as a political and military ally to a certain extent and mostly as a foe environmentally. This difference goes to show the importance of perception where a security dilemma is concerned.
McCain also offers his view on America as an empire. Though he recognizes that there is a perception of the United States as an empire in the rest of the world, he refers to America as the “antithesis of empire” (33). He sees our form of leadership as unique and incomparable to the empires we normally think of when we hear the word. He claims that we gain credibility from this leadership, that we are “a special nation, the closest thing to a “shining city on a hill” ever to have existed” (33). Yet he recognizes that relationships have been damaged and must be repaired so that the rest of the world can once again see this American benevolence and model society. We must restore our moral credibility, he says. He suggests binding measures to achieve this goal. It is interesting to see how important McCain sees the debate on empire as having. He clearly prescribes to the view that the United States has acted in a fashion that is too unilateral. Though he believes that the nation should maintain the right to act unilaterally, he claims that doing so when unnecessary ruins the traditional role the United States has played in the world and changes it from a friend who offers security and add to a foe that has the perception of bullying and ruling forcefully other nations.
Surely, these two issues will come up multiple times in the time remaining before the November elections. And certainly things will change in the international world from now until then. For now, it is interesting to see where McCain and the other candidates stand on issues that have been discussed at length this semester and that will clearly be important issues to be dealt with during the term of the next president.
McCain, John. “An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom.” Foreign Affairs. November/December 2007. New
York: Council in Foreign Relations, 2007.

Google Perpetuates Prisoner's Dilemma

GChat decided to add a nifty little feature to its incredibly addicting and time-wasting application: An invisibility cloak. Granted, this cloak is meant to shield you from prospective chatters, allowing you to creep on others while they are online without them seeing you. However, you can still chat with anyone at your heart's desire...and they still can't see your availability.

Okay, the idea that one could potentially use the idea of Prisoner's Dilemma pertaining to GChat is not an original idea. In fact, a Gawker post successfully explains the idea of cooperation versus defection, remaining invisible rather than ratting out your fellow GChatters. In a technologically-defined world, it's amazing to think that we've come down to this--worrying what people might think if you sign onto GChat and then immediately become invisible. Will a friend be offended by the quickness of your action upon seeing his name online? Will you have the need to defect others and make their invisibility aware to the world? What are you doing being invisible anyway?

In a way, we can view the Prisoner's Dilemma in GChat as a microcosm of what occurs during situations where the stakes are higher than just being embarrassed in a virtual world. If you are one of a team of two revisionist states and both of you are building up nuclear warheads with each other's full knowledge, what do you do? Do you rat out your competition, thereby jeopardizing your chances for obtaining nuclear power but also blockading the contentious arms race that was going so well? Do you keep silent, in hopes that other countries won't let on, won't ask to investigate, and your competition won't rat you out as well?

So many options. So many consequences. Such is the nature of Prisoner's Dilemma.

October Surprise?

This November, American voters will decide the next President of the United States, and likely, will affect how the world views America, its citizens, and its government. After eight years of Bush Administration foreign policy, domestic and foreign opinion of the US government is overwhelmingly negative. Optimism for the future of America as a world hegemony has declined, and indeed some see the United Sates as less secure than ever in the wake of the Iraq war.

For President Bush and his legacy, none of this news bodes well. The current President has created an enduring image, for himself and the Republican Party, as strong on security, if not basely militaristic. At the peak of his popularity, President Bush managed fear and the threat of war to create a cohesive block of voters. (Certainly war was not his only draw: i.e. evangelical Christians and wealthy taxpayers also found appeal in the Republic candidate, ostensibly strong on moral values and fiscal responsibility.)

However, in the upcoming election, the presumptive Republican nominee is Arizona Senator John McCain. The Senator is less comfortable speaking on faith and values, and finds worthy adversaries there in Senators Obama and Clinton. Fiscally, the Republicans have demonstrated advantages for few Americans, and, under this administration’s watch, the economy has seen a downturn, and a possible recession.

For Senator McCain, this leaves the election uncertain. For President Bush, his legacy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East in peril. (Surely a President so devoted to his campaign in the Middle East during his presidency would hate to see his efforts wasted?) Perhaps the best option the President has left for continuing attempts at democratization in the Middle East is diversionary war. An invasion and occupation of Iran at this stage of the Bush Presidency would almost ensure a need for the next President to remain in the Middle East for some time yet. Iraq and Afghanistan may be rectifiable; an invasion of Iran would likely produce instability many years into the future. (Certainly, it would detract from issues like health care and the environment in the upcoming election.)

In the event of such an invasion, it is clear which Presidential candidate would have the requisite experience to secure the election in November. Certainly Obama and Clinton’s lead over McCain in national polls would fall dramatically in the event that a future President is called on to lead a war, rather than to end one…

Is security just a political game?

For the readings for class this afternoon, I actually surprised myself. You're probably thinking that I'm surprised because I actually did the reading before class. No actually I do that every week but this week I actually understood what the heck the authors were arguing. And I ended up agreeing with Thrall (shh don't tell my Uncle Teddy K he'd try to disown me). I've always thought of the minority as the victim, who couldn't stop all of the injustices that the party in power was making. But Thrall gives us another way of looking at it- that society is merely polarized, and that issues are framed to appeal to virtues, even if that means that we're not being told the truth. It's the media's job to be the watch dog to the public sector, but sometimes they talk more about morals and virtues of the matter than they do about trying to seek out the truth. Therefore, according to this argument, what you believe is based on your upbringing and morals, not what is presented as true. That's why there are so many news channels- they're all covering the same stories, but they just take it from a different angle.
The Krebs and Lobasz article is more of what I was expecting myself to buy into- the Democrats had to shut up because the Republicans were making an argument that wasn't easy to go against. But when I thought about it some more, I considered that everyone, especially on capital hill, is able to frame information and opinions so that other people agree with them. And the Democrats are perfectly able to play that same game.
Society is polarized, but it's not because of where we're from or what's right- it's because of our virtues. Life is what you make it, and the War in Iraq was a case in which opposition didn't do enough early enough to stop this fight.

Dr. Strangelove Screening

We will be showing the film Dr. Strangelove (or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb) this Wednesday (March 12th) at 6.45pm in Reiss 112 (the room across the corridor from the lecture room).

If you haven't seen the film yet, we recommend that you come to the screening, as many of the themes in the course are captured in this classic.

"Vantage Point": A Critique of American Imperialism?

It’s the beauty of American arrogance: They cannot imagine a world where they’re not a step ahead. – Sam Suárez

Vantage Point, Pete Travis’ latest work, is a movie detailing the shooting of the United States president and the bombing at the global war on terror summit in Spain from the points of view of eight different witnesses. The main part of the movie takes place between 12:00 and 12:23 pm—eight different times. Though the reason for the violent act is never directly stated, it is still alluded to by some of the characters.

The quote mentioned at the beginning of this post was one of the most striking lines in the movie. Sam, one of the planners and actors in the attempted assassination of the president, said it in accusation of the characteristic of an empire that the US possesses. 

One can infer that the attackers hate the American president because of the county’s involvement in many Middle Eastern and European countries’ affairs and because of the American troops’ expansive and constant presence.

So… is this movie implying something that it hopes the audience will grasp? Perhaps, perhaps not. Many people hold the view that the United States is an empire, constantly hungering for more land from which it can obtain natural resources and cheap labor (an “Empire of Capitalism” as the Marxists would say). 

I, for one, do not denominate the United States as an empire. While I do agree that the US does follow the “Glory and Honor” notion that Professor Nexon described pertained to an empire, I tend to agree with Waltz in that this does not necessarily have to be deemed imperialism—it can simply be a state acting anarchically in accordance to realism. Yes, sometimes the whole spread of democracy is a bit overdone and just plain unattainable in some parts of the world, but at least someone is trying to spread it (regardless of all the oil and economic implications—we can discuss that later). No matter how much people complain about the US meddling in others’ affairs, it will never end. After all, as Agent Kent Taylor stated, “You can’t stop this. This war will never end.”

Music To Their Ears

The Economist has an interesting article in this week's issue about the New York Philharmonic's recent trip to North Korea. The author discusses "musical diplomacy" as an intriguing form of soft balancing: even without formal political gestures, orchestras have made diplomatic inroads in previously hostile areas (witness the Boston Symphony in the Soviet Union in 1956, or the Philadelphia Orchestra in Beijing in 1973).

The question, of course, is exactly the one asked by the author: is this really a significant form of diplomacy, or are American orchestras simply playing to the tunes of intractable nondemocratic regimes?

And, on a lighter note, watch The Colbert Report interview with Lorin Maazel, conductor of the NY Philharmonic...