Does anyone else have the problem of a belligerent family member that always gets you riled up over the holidays? Well Foreign Policy has come to the rescue with a guide to policy questions that you might be attacked on over a nice dinner.
Most of it is pretty good but the section on health care reform leaves a bit to be desired. I think they should probably stick to foreign policy....
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
"The notion that we must be adversaries is not predestined. ...Given that interconnection, power in the 21st century is no longer a zero-sum game. One country's success need not come at the expense of another. And that is why the United States insists we do not seek to contain China's rise. On the contrary we welcome China as a strong and prosperous and successful member of the community of nations."
Monday, November 16, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Taliban/Al-Qaida Power Flip in Afghanistan
The most interesting thing:
Muhammad Omar (I hesitate to call him a mullah) promised the following:
"We assure all countries that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as a responsible force, will not extend its hand to cause jeopardy to others"
In other words, he strictly removes himself and his movement from a jihadi movement, and is essentially playing to the popular mood in Afghanistan, namely "We want our country back."
With the way Dear Leader has been conducting himself and the war effort lately, he seems likely to strike a chord.
Muhammad Omar (I hesitate to call him a mullah) promised the following:
"We assure all countries that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as a responsible force, will not extend its hand to cause jeopardy to others"
In other words, he strictly removes himself and his movement from a jihadi movement, and is essentially playing to the popular mood in Afghanistan, namely "We want our country back."
With the way Dear Leader has been conducting himself and the war effort lately, he seems likely to strike a chord.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Small Examples of Moving Forward
So I know this doesn't directly relate (although relevant) to our topics, but it is a long-term interest of mine. The New York Times had an article today on Iraq's first Elite Corps of female police officers.
For those of you who have explored post-conflict reconstruction, one of the most critical components is how the country constructs its security sector (police, military, etc.) Often, it is these institutions that were at the forefront of the abuses that occurred during the conflict. For conflicts defined by sectarian divisions, deciding which side gets the guns is particularly critical, and can make or break peace agreements (example: Zimbabwe's civil war). Further, how security sector reform is implemented has long-term impact on how social and political factors are shaped post-conflict: when you can keep the peace effectively (and appropriately), there is a great chance that countries plagued with conflict will not devolve back into it, or so the standard literature goes.
Interestingly, successful cases of security sector reform, such as South Africa, have been pointed to as strong examples of the importance of integrating women into security forces. As the article above mentions, there are huge benefits, particularly in developing world cultures, such as being able to work with children and women in a different capacity. While this includes having women not only in security forces but in decision-making positions on security related issues--it is also associated with advancing social goals, that a man's world in these post-conflict countries can be penetrated by women, an often marginalized group in this area.
Anyway, just food for thought on post-conflict SSR in general, and also for how the United States continues its efforts with the provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq and Afghanistan and training police and military.
For those of you who have explored post-conflict reconstruction, one of the most critical components is how the country constructs its security sector (police, military, etc.) Often, it is these institutions that were at the forefront of the abuses that occurred during the conflict. For conflicts defined by sectarian divisions, deciding which side gets the guns is particularly critical, and can make or break peace agreements (example: Zimbabwe's civil war). Further, how security sector reform is implemented has long-term impact on how social and political factors are shaped post-conflict: when you can keep the peace effectively (and appropriately), there is a great chance that countries plagued with conflict will not devolve back into it, or so the standard literature goes.
Interestingly, successful cases of security sector reform, such as South Africa, have been pointed to as strong examples of the importance of integrating women into security forces. As the article above mentions, there are huge benefits, particularly in developing world cultures, such as being able to work with children and women in a different capacity. While this includes having women not only in security forces but in decision-making positions on security related issues--it is also associated with advancing social goals, that a man's world in these post-conflict countries can be penetrated by women, an often marginalized group in this area.
Anyway, just food for thought on post-conflict SSR in general, and also for how the United States continues its efforts with the provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq and Afghanistan and training police and military.
Russia and the GDR
I was sorry to miss the Russia presentation on Sunday, considering its perfect timing with the 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall.
Last night I participated in a celebration with the German Department, where we had a panel of guests from Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic and other nations on both sides of the former Iron Curtain.
After listening to these speakers, it is really just unbelievable how much everything has changed. In middle of the 20th Century, the Soviet Union violently quelled many uprisings in Eastern Europe. Yet on November 9, 1989, not a single shot was fired.
Much credit is given to Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika. In fact, in the 80s, the Soviet Union grew to be much more liberal and forgiving than the GDR State. When Gorbachev visited the GDR earlier in '89, the people chanted, "Gorbi! Gorbi!" Gorbachev himself was unwilling to back Honecker's hard-line policies.
And so we saw a peaceful revolution in East Germany. But I think that had much more to do with the struggles and sacrifices of the people over the course of 50 years, rather than the policies of Gorbachev.
I guess I am just rambling on about history, but as a German major, I love this stuff. Sure, Russia still has major issues, but the changes that have happened there in the past 20 years are incredibly remarkable. Hooray for democracy.
Last night I participated in a celebration with the German Department, where we had a panel of guests from Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic and other nations on both sides of the former Iron Curtain.
After listening to these speakers, it is really just unbelievable how much everything has changed. In middle of the 20th Century, the Soviet Union violently quelled many uprisings in Eastern Europe. Yet on November 9, 1989, not a single shot was fired.
Much credit is given to Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika. In fact, in the 80s, the Soviet Union grew to be much more liberal and forgiving than the GDR State. When Gorbachev visited the GDR earlier in '89, the people chanted, "Gorbi! Gorbi!" Gorbachev himself was unwilling to back Honecker's hard-line policies.
And so we saw a peaceful revolution in East Germany. But I think that had much more to do with the struggles and sacrifices of the people over the course of 50 years, rather than the policies of Gorbachev.
I guess I am just rambling on about history, but as a German major, I love this stuff. Sure, Russia still has major issues, but the changes that have happened there in the past 20 years are incredibly remarkable. Hooray for democracy.
Monday, November 9, 2009
More walls, more falls?
BBC's special report on the walls that still stand.
How do y'all feel about the wall between the US and Mexico? As students of international relations, I feel that we have a different, more in depth understanding of the factors that go into these walls that still exist... I spoke to a few co-workers at RHRC about the US-Mexico wall and they ALL replied with "but of course, without that wall, how would we keep them out?"
Just food for thought...
How do y'all feel about the wall between the US and Mexico? As students of international relations, I feel that we have a different, more in depth understanding of the factors that go into these walls that still exist... I spoke to a few co-workers at RHRC about the US-Mexico wall and they ALL replied with "but of course, without that wall, how would we keep them out?"
Just food for thought...
The Berlin Wall fell... but there are still more.
So today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Go on any news website and they have a plethora of pics from all over Europe. Huzzah!
While I'm happy for Berlin/Germany/Europe, this made me think of is this exhibit that the ICRC put on last fall. I had the opportunity to see it, and was amazed at how much I learned. They created a maze-like exhibit and all pictures and such were placed on walls. Take a look, and maybe you'll be inspired to look up more info about the highlighted walls/conflicts.
While I'm happy for Berlin/Germany/Europe, this made me think of is this exhibit that the ICRC put on last fall. I had the opportunity to see it, and was amazed at how much I learned. They created a maze-like exhibit and all pictures and such were placed on walls. Take a look, and maybe you'll be inspired to look up more info about the highlighted walls/conflicts.
Communist One-Two
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Thesis Paragraph:
This 20th anniversary has seen yet another crop of boring articles about how so many people, especially in former East Germany, are supposedly "nostalgic" for the security of the old Stalinist system. Such sentimental piffle—which got a good airing in that irritating movie Good Bye Lenin!—would not long survive a reading of another new book: Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, by Victor Sebestyen. Making effective use of archives opened since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Sebestyen describes the day in late October 1989 when the head of State Planning in the German Democratic Republic, Gerhard Schürer, presented the party leadership with the unvarnished economic news. "Nearly 60 per cent of East Germany's entire economic base could be written off as scrap, and productivity in mines and factories was nearly 50 per cent behind the West." Even more appalling was the 12-fold increase in the GDR's national debt—a situation so grotesque that it had been classified as a state secret lest loans from Western creditors dry up. "Just to avoid further indebtedness," wrote Schürer, "would mean a lowering next year of living standards by 25 to 30 per cent, and make the GDR ungovernable." So the wall came down just before the hermetic state that it enclosed would have imploded. I doubt that there would have been much "nostalgia" for that.
Applebaum: Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism?
Thesis Paragraph:
Everything comes around again, in the end; every debate needs to be held twice. For the past few years, the Russians have been conducting an extraordinary national argument about whether Stalin was bad, a question one would have thought was settled long ago. And now, to celebrate the 20thanniversary of 1989, we have two books, both by eminent historians, both seeking to start an argument about whether there was an anti-Communist opposition in Central Europe. In Uncivil Society Stephen Kotkin, a Soviet historian at Princeton, makes an unusually strident version of the case that there was not. Konstantin Pleshakov, a Soviet historian at Mount Holyoke, presents a milder and more complicated version in There Is No Freedom Without Bread.
Thesis Paragraph:
This 20th anniversary has seen yet another crop of boring articles about how so many people, especially in former East Germany, are supposedly "nostalgic" for the security of the old Stalinist system. Such sentimental piffle—which got a good airing in that irritating movie Good Bye Lenin!—would not long survive a reading of another new book: Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, by Victor Sebestyen. Making effective use of archives opened since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Sebestyen describes the day in late October 1989 when the head of State Planning in the German Democratic Republic, Gerhard Schürer, presented the party leadership with the unvarnished economic news. "Nearly 60 per cent of East Germany's entire economic base could be written off as scrap, and productivity in mines and factories was nearly 50 per cent behind the West." Even more appalling was the 12-fold increase in the GDR's national debt—a situation so grotesque that it had been classified as a state secret lest loans from Western creditors dry up. "Just to avoid further indebtedness," wrote Schürer, "would mean a lowering next year of living standards by 25 to 30 per cent, and make the GDR ungovernable." So the wall came down just before the hermetic state that it enclosed would have imploded. I doubt that there would have been much "nostalgia" for that.
Applebaum: Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism?
Thesis Paragraph:
Everything comes around again, in the end; every debate needs to be held twice. For the past few years, the Russians have been conducting an extraordinary national argument about whether Stalin was bad, a question one would have thought was settled long ago. And now, to celebrate the 20thanniversary of 1989, we have two books, both by eminent historians, both seeking to start an argument about whether there was an anti-Communist opposition in Central Europe. In Uncivil Society Stephen Kotkin, a Soviet historian at Princeton, makes an unusually strident version of the case that there was not. Konstantin Pleshakov, a Soviet historian at Mount Holyoke, presents a milder and more complicated version in There Is No Freedom Without Bread.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Obama's Report Card
A NY Times article from today celebrating/scoring Obama's election anniversary.
Skip down to the Nukes bit... I think (opinion, opinion!)... that this bit: "President Obama came into office with a plan to move toward zero American nuclear weapons – as long as he can persuade the rest of the world to move with him..." is ridiculous. Call me a bit of a realist, but why would anyone, ANYONE ever get rid of their nukes? Does anyone actually think this is a good idea? Also, could this platform have influenced the actions of the Iranis and North Koreans these past few months? Both have stepped up their nuclear activity; is this because they think they can get away with it with Obama? Scary.
Skip down to the Nukes bit... I think (opinion, opinion!)... that this bit: "President Obama came into office with a plan to move toward zero American nuclear weapons – as long as he can persuade the rest of the world to move with him..." is ridiculous. Call me a bit of a realist, but why would anyone, ANYONE ever get rid of their nukes? Does anyone actually think this is a good idea? Also, could this platform have influenced the actions of the Iranis and North Koreans these past few months? Both have stepped up their nuclear activity; is this because they think they can get away with it with Obama? Scary.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
The U.N.'s Shameful Complicity in this Year's Corrupt Afghan Elections
An excellently opinionated article with which (witness TJ and Angela!) I completely agree.
By Christopher Hitchens.
Brilliant concluding quote:
"...but there is one thing that did disfigure South Vietnam and is essential to avoid in any case: the commitment of American forces to a government that contrives to be both enriched and bankrupt at the same time and makes its own people want to spit."
By Christopher Hitchens.
Brilliant concluding quote:
"...but there is one thing that did disfigure South Vietnam and is essential to avoid in any case: the commitment of American forces to a government that contrives to be both enriched and bankrupt at the same time and makes its own people want to spit."
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Challenge
I challenge you people (YOU PEOPLE!) to convince me of the following:
The United States has a responsibility to commit manpower to peacekeeping efforts worldwide, regardless of whether or not it precipitated the non-peaceful conditions to begin with.
I offer the following statements (without proof) for my argument to the contrary:
1) Any peacekeeping efforts by the U.S. would need to be paid for
2) Only U.S. taxpayers or semipermanent consumers can pay for sustained U.S. peacekeeping efforts
3) The only responsibilities the U.S. governing apparatus inherently has are to its taxpayers or semipermanent consumers.
4) If the U.S. governing apparatus precipitates any non-peaceful conditions, it adds to that list of responsibilities.
5) Otherwise, it doesn't.
6) If the U.S. government indeed commits manpower to peacekeeping efforts, the need of which it did not precipitate, such commitment is extraneous and ancillary to its real responsibilities.
7) I am awesome, and therefore am correct.
Kidding. But for real, 1-6.
Done.
The United States has a responsibility to commit manpower to peacekeeping efforts worldwide, regardless of whether or not it precipitated the non-peaceful conditions to begin with.
I offer the following statements (without proof) for my argument to the contrary:
1) Any peacekeeping efforts by the U.S. would need to be paid for
2) Only U.S. taxpayers or semipermanent consumers can pay for sustained U.S. peacekeeping efforts
3) The only responsibilities the U.S. governing apparatus inherently has are to its taxpayers or semipermanent consumers.
4) If the U.S. governing apparatus precipitates any non-peaceful conditions, it adds to that list of responsibilities.
5) Otherwise, it doesn't.
6) If the U.S. government indeed commits manpower to peacekeeping efforts, the need of which it did not precipitate, such commitment is extraneous and ancillary to its real responsibilities.
7) I am awesome, and therefore am correct.
Kidding. But for real, 1-6.
Done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)