Comments for International Politics (Spring 2010)

Comment on Extended Discussion – Group 1 by Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 13 May 2010 21:26:06 +0000

Kenneth Abbott’s article “International Relations Theory, International Law, and the Regime Governing Atrocities in Internal Conflicts” led me to question the realist explanation for the human rights movement. A realist would argue that “international rules and institutions have little, if any, independent effect on state behavior: they are mere artifacts of the underlying interest and power relationships, and will be changed or disregarded if those relationships change”(Abbott 365). How then might realists account for the across the board strengthening of the human rights agenda? How have states interests become increasingly tied to human rights? Realists would call the human rights movement cultural imperialism, just another way, now that the age of imperialism is over, that Western states attempt to strengthen their own grasp on the world power.

Comment on Extended Discussion – Group 3 by Alexandra McAtee

Alexandra McAtee — Mon, 10 May 2010 20:52:05 +0000

I agree with everyone above that terminology is important; as Otis says, different perspectives are being used to judge certain acts of violence making a clear-cut distinction between good and bad very difficult to make. I’m not exactly sure if I agree with the point that terminology can be used to combat terrorism. The idea of people around the world adhering to the idea that all civilians should be spared from harm seems rather idealistic. From some terrorists’ perspective, a nation as a collective entity is considered to be the enemy, including innocent civilians; thus in their minds civilians are an acceptable target.

Comment on Extended Discussion – Group 2 by Oksana Cherezova

Oksana Cherezova — Mon, 10 May 2010 19:49:57 +0000

I would like to take Jonah and Hannah’s points even further. The “think before you leap” strategy holds true not only in the environmental realm, but in terms of security relations as well. As we have briefly mentioned in the last discussion, the aftermath of 9/11 demonstrates the importance of having a “cool head” while making major policy decisions. Although it may seem like an obvious and a straightforward statement, very unfortunately, we can still the reverse happening in almost every country’s foreign policy. State governments are still too dominated by the 20th century realist dogmas of rationalist egoistic pursuit of their own interests. Given the inequality of power distribution, this frame of thinking creates the precise manipulation of the data for the purposes of justifying (or more like, covering up) the controversial policies, and, in the extreme cases, causes the unnecessary and the unjust suffering of the people.
Pardon my idealism, but I like to believe that in the 21st century the international politicians will be able to formulate some supranational goals and values, which will finally be recognized by all the nations. And if takes the danger of global warming to force the politicians to start considering this seriously, then be it. After all, it took an entire WWII for the major 20th century powers to start taking Keynes’ rhetorics seriously.

(Ah, it just hit me this is my last online post for this class. Thank you everyone, I am certainly going to miss the discussions).

Comment on Extended Discussion – Group 2 by Jonah Merris

Jonah Merris — Mon, 10 May 2010 14:39:50 +0000

I completely agree with Hannah’s point above. I think that policymakers should “look before they leap,” especially when dealing with huge issues like global climate change and humanitarian crises. The recent controversy surrounding leaked emails, falsified climate data, and less-than trustworthy scientists demonstrates that science has, is, and will be used for political means. However, with that being said, I urge caution when embarking on any sort of extensive fact-finding mission. The data we are searching for that relates to human behavior, the atmosphere, and models of largely unpredictable systems is all subject to numerous variables and large margins of error. As Professor Morrison put it earlier in the year when referring to political science, we have too many variables and too few empirics. When it comes to climate change, we have little precedent (in terms of historical carbon emissions) and far too many variables that could be leading to warming or cooling. However, like in security policy, the stakes are HUGE. Can we afford inaction while we scratch our heads and conduct studies? What good will these studies accomplish if the data is quickly becoming obsolete with the growth of industrial economies (China, India)? I think we should take steps in the right direction (curbing pollution, etc.) and let the research catch up. Nothing’s wrong with fewer chemicals in the ecosystem.

Comment on Extended Discussion – Group 3 by Charlie Arnowitz

Charlie Arnowitz — Mon, 10 May 2010 04:07:58 +0000

The problem with justifying terrorism based on the outcome of the violence is that this approach fails to acknowledge that, in many cases, terrorism does not have a positive influence on events, and that no amount of lives is worth only a chance of (anyway subjective) improvement. Often terrorism serves only to further radicalize both sides of the equation. For instance, terrorist attacks have historically driven the Israeli electorate to the right, and alienates them from the idea that the Palestinians are a partner for peace. (Whether this is a legitimate sentiment or not is not the question; it is undoubtedly a common perception in Israel, and after several decades of civilian attacks, it is easy to see how such a perception arises. [Although, just for the sake of it, it is not a perception with which I agree—who doesn’t want peace?]) After 9/11, the US electorate was similarly pushed to the right, as security issues came to override other concerns. Northern Ireland is the same idea. Terrorism is thus often counterproductive. While it stands to run that risk, in my eyes it is never worthwhile, whatever ways we seek to classify it in the present, or to justify it over the course of history.

Comment on Reading Questions by Robert LaMoy

Robert LaMoy — Sat, 08 May 2010 22:49:21 +0000

On 20 September 2001, President George W. Bush gave an address to Congress that sought to explain why Islamic fundamentalists hate America. Bush said, “They hate what they see right here in this chamber, a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other…these terrorists kill not merely to end lives but to disrupt and end a way of life.” Rhetorically, this reasoning was very effective—it pitted America in the middle of an epic battle of competing ideologies. However powerful the rhetoric, it was oversimplified.

Our readings this week suggest that terrorism can serve either minimalist or maximalist goals. According to David Lake, Osama bin Laden (assuming he is still alive) wants to “stop the West from polluting Islamic culture, force the United States to withdraw from the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, and destroy Israel.” (Lake, “Rational Extremism,” 19). Conspicuously absent from these goals are “destroy the Western way of life” or “overthrow Western democracies.” These sort of misperceptions, put forth largely by the Bush Administration, were a leading cause of our foreign policy blunders over the last decade.

As we discussed in lecture, the term “War on Terrorism” is a misnomer if we consider terrorism to be a tactic that advances political goals. It is possible to wage war on a specific terrorist cell, but hard to wage war on terrorism as a whole. Terrorists have varying political motivations; as a result, their goals will not necessarily be maximalist in nature. To be sure, terrorism is a desperate tactic, and the demands of terrorists should rarely be granted. However, the moderate success of terrorism in the Palestine-Israel conflict suggests that terrorism is not a hopeless tactic. Whenever retaliation plays into the hands of terrorists, compromise with non-state actors might actually be a better path for states to pursue.

Comment on Extended Discussion – Group 3 by Urvashi Barooah

Urvashi Barooah — Fri, 07 May 2010 01:47:01 +0000

I definitely agree with Otis on his defintion of terrorism. Also, with regard to our discussion on when asymmetric violence is justified and when not, I think a lot of the justification when viewed in retrospect, is dependent on the outcome of the violence. For intance when insurgent violence aimed against the government succeeds with the newly instated government then establishing peace and mobilizing the people, it is in retrospect termed as an independence movement, rather than an insurgent movement. This again reiterates the subjectivity of these terms and their definitions.

Comment on Extended Discussion – Group 3 by Charlie Wemyss-Dunn

Charlie Wemyss-Dunn — Thu, 06 May 2010 23:56:26 +0000

I agree with Otis’s argument of the need to be specific with the terms we use and believe that his point agrees with the point that I made at the end of discussion today about how we can only combat terrorism in the Middle East by making it appear unappealing, and indeed, unjust. Demonstrating to the civilian populace how misguided and needless acts of terror are by appealing to their hearts and minds would have the effect of destroying the terrorist support base and recruitment drive. This demonstration can only come about through acts that gain the trust of civilians like building of infrastructure or the creation of schools but most importantly it would come about through US forces keeping the promises they make to local people and protecting rather than abandoning secured territory (this is especially the case in Afghanistan where after making false promises to civilians of protection in return for information/leads, the army will just evacuate the area leaving the civilians prone to reprisal.) The most important thing not to do is to fight fire with fire and destroy the homes and infrastructure of the people you are trying to win over and not to alienate. Now I understand that it is a very fragile and tricky situation since any person could be a possible terrorist threat, but this is the only way to appeal to people in a way that they can understand and that is local to them. In this sense I believe that all individuals have the same value system but are simply pushed to acts of an extreme nature due to their house being bombed or an innocent relative being needlessly shot. I don’t want to criticize the US army because I know the Brits have been equally guilty of this in the past, but I feel that they need to stop relying on high-tech impersonal drones and destructive missiles and actually get to some effective counter-insurgency work! In this way not everyone will be or will want to be a ‘terrorist’ and support for terror tactics will fall.

Comment on Extended Discussion – Group 3 by Otis Pitney

Otis Pitney — Thu, 06 May 2010 21:46:33 +0000

I left class today thinking about the importance and utility of labeling different combatants by their proper terms. It may seem trivial but I actually think terminology makes up an important part of combating terrorism. As it stands now, the terrorist is defined in the eye of the beholder; its breadth consigns its meaning to obscurity. Liberator or senseless, despicable murderer? Or it may evince a mixed response based on the degree of empathy for the cause. This range is not primarily a result of fundamental, irreconcilable differences in cultural beliefs but of different understandings of the word. That’s where nominal distinction between “terrorists” based on target discrimination becomes so important. The Palestinian who drives up to an Israeli checkpoint and blows himself up must be called a. The Palestinian who murders an Israeli politician must be called b. The Palestinian who kills an Israeli walking down the street must be called c—a terrorist. People need to be able to condemn these acts with less doubt, so that the word terrorist becomes synonymous with evil. It must be stripped down to its stark naked mass murdering reality, when this is the case such as with September 11. As this happens, and the association becomes ingrained in culture, men who kill civilians will no longer be able to hide behind a word. Every idea of justice must be cut away. This means extricating more honorable “terrorists” from the pool so that delegates cannot stand up at the United Nations conference, watched by the eyes of the world, and compare the group responsible for murdering 11 Israeli athletes to French groups who fought Nazi soldiers. While it is a war tactic and will probably never be fully extinguished, establishing that terrorism, strictly defined, is not morally defensible is central in supporting efforts to starve and isolate it.

Comment on Extended Discussion – Group 2 by Hannah Postel

Hannah Postel — Thu, 06 May 2010 00:40:49 +0000

As we’ve been reading the many articles about the environment and globalization, I’ve noticed the multiple (very different) data! Some authors use certain statistics completely contradictory to those in other articles. I can understand of course having different views about the same data, e.g. interpreting the information in different ways. It is of course difficult to compile data about the number of starving people, the number of people under the poverty level, etc, but I think this makes analysis dangerous. In order to be able to suggest any useful steps for the future, we must have correct information about the present. It is important to be able to attempt to figure out what has gone well in the past and what has not. While of course looking for a solution (or a compilation of multiple strategies) takes first priority, I think more progress could be accomplished if we could build up a database of generally accepted, scientifically proven data. Just as in a scientific experiment, results can not be accepted unless they are proven by multiple people multiple times. In order to be able to take further action, we should know where we stand now.