Enjoy the holidays

Your semester grades are now online, and your final exams are at the office, if you want to pick them up.

Just wanted to say it was a pleasure teaching this class, and I wish you all the best. If any of you are taking any of my courses next semester, the syllabi are finished, and I'd be happy to mail them to you. My Latin American politics class website is already up here.

Enjoy your holiday break, I'll be out of the country (and probably w/ no email) for two weeks as I trek through Italy, so if you've any questions about your grades, sorry, but they'll have to wait until first of the year. Ciao!

Extra credit

Senator Slade Gordon will speak on the 9/11 Comission Report this Thursday from 7-8:30pm at 1001 Wood Hall. There's a reception at 6:30pm (w/ free food). I'm giving extra credit if you attend this event; please make sure you notify me & let me know you're there so I can give you credit for showing up to his lecture. More info here.

Globalization

It occurred to me in discussion today that many of the arguments presented by both authors seemed superfluous, in that they didn't address the deeper issues involved in trying to assign the words "good" or 'bad" to globalization. I can't cover everything, and all data sources are scattered throughout various texts and data archives (therefore there are no citations, just an invite for discussion.) This isn't an absolute statement. I just think there is more to question.

Culture.

Cultural values vary by region. Most Western-Liberal democracies recognize the priority of the individual, and the initial means of government is to protect individual rights, which is usually accompanied by an independent media, and a set of enumerated rights on which a government must have a sufficient interest to infringe upon. Most individuals are believed to be rational beings capable of making their own choices.

Many Confucian-influenced societies view the society as prior to the individual, and the chief end of government is preserving the status quo. There are individual rights, but the individual is believed to only be a part of the overall scheme of the society.

How does the mass availability of similar goods throughout the world effect these regions on an individual or societal basis? Is the world-system truly reflective of world values, or just Western-Liberal ideology?

Economy.

It seems that nobody here questions the pros and cons of a capitalist IPE. Liberal economic theory dominates the international scene, backed by the major western powers, and further propagated by IGOs such as the WTO and the World Bank. Adam Smith's invisible-hand has very much become an iron-fist.

The line of consumer products starts with capital investment. An entrepeneur with a "good" idea (good meaning profitable) attracts investment groups (groups that have significant pooled resources). These are often banks (CitiBank, DeutschBank, etc.) that have managed to congolmerate large amounts of free capital purely for the purpose of investing in new enterprises. With very few hands controlling vast amounts of economic energy (capital available for investment), where does the average individual fit in? Is it fair so few control so much?

Next is acquiring raw materials: oil, minerals, etc. Do smaller NICs and LDCs have power to resist demands of MNCs? Are the prices MNCs acquire these raw materials fair to those states?

Then production. Capitalism needs labor to produce finished consumer goods, rendering raw materials such as silicon and oil into nintendos and playstations. To be profitable, companies must squeeze excess value from labor and pump it into the final price of the product on the market. This is why NAFTA, ASEAN, and the EU areso good for MNCs: with tariffs on imported goods slowly disappearing, MNCs can use cheap labor in NICs and LDCs to squeeze even more excess value from the labor, because those end consumer products will be sold in the most industrialized countries. Example: GM in Mexico, DaimlerChrysler in Romania. Romanian workers have to save for 26 years to buy one of the Mercedes they are producing. Is this good? MNCs use this excess capital to absorb possible losses in the production process. This is because overproduction has become the norm in the international corporate world: it keeps prices down, and even if every unit isn't sold, the excess value assigned to each product on the open market absorbs the waste cost.

Is it fair that MNCs can exploit both the cheap labor of NICs and the fat pocketbooks of industrialized countries? How much of a profit margin is truly needed? Is corporate personship (protection of corporations as individuals with distinct rights) a democratic process? Was it ever put to referendum? Are democratic states better for individual liberties, or even better for MNC profits (because of the protection of corporate assets)? Which is worse: liberty without profit, or profit without liberty? Does liberty hinge upon material possession, and having the ability to possess more than one needs? Does the environment matter? Should corporate practices be legal only if they're sustainable? Is your McLife worth more than the environment?



***This is not to criticize individuals. These are just thoughts that run through my head as I'm standing in line at Best Buy wondering if I really need everything I throw my money at.

***I just think blind acceptance of higher authority is illogical; any appeal to such an argument is a fallacy.

Change of plans on Tuesday

I forgot to mention this on Thursday, but Kathleen Hawk will be giving a presentation in class on Tuesday. She'll speak about peacekeeping & state-building. Dr. Hawk teaches political science at the University of Alabama, and currently works military intelligence in the US Navy Reserve. She's previously worked as a foreign service officer.

Her visit will most likely take all of the class period, but if not, we'll cover the assigned readings. So come prepared regardless.

RISK Me

I dont know about anybody else- but I thought todays class was awesome. I had a really good time- it's been a while since I have gotten back to my true nerd roots and played some Risk. If anybody is interested, feel free to email me and we can try to get some people together at RocketStar or something... Hope to hear from some of you!

casey.hunt@gmail.com

Quiz 3 Answers

I'll hand back the quizes on Thursday, so we can focus Tuesday on the RISK in-class exercise. But here are the correct answers, if you're dying to know.

1. Q: The Law of the Sea regulates
   
   A: E, the international treaty includes provisions for dealing w/ fishing rights, territorial waters, and piracy (among many other items).


2. Q: In which of the following were there NO war crimes tribunals
   
   A: B, there were war crime tribunals in each of the wars listed but the 1982 Falklands War between Argentina & Great Britain (the UK won the war).


3. Q: Which of the following is NOT listed as a kind of diplomacy in the text
   
   A: A, although I'm sure diplomats email each other, the course textbook didn't list "internet diplomacy" (but did list all the others).


4. Q: Can FORCE be an instrument of diplomacy? Explain.
   
   A: Regardless of whether you like it or not, force is indeed an instrument of diplomacy. A correct answer would give some reasoning for this, following any of the examples from the book and/or class discussions.


5. Q: Briefly define POWER.
   
   A: Something along the lines of the oft-repeated expression: "Power is the ability to make others do what you want them to do" [and they don't want to do].

I've you've questions about any of these, comment on this post.

Special RISK rules

Turns are limited to three minutes; all activities must be concluded within this time limit. This includes placing of new armies, attacking, and reinforcing. This time limit will be strictly enforced. If a state is in the middle of an attacking turn when its time limit expires, that attack is instantly called off (this would mean no reinforcing).

DEMOCRACIES

Democratic states are based on elections and open participation. Team members in a democracy are citizens and have the right to actively participate in decision-making.

At the beginning of each turn a democracy elects a prime minister who officially represents the state in foreign relations. The prime minister sits at the main table and conducts the general business of the game. Although the prime minister is ultimately able to make independent decisions, he or she must consult with the citizens before making decisions.

Democracies hold elections at the beginning of each turn. Citizens can propose any member for the office of prime minister. There is no immediate reelection; a former prime minister can be reelected only after a turn. After the election, the citizens consult with the prime minister to decide what to do that turn (keep time limits in mind).

In addition, the prime minister selects a secretary. The secretary is empowered to negotiate with other players as well as carry messages from the main table to the citizens (e.g. to ask for advice or gain approval for an alliance).

Democracies are open societies. This means that they are able to freely communicate with any independent players (see below) or citizens from other democracies. Citizens from democracies can meet together and discuss strategies or possible alliances.

AUTHORITARIAN SYSTEMS

Authoritarian states (or dictatorships) do not have elections or encourage participation. Team members in authoritarian systems are subjects.

Each authoritarian system is lead by a dictator who officially represents the team in foreign relations. The dictator sits at the main table and conducts the general business of the game. The dictator does not consult his or her subjects.

Authoritarian systems are closed societies. This means that they cannot freely communicate with subjects from other authoritarian systems or with citizens of democracies. They are, however, able to communicate with any independent players (see below) who approach them.

A dictatorship does not hold elections unless it holds at least three less territories than at the end of its previous turn. The dictator then holds a plebiscite. In this election, the subjects are only allowed to decide if the dictator should continue to hold his or her position. Only if the dictator looses the plebiscite is a new dictator is elected.

INDEPENDENT PLAYERS

Independent players are non-state actors. They pursue goals and strategies independent of other players (they may choose to keep these goals secret). Independent players can freely travel and communicate with any other players (citizens and leaders in democracies as well as subjects and rulers in dictatorships). They can attempt to convince states to pursue policies that will further their own strategies, offer advice and assist in interstate negotiations, or transmit information between states (this is especially crucial since democracies and authoritarian systems cannot communicate directly).

There are three basic types of non-state actors:

Humanitarian. These players specifically seek to prevent war between specific states.

Political. These players seek to eliminate some specific regime(s) or regime type.

Media. These players simply channel information between regimes. This is especially crucial since democratic subjects cannot interact with leaders or subjects in authoritarian regimes. Media players are allowed to give such information.

ELIMINATING OPPONENTS

Whenever one state eliminates another from the game, the losing team’s members become subjects or citizens of their conquerors. If a democracy eliminates a dictatorship, the subjects of that dictatorship are now entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Conversely, if a dictatorship eliminates a democracy, the citizens of that democracy become subjects of their conquering state.

All other RISK rules concerning eliminating opponents still apply.

Announcements

First, be sure to be on time for next Tuesday's class (2 November). We will be doing a RISK simulation that will start promptly at 10am. Essentially, we'll be playing a giant game of RISK. If you're not familiar w/ the game, you can go to The Rocket Star Café, which has a public board you can use to familiarize yourself w/ the game. I'll also post the specific modified rules we'll be using tonight. But here are the "normal" RISK rules (.pdf format).

Second, for this Thursday's class (28 October) be sure you look at this UN document on terrorism.

Third, I won't be available for office hours this coming Monday (1 November).

Nuclear weapons?

Following up on our discussion in class today, here's a list by the Federation of American Scientists of what countries have or may have nuclear weapons.

The haves are: US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Israel

The developing are/were: Iran, Iraq, North Korea

The "possibles" are: Algeria, Chechnya, Cuba, Lybia, Serbia, Sudan, Syria

The developing-at-one-time (and possibly still/again): Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Rumania, Ukraine. On another site, I also saw Sweden & Switzerland. Also, Germany was developing during WW2. But, of course, no one really knows, since nuclear programs are highly secretive ones.

Next semester

Some people have asked, so here's my schedule for next semester. I'll be teaching two courses:

PSCI 105 (Critical Thinking About Politics) Monday/Wednesday afternoons from 2-3:15pm. This course caps at 20 students, and there's already 14 enrolled.

PSCI 345 (Latin American Politics) Tuesday/Thursday afternoons from 2-4pm. This course caps at 55 students (only 2 enrolled so far).

I'm still working on both syllabi, but have already picked the texts.

Quiz 2 Answers

I'll hand back the quizes on Thursday, all graded for you. But here are the correct answers, if you're dying to know.

1. Q: Which of these is NOT an IGO?
   
   A: A, the International Red Cross (it's an NGO).


2. Q: Which of these is NOT currently a member of the European Union?
   
   A: B, Norway.


3. Q: What is considered a key moment in the formation of the NATION-STATE?
   
   A: C, the French Revolution (France is often considered the "first" true nation-state).


4. Q: Give a brief definition of the STATE as used in political science.
   
   A: Something similar to Max Weber's classic definition: "That organization which has a legitimate monopoly over the means of coersion in a specific territory."


5. Q: Briefly explain why NATIONALISM has often been associated with DEMOCRACY.
   
   A: Nationalism was born of the idea that nations of people should enjoy self-determination, that is, self-governmet. This coincided with early historical democratic movements, especially those following the French Revolution. (Of course, nationalism isn't always associated w/ democracy; it can be quite nasy & undemocratic.)

I've you've questions about any of these, comment on this post.

Notes on Chapter 7

Tomorrow's class will focus on the European Union, since we'll discuss the UN specifically on Tuesday. Still, be sure to read the entire chapter. For brief reading on the European Union, I highly recommend looking at this article (from wikipedia) on the expansion of the EU, as well as this general overview of the European Union itself. You can also browse the official EU website. Notice that the book is a bit out of date, since there are now 25 EU member states; the current EU's president-elect is Portugal's José Durão Barroso (currently, it's Italy's Romano Prodi).

Nationalism vs. Transnationalism

Today we learned about the concept of transnationalism which for the sake of argument can be summed up as a form of Religious Identity. We also talked about the ideal of Nationality. Both of which can be argued exist all over the world as we speak.

My question to you all is this: Which of these two is a more driving force? We have seen wars based on both of these ideals, but which do you think would drive more people to defend their beliefs? A faith and belief in their country, or is there a stronger will to fight for your beliefs based on your "Civilization"?

I am interested to hear what you all have to say.

More paper advice

The last batch of papers still aren't quite what I hoped for, though I was lenient again in grading them. Yes, I'm rather easy in class. But when it comes to grading, I'm a hard-ass. Keep that very much in mind. So let me be as clear as possible about your papers:

Since you're limited to three pages, DO NOT summarize the articles you read. Instead, use them as springboards to reflect on the issue & the concepts we're covering in class.

I spent a lot of time thinking about this syllabus, it's not just randomly organized. There are specific reasons why we're discussing certain issues at certain times. Think to yourself: What are the concepts raised in class? Then, pick ONE of these concepts and build your paper around it. If you try to cover more than one singular idea in a short paper, you'll only give a superficial account of any of them.

You can choose to dissect one of the arguments (either agreeing or disagreeing w/ it). But do so in the context of the concepts covered in class. How does it stack up? What issues does it raise? Again, pick ONE thing to focus on & go w/ that.

Or you can take any other approach. I'm giving you a lot of creative control over what to write about. But you should keep the paper narrowly focused & concisely written.

Some of you have already written a paper (or two) for this course. So. I'll let you write FOUR papers, and I'll take the highest scoring THREE papers. I think that's more than fair.

Iraq for oil?

Okay, I don't really know how I feel about the situation with Iraq, but I was wondering if anyone had some good sources that can claim with much certainty that the war with Iraq was or was not due in part to oil.

A lot of people feel strongly about this topic, but I would like to read about this from some credible sources. If someone could please point me in the right direction, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Abbey

Potential draft?

Someone asked after class today about the website congress.org, because of some information on it. Keep in mind that official government websites all end in .gov (or .mil). The congress.org website is an activist website, which means exactly what that means.

If you want information on the US government, you can visit:
www.house.gov -- House of Representatives
www.senate.gov -- Senate
www.whitehouse.gov -- White House
www.supremecourtus.gov -- Supreme Court

The question involved potential legislation to reinstate the draft, a topic brought up by CBS recently. Although both the White House & Selective Service deny gearing up for a draft, such legislation does, indeed, exist. HR 163 is the House version; S 89 is the Senate version. Both were introduced in January 2003, by Democrats, but neither has received attention in the Republican-dominated legislature.

Also, I want to commend everyone on their open, frank, and civil discussion in class today. You should be proud of yourselves.

Help from a class mate.

My teacher in Art 120 asked if there was an activity that was Sanctioned by the Government and dealt with a show of power while also having to do with a historical recreation? My class of 200+ students couldn't get what he was trying to convey. We came up with Civil War reenactment and that was really the best example. It however was wrong. A class mate and I were talking after and came up with the presidential election. I am not sure weather this is correct or not but i would like to hear your thoughts on this because it is Driving me mad. If you need further explination please let me know.

I will be asking this in class too.

States v. Nation-States

I'm a little confused on the differences between States and Nation-States. Is the difference just the sense of nationalism that goes along with being a Nation-State, or are there other more specific differences? What does everyone else think?

Strunk & White

Since I gave a brief little spiel on the importance of writing, and since you have papers due (if you chose to write on the Iraq war discussion topic) on Thursday, I thought I'd post a link to the online version of the stylebook I prefer:

http://www.bartleby.com/141/

It's a really short book, and it's hyperlinked, allowing you to look up specific things. I think everyone should own a copy of Strunk & White for ready reference, but if you don't, here's an online version.

Nationalism?

So, what does everybody think? I am interested to know whether you think Nationalism is a good thing or a bad thing to happen to the human race.
Is it inherently good for the world, or is it inherently bad for the world?