Thomas Shelton Blog 5

Thomas Shelton

Mark Shirk

GVPT200

December 4, 2013

               On paper cosmopolitanism is a great way to reduce the amount of wars and military disputes across the globe because it calls for every human being to treat every other person in the world as equals regardless of their political affiliations, culture, country of residence, etc.  However in reality the implementation of this ideology is essentially impossible because it requires the cooperation of every single person on earth or else the system will fail.

               If the world was a cosmopolitan society then we would all share the same morals and values and therefore would be less likely to get in a conflict with one another. Every single conflict in the history of mankind was caused by a difference in beliefs; Huguenot vs. Catholics, Tutsis vs. Hutus, Nazis vs. Everyone else and the list goes on forever. Without reasons to feel superior to one another there would not be a lesser people, everybody would be everyone’s top priority. While this sounds like the solution for world peace, realistically this ideology is internally flawed and my next points prove why.

               Cosmopolitanism relies directly on the universal acceptance of this ideology because the people who refuse to accept with will act based on their own morals and their actions will cause the fall in cosmopolitanism. The main threat to cosmopolitanism is patriotism because patriotism is based on a bias towards a certain group of people who share a similar history, culture, financial standing, ethnicity, etc. The similarities shared by these people allow them identify with one another better and therefore they mentally put this group of people in a higher standing then those who are different. Usually these groups form because of a common moral code and since they see themselves and their community as superior they hold themselves and others to this moral code.  In order to overcome patriotism, cosmopolitanism would have to be universally accepted at the same time globally. It could not be an ever increasing effort until it reaches global acceptance because those who do not follow cosmopolitanism will act on their own beliefs and the lack of equality will cause those in favor of cosmopolitanism to abandon their efforts to form their own groups.

 Now this is where the problems arises in cosmopolitanism, if we do not have these groups because everyone is considered equal how will we decide what is right or wrong and who has the authority to make this decision. If somebody is given the authority to make this decision it already breaks the idea of everyone being equal because a certain individual or group of individuals is given priority. Also the idea of every person agreeing on everything is impossible, even with only two people there will be things they disagree on because they each have their own identity, to agree on everything would strip them of their ability to differentiate themselves from one another. What would identify me as Thomas if I held the exact same beliefs, values, morals, etc., as another person? Why even have a name to identify myself at that point. It is in human nature to create an identity for yourself and in doing you must agree with someone on a certain topic but disagree on another. Your identity is a conglomerate of beliefs both similar and different to your community, cosmopolitanism calls for an impossible absolute agreement with your community which goes directly against human nature.

Ignoring the fact that we no longer have no soul, what other problems arise in our community and state upon accepting cosmopolitanism? One major problem is the partitioning of labor, we face the same problems as we did earlier selecting universal beliefs in that how do we decide who gets to be the janitor and who gets to be race car driver. There is no way to equally divide the jobs we currently have and if there was how would be go about paying them? This system faces the same problems as absolute communism does where even if you work harder you only get as much as your neighbor. There is no way to combat this problem it is physically impossible to create a world where everybody sees themselves as equal to one another because in the end somebody will always be getting the short end of the stick.

If humans were capable of living in a 1984-esque “utopia” then cosmopolitanism is the solution for every problem we have ever encountered. Sadly human nature will not allow us to do so because of the necessity of a personal identity and the impossibility of every person in the world accepting this ideology simultaneously.

'The Other': Blog Post 5

Devin Savaskan                                                                                                          12/4/13

           

Arguably the most influential culture to the modern day west, ancient Greece was not always a unified entity. Comprised of many individual sovereign city states, the Greek people could not easily accept allegiance under one flag. That is until the introduction of an ‘other’. The Persian Wars is what unified the people of Greece under one ideal. They used the differences of others to pick up on their similarities in culture and lifestyle. International Relations continuously studies the idea of an ‘other’. Whether across oceans, borders, or sidewalks, the idea of an ‘other’ is used to unite, help identify, and of course seclude. No matter what, the existence of anarchy and war perpetuate the existence of an international other.

            The world around us continues to change through globalization. Now, in ways never before imaginable we are able to communicate and conduct business in a truly global sense. This in itself has the capability of reducing prejudiced notions of the other. The most compelling way to understand different perspectives is strictly through communication. The nature of today’s business environment coupled with incredible technological innovations makes communication exceptionally easier. However, while globalization will eventually work to reduce many unfortunate complexes of the ‘other’, the ability to erase them completely is a tad far-fetched.

            The idea of an ‘other’ strikes at the heart of an old debate in international relations. This is the debate of Cosmopolitan vs. Particularism. The Cosmopolitan view is one that wishes to eliminate the idea of the so called ‘other’. They would like the international community to value every citizen equally. This eclipses that of just your common man. This spreads globally. Everyone on the planet has the same value no matter how different they view the world or how different they are from your neighbor. The thought process of Particularists on the contrary, is to always put the safety of your own civilians above those of others. The prevailing theory in practice is of course particularism. This is due to the political ramifications that would be inflicted on any powerful figure who values a foreigner’s life equal to that of its own countries civilians. This thought process perpetuates the existence of an ‘other’.

            While seemingly tragic, it may also be in the best interest of nations to keep the idea of ‘the other’ alive and well. This is due to the theory that there is simply no self without an ‘other’. For example the United States is a country that values representative democracy, civil liberties and stems from a mainly white Christian dominance. Because the United States has consistently classified certain traits as inherently American, it would make sense for the common American civilian too see certain foreign countries as a form of the ‘other’. Countries like Iran, North Korea, and many more of the United States adversaries can viewed as inherently different then the home of the brave. These noticeable differences work in the favor of the United States. In case they are ever in a position of war against these nations, it would be easy to rally the public to fight a completely different lifestyle in defense of their own.

             As we grow, we begin to set ourselves apart from other people. We begin to identify with what we are used to and raised to value. Things such as schooling, the media, religion, race and even income, make up our beliefs and help us define ourselves. But what is also helps to define is what is different, strange or alien to our thoughts. While we continue to grow it still seems like the ‘other’ is here to stay.

 

 

The Significance of Non-State Actors in Terrorism

            The Global Terrorism Database defines terrorism as an intentional act that entails actual of threatened violence carried out by “subnational actors.” Nate Silver, author of The Signal and the Noise, quotes this definition of terrorism, but does not elaborate upon the use of “subnational” actors. This article will focus on the concept of “subnational” or non-state actors, and the role they play in international security, and more specifically to terrorism. Terrorism is generally studied as a topic of International Relations, where terrorist organizations are treated as non-state actors. However, this approach shows presents as problematic considering most terrorist organizations are backed up by sovereign states.

            Terrorism on behalf of non-state actors, doesn’t necessarily exclude the cooperation of a state, but means that no state will take international responsibility after carrying out an act of terror. In fact, many states appoint militant groups that associate as non-state actors to carry out missions that would harm the state’s reputation if known that the order originated from it. According to a study from the Uppsala Concept Database, 87% of all conflicts from 1946-2001 involved a non-state actor (Gleditsch et al 2002). This figure does not account for any known wars, but rather violent incidents that have been categorized as terrorist attacks.

            Terrorism and terrorist attacks are both no new or modern concepts; however there has been much debate over properly defining it. The contention regarding the definition of terrorism is not just an intellectual one, rather it has major consequences for a state’s policy towards a particular militant or terrorist group. One weakness in trying to combat a “war against terror” is that terrorism is typically defined in ways that absolve states from taking any responsibility in such acts. There are two major problems with this approach. First, some of the relatively concrete definitions of terrorism, could indeed cover certain acts of states as well, such as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States, Indonesia’s campaign of violence in East Timor between, or “dirty war” in Chile during the Pinochet regime. The definition of terrorism adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2005 constitutes any action with the intention of death as an act of terrorism.

            The second major problem with the mainstream approach to terrorism is that most terrorist organizations have been supported or exploited by some states. Major terrorist organizations like the Palestinian Hamas, the Kurdish PKK, or the Iranian MEK have been exploited by multiple states as mercenaries against their enemies. It would be far-fetched to argue that terrorist organizations are creations of foreign states; however, it would be equally far-fetched to assume that such major terrorist organizations like could have reached more than a fraction of their material capability without the support of foreign states. State support has played a key role in the strength and effectiveness of many terrorist organizations.

Works Cited

Bowen, Wyn Q. Deterrence and Asymmetry: Non State Actors and Mass Casualty

            Terrorism. Contemporary Security Policy. Vol. 25, Iss. 1, 2004

Dutka, D. L. (2006). Violent non-state actors in world politics: Their formation, actions,

            and effects. (Order No. 3229392, The Pennsylvania State University). ProQuest       Dissertations and Theses, , 216-216 p. Retrieved from             http://search.proquest.com/docview/305247723?accountid=14696. (305247723).

Silver, Nate. The Signal and the Noise: Why So many Predictions Fail but Some Don’t.       New work: Penguin Press, 2012. Print

Griffin Smith

Blog Post #5

GVPT200

    The War on Terror: Understanding the Semantics of Terrorism

     Twelve years into the War on Terror and large-scale military operations in Afghanistan (and eight years of combat operations in Iraq concluding in 2011), many Americans, international relations thinkers, and citizens of other nations currently engaged in the conflict have asked how practical it is to fight a “war on terror”.  Furthermore, what is terrorism? If we are to fight a war on terror we must first know what terrorism is and also what it is not.  In this essay I hope to lay the groundwork for a straightforward definition of what terrorism is using examples from history as well as current events and assess whether or not fighting a global war on terror is a viable foreign policy.

     Terrorism is a relatively new issue in the sphere of international relations, very subtly making its entrance in the 1970s and 1980s.  Despite numerous acts attributed to “terrorists” in prior decades, many would agree that “terrorism” didn’t really become a quintessential, imperative foreign policy issue until 9/11.  The sudden shift of focus onto terrorism as the dominant national security issue and the change from peacetime to America’s longest war has left many grappling for a concrete explanation as to who and why we are fighting.

     Terrorism is a rather confusing topic because the exact origin and definition of the word is a subject of controversy.  In my mind, terrorism should be easier to define if we separate it from other types of conflict or war actions.  The entire purpose of the word “terrorism” is to distinguish it as something unique and something with distinct characteristics.  I don’t believe the purposeful instillation of fear can solely constitute the core of terrorism’s definition, nor do I think it is credible to define terrorism as subjective to perspective interpretation.  Fear is a common and effective tactic in any coercive action, combative or otherwise.  In combat, psychological warfare already has its own classification; hence terrorism must be something else.  My definition of terrorism is acts perpetrated by a non-state entity against a certain group with the goal of instilling terror in the general populace, especially non-combatants, of a given state or group.  A terrorist group must be a non-state entity (although a fringe or minority political faction within a state could be a terrorist group provided that it is not officially in control of the actual state).  For example, if Russia sets off a bomb on a U.S. airbase abroad, it is an act of conventional warfare.  If Russia purposefully sets off a bomb in a crowded marketplace full of non-combatants, or does not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants in an area such as a marketplace being patrolled by U.S. troops, it is a war crime (or genocide if it occurs en masse with the intent of extermination).  However, if a fringe element within Russia, such as a rogue general or an ultra-nationalist party or faction attack either a U.S. military airbase abroad or a marketplace full of civilians, it is a terrorist act.  You will notice that I included the attack on the military airbase as an act of terror despite the military personnel on the base being combatants – this is because the goal of the attack is to spread a message and strike a blow to the morale of the civilian populace at home.

     One of the greatest difficulties/controversies in the school of terrorism is classifying a group as patriots, freedom fighters, or terrorists.  This brings me to the second part of the classification method (the first being to examine the nature and goal of the group): analyzing the group’s conduct.  Take for example the IRA and HAMAS.  Both are non-state entities fighting against a foreign military (HAMAS against Israel and the IRA against Great Britain).  This fits my previous description, so is this why they are considered terrorists? - In my opinion, no.  What sets these groups over the edge from being freedom fighters or rebels is the manner in which they try to achieve their goals: by targeting civilians in order to more forcefully spread a message.  The IRA was once a legitimate independence movement, but became a terrorist group once it began bombing British civilians, soldiers, and Protestants alike in Northern Ireland and the Gibraltar Square plot (which was thwarted by the SAS).  HAMAS has also been indiscriminant at best in attacking Israeli civilians along with soldiers.

     In fear of coming off too long-winded, I want to briefly lend my definition of terrorism to the public confusion over the War on Terror.  In my opinion, people get too wrapped up in the semantics.  Whether we call it the War on Terror, the War on Islamic Terror, or simply “Counter-terrorist operations against Al Qaeda and its global off-shoots”, the required military action will be the same.  I also want to try to affirm the “War on Terror” is not a clever ruse only to justify American presence in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq.  At present, American forces are deployed in Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia, the Philippines, and dozens of locations in Africa (just to name a few) engaging in counterterrorist operations against Al Qaeda.  So while I can see the popular name for the war can be confusing and vague, and the enemy elusive and unyielding, I do believe that the present actions are necessary.

Mark Russell Blog 5: Drone Theories

Mark Russell

GVPT 200

Professor Shirk

December 2, 2013

Blog 5: Just War Theory and Drone Strikes

            In listening to Lecture 24, professor addressed the validity of the use of drones as a preventive method in fighting terrorism in the United States. This essentially means that we are firing missiles at suggested terrorists or other high value targets without knowing what else they are attacking. In this blog I will address the flaws on drone targeting, specifically the ongoing war occurring in the tribal areas in Northern Pakistan.

            Since the Bush Administration the US military has targeted terrorist groups and jihadists in this hotbed area striking down hundreds of potential terrorists.  However, the issue that I would like to address is commonly pushed under the rug and looked at an externality of war by the United States Government. The issue at hand is that of civilian casualties. These constant drone attacks have killed a roughly estimated 200 to 800 civilians. These are often unarmed shop owners and in one case an all boys’ school, all swept under the rug before traditional media outlets could pick up on the stories.[1]

            While I am open to attacking bunkers and compounds of Taliban fighters, I believe that these attacks on “terrorists” have resulted in the death of civilians. Does this put our government on the same level of those who attacked us on 9/11? Not necessarily, however many of these attacks could be considered war crimes and occur in a country we aren’t at war with. We are killing innocent members of a different society, but claim that they are terrorists, slain in the “War on Terror.”

            I believe we must counteract these somewhat reckless attacks seeing as they have become detrimental to our relationships in the Middle East. These attacks must be more precise, eliminating the risk of civilian casualties if we hope to repair our relationships overseas.

            The Obama administration has launched approximately 364 drone strikes in the Peshawar region of Pakistan alone. This number is extremely excessive and I believe that it could easily be cut down by strictly targeting high value targets, rather than every minor leader in the Taliban. Additionally, I believe that United State military leaders must reduce the number of follow up strikes. These strikes have hit funerals, and killed civilians who have started to clear the rubble to look for survivors.

            To the big picture; The United States have far too many resources to be operating on such terms. They should only target high value targets to ensure the success of such preventive attacks, otherwise wait until the opportunity presents itself.

            This brings me to the difference between preemptive and preventive, which I believe the US government now overlooks or disregards. I believe that they must make an effort to reduce the number of civilian casualties by making the decision to be more selective in their targeting. They must focus on the more imminent threats (preemptive) and take them down, rather than take down what could be a plan for an attack. With the amount of intelligence gathered by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, there should be little to no civilian casualties. While preventive striking may save American lives, the killing of innocent Pakistanis and Afghanis is no better and should be condemned globally, regardless of who does it.

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-drone-hits-islamic-seminary-in-pakistan/2013/11/21/c8cd26d6-5285-11e3-9ee6-2580086d8254_story.html

Thomas Shelton Blog Post 4

Thomas Shelton

GVPT200

Mark Shirk

November 13, 2013

While the creation of CDOs brought on one of the worst economic crashes in American and world history was it a necessary evil? Before the economic crash many companies were willing to do anything regardless of the consequence in order to get a quick pay off. It was only a matter of time until this mindset solely based on profits would back fire. Many of these companies were unaware or choose to ignore the fact that CDOs were a ticking time bomb because, they decided to focus on short term profits. Even when one of the most prestigious investors of the modern world, Warren buffet, claimed that CDOs were, “financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.”(Buffet). Still companies refused to acknowledge the effect their actions would have on the entire world.

CDOs were created in order to let investors remove the loan from their books and place the risk on another company. The main reason that CDOs had become a trillion dollar market is because the returns on these sales were often greater than those of corporate bonds who shared an equal credit rating. By passing off the loans and all their risks, companies were able to free up more of their money which they could use to create even more loans and continue the cycle. Many foreign investors saw this a huge opportunity as well because they could acquire these collections of loans tax free from American companies. The trade of CDOs was a win win situation for both the buyer and the seller until the loans the CDO were built off of fail.  Companies saw this as a quick way to make massive profits but failed to realize the consequences of the CDOs failing along with the company that purchased the CDOs.

The consequence that these investors failed to realize was that their actions would cause the worst economic crash since the great depression. Because these investors chose to ignore Berkshire Hathaway CEO, Warren Buffet’s, and the IMF chief economist, Raghurman Rajan’s, complaints that CDOs would destroy the world economy these companies sealed their own and our fates. Even before the CDOs lost their credit and crashed, the housing market had skyrocketed because mortgage loans made up many of the CDOs. The increased housing prices combined with the fact that banks would give a loan to almost anyone who wanted one created a recipe for disaster for both the person who took out the loan and whomever purchased the CDO that the loan was included in. The inability for the customer to pay back the loan they could never afford in the first place and that the loan rates could not be re-negotiated forced hundreds of thousands into debt which in many cases turned into bankruptcy. Once the CDOs had lost all credibility many huge investment companies and banks suffered the same fate as their customers. Companies like Citigroup had suffered enormous losses because of the failure of CDOs, Citigroup’s market value alone had lost over $220 billion over the course of two years. The failure of these companies who were seen as to big to fail had to be bailed out by the government in order to further protect the U.S citizens. In addition to the FDIC covering 90% of Citigroup’s $312 billion dollar portfolio, Citigroup was also forced to cut their 350,000 person workforce by over 30%. Now this was only one company’s losses, there were hundreds of other companies who suffered the same fate many of which were not lucky enough to be bailed out.

Now after it is all over and the damages have been accessed what have the American government, citizens and companies learned? After many companies nearly as well as became bankrupt it forced every single company and investor that the long term consequences of their actions need come before profits. Many companies also learned that no matter how large they may be they can still fail if they are not lucky enough to be saved by a government bailout. This economic crisis made companies realize the affect they had on the world economy and their actions alone were enough to bring the entire thing crumbling down around them. The American people were forced to improve their knowledge of their finical situation as well as being able to manage their finances because hundreds of thousands of people lost everything they owned because they bought a home they could not afford. This crash also forced many citizens to create a backup plan if they lose their job so they would not end up like those who were cut from these investment companies. The American government also learned that they must keep a watchful eye on the trading and investments of multibillion dollar companies in order to avoid another economic crash because they can and will fail. Then when they do fail the U.S government must be capable of bailing them out if the American people cannot afford to have this company fail. While it is a very drastic and horrible way to learn these lessons how else would we learn and better prepare for it if it never happens? These companies would continue to only focus on their profits unless they suffered an enormous loss because of their actions. The American people would never be as finically knowledgeable and responsible as they are now because of the crash. Likewise the government learned that they have to regulate these markets as well as be prepared to bail out billion dollar losses. The economic crash of the 2000’s was only a matter of time and now we are more prepared than ever to prevent the next one.

Warren Buffet on Derivatives." Fintools.com. Berkshire Hathaway, 2002. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. <http://www.fintools.com/docs/Warren%20Buffet%20on%20Derivatives.pdf>.

Daniella Portal Blog Post #4

Daniella Portal

GVPT200

Mark Shirk

11/12/13

The Financial Crisis of 2008 and International Relations

            When the Financial Crisis of 2008 hit, many critics were shocked as to why regulators, markets, and financial exports failed to see it coming.  The fall should be been obviously foreseen, as using the previous US economic crises as support that rising economies must see their fall. Now that it has been a few years after the major damage done in 2008, it is time to address the increasing concern whether the US is loosing is dominant economic position throughout the world, and if China is the emerging superpower. I do not believe that this is the case, and that the United States still has a strong hold on their economic position.

The US currently remained that largest national economy in the world, with an estimated GDP of more than $15.8 trillion, just $2 trillion behind the European Union. Yes, that is a significant difference, but remember that the European Union is a combination of many countries, where the GDP of the US reflects just one country. According to IMF, China’s GDP is expected to exceed that of the US in the next few years and so is the GDPs of small countries like Norway, Finland, and Qatar. However, these smaller developed countries are in no way to compete with the US, showing the GDP alone cannot determine the fate of the global economy.

Another way to assess this issue would be to analyze the rankings of such countries based on the Human Development Index, which assess the national income per capita, life expectancy, education, and other indicators of development. As of 2011, these rating put the US tied at third place with the Netherlands, following Norway and Australia as the top 2. Among global competitors, Japan was the only country who made the top 20. Ironically enough, China was ranked 101, showing the China as a whole is in no way ready to become a global superpower.

Additionally, the US occupies the leading position in the division of labor and production of technology, other indicators of developmental success. Though there is a significant sector of high-tech industries in China, the US is still 20% ahead of them. Also, China lacks the knowledge required for the high-tech manufacturing industry, which puts them at a disadvantage.

The advantage that China has over the US is in regards to the traditional manufacture of intensive labor products, which will eventually put China at the center of this economic sector, however it will be a while until such profit will outweigh the high-tech industry of the US.

There are many more indicators that assess from different angles a country’s position in the world economy. From the brief synapsis above, it is evident that the Financial Crisis did not affect US hegemony. At the time of the crisis, the US was seen as the superpower of the world, and its position has been questionable throughout the past few years. Though the crisis did shake different parts of the financial system, which decreased the productivity in some aspects of the economy, the US currently retains its position as the leader of the global economy.

Works Cited

Supyan, V. "The US in World Ranking: Economic Indicators." International Affairs 59.5

(2013): 130-41. Print.