I love the Greeks

Really, I do.  Their history, mythology, philosophy, government - I find it all fascinating.  I have to admit, when I saw that one of our readings for this module was Thucydides, I got pretty excited.  Even more so when he mentions that Homer, being a poet, likely exaggerated events (something I've long suspected - wink).  After reading the intro, I laughed out loud when I came to "Most people, in fact, will not take trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear."  Not going to lie, I think this proves that human nature doesn't change much.  Aristotle wrote something about the youth being entitled, lazy and no good - geez, doesn't that sound like what the media says about 'millennials?'

The dialouge between the Athenians and the Melians struck a chord as well.  I kept going back to the interests vs ideas module during this reading.  The Athenians arguing that it is in the interests of both them and the Melians if the Melians just surrender and become slaves of their own accord while the Melians try to convince the Athenians that it's actually in both of their interests for Melia to remain neutral - neither an ally of the Athenians nor the Spartans.  In the end, Melia falls to the Athenians, all males of a certain age are slaughtered and their wives and daughters are sold into slavery.  So what the Athenians argued turns out to be true - "in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept."

So how does this relate to our current module about the rise and fall of the great powers?  Page 49 summed it up perfectly - "What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta."  As one city was becoming more powerful, the current most powerful state took notice and then took steps to ensure that they would remain the most powerful state.  Is this something that the world is doomed to continue?  Sparta and Athens were pretty close in proximity, does geographical location and a sharing of borders have to do with this?  Is it all based upon military might?  What role does economics play?  If human nature itself doesn't change much based on Thucydides and Aristotle's observations, what does that say about states and global politics? 

I am very much looking forward to the next live session when we can start getting into some discussions of this and the other readings, too - but I will admit, this one was my favorite.

So... is there a Global Public Sphere?

The answer we arrived at was a solid... ish.  Does the creation of organizations such as the EU, African Union and NGO's affect state sovereignty?  Yes, a bit.  Is the EU going to remain united?  Maybe.  These are questions that are really interesting and as a side note, I now totally understand why this class opened with Hobbes.  I keep imagining global politics as a kind of recess playground.  Alliances are formed, secrets are found out or kept, those we're friendly with this week are totally different than the ones we were friends with last week, we have to help out a friend in a bind and then it's expected all over... I could go on, but I think you get the gist.  The biggest difference is that global politics do not have a "recess lady" or anyone overseeing the field.  Now a class member would say something in favor of Global Government, and I'm sure there would be a reference to the Star Trek Federation.  The problem is, I'm not totally convinced that would be desirable or feasible.  It seems like the question that we generally run into is - who watches the watchmen?  Where would the checks and balances be?  How could a global system of government ensure that each state can still act on their own in some ways?  It's never a good idea for a bureaucracy to get too big because then nothing ever gets done.

I think that the EU has been a grand experiment in finding out just how much sovereignty a country is willing to give up, how much a country is willing to help other member countries and how tired of each other such an organization can get.  Looking at the possibility of Britain leaving the EU, there are things that they'll want to consider, but personally I think that the national identity of being "British" before being "European" will win out.  Just a theory, but I'll be watching what is happening with popcorn and a kind of fascination that is usually reserved for films.

I found the spiral model in the readings to be a very good example of how a country can come to change their policies toward something like human rights due to pressure from their own citizens, NGO's, and other countries.  Mapping changes in societies is obviously something that I find quite interesting and I thought that illustration was on point.

Considering the dynamics between the Public Sphere, Social Structures, and Power

            I found the ideas of social facts and brute facts brought up in the article on the EU particularly intriguing in that they seemed to illustrate how there might be a dynamic between a possible global public sphere and the current international environment.  Particularly with social facts, this concept brought the focus back to the more constructivist argument like that of Wendt. Viewing the public sphere from this perspective would lead to it taking on the appearance of having considerably more influence.

            The article describes a social fact as something that is socially constructed as opposed to a brute fact which exists independently from the understanding of any individual or group. More importantly, social facts like the existence of a nation or state are kept intact by “banal” activities. The article used hanging a national flag in the background as an example of this. Furthermore, the article goes into detail about how things such as the ease one can get through customs can change a person’s concept of time and space relative to that of nation states. This leads to some interesting possible dynamics when paired with the latter phase of “socializing human rights norms into domestic practices” covered in the article by Risse and Sikkink in which behaviors and action at first serving state interests are later internalized essentially becoming a new kind of social fact.

            If one is willing to accept the constructivist premise, then one can see that the public sphere can have a huge impact on shaping many of the social facts that exist today. This was particularly brought to light for me during my research for last week’s activity when I came across an article in The National Interest by Mark G. Brennan titled NGO: The New Missionaries. The article argues that in some ways NGO’s have taken on the role held more by missionaries in the past. It does seem that region and philosophy has been an integral part in the development and spread of values. Following this thinking, perhaps the public sphere has always existed in one form or another and has played a significant if subtle role in shaping the world as we understand it. On the other hand, considering how the cultures of dominant powers throughout history seem to have spread more one has to concede that there is a limit to what the public sphere can achieve on its own with the assistance of brute force. Either way there does seem to be some sort of dynamic present.       

Public Authority and Identity

One of the more interesting articles from my perspective was the McNamara piece  “Constructing Authority in the European Union". The idea of constructing an identity is crucial to understanding bigger issues of sovereignty and authority in the current world environment.

One of the related issues we have discussed is the idea of how technology is challenging the traditional sovereignty of the nation state. This is not a new phenomenon. Martin Luther's 95 Theses were a challenge to the Catholic Church's authority in the pre-Westphalian system. A more modern example can be found with the spreading of communist ideology in Imperial Russia prior to the 1917 Revolution. In these cases ideology that challenged state authority were spread through written materials made possible by printing. In our current era one only needs a cell phone to be able to create, spread, or read a wide range of ideologies with few if any limits put on veracity.

The spread of ISIS is a great example of how creating an identity can be used to take sovereignty and public authority. By having a flag and an ideology they are able to maintain the identity of a nation state. Granted, this was only possible in the power vacuum of revolutionary Syria, but it provides a non-state example of identity formation and sovereignty in action. This is similar in form to the theory that McNamara postulated about a European Identity, although for very different aims.

This is important because in the future there may be competing notions of identity that may have an impact on state sovereignty. Will established nation states be able to maintain a national identity in the face of competing ideologies in the future?

Hail to the Chief...I mean celebrity!

Celebrities... they are a major part of the American culture we live for movies, TV shows,action hero's, etc. As a nation, we support an industry by simply paying and actor or actress money to see his or her talent. If we really like them then we pay more money! So when an actor tries to do good and tries to bring an awareness  to important global issues, the claws come out! Just like it did during last weeks discussion. As I sat and listened to everyones view point, I though what if the celebrities did absolutely nothing, what if they weren't role models and was ok with getting rich off of us? Would be still be so critical for them doing absolutely nothing? In Beyond Hollywood and the Boardroom Cooper, A. (2007). Beyond Hollywood and the Boardroom. Politics and Diplomacy, 125-127 Cooper brings up an interesting point he states that because of the growing opportunities celebrities have to actually have access global leaders(opportunities other may not have) that leaders in the international community has been left  befuddled and if not down right critical of this phenomenon.  So what is the root to this uproar? Is it a trust issue? Sometimes when someone comes onto the scene and in the experts mind has not earned their stripes (so to speak) can stir up conflict and worries on whetherr they are going to cause a global melt down because they do not know what they are doing. However, besides the Rodman incident in North Korea we really have not seen a harmful impact by these celebrities getting involved. Now if you want to go on what if''s you can but it is unfounded and will not hold out at best. So who are they really hurting? Are we that closed minded that we are not willing to work with celebrities in solving the problems of the world? I mean they do have resources that others do not have. Can we not use that to our advantage?

Celebrity, Charisma, and the Global Public Sphere

Last week’s class focused a great deal on the readings which analyzed the role of celebrities in international issues and what it suggested for a possible global public sphere. This issue does seem to signify that there is to some extent such a sphere and it can be problematic at times if it steers events in the wrong direction. Some of the concerning trends touched on in the articles seem to illustrate this.

            Of the celebrities pointed out in the Dieter and Kumar article, Bono stands out with his relationship to Sachs. According to the article, Sachs’ economic solutions have proven to be ineffective in the past. Even worse than that his economic prescriptions sometimes exacerbate the problems faced by developing countries. This has been seen within the USSR. If the celebrity/economist duo are successful, it will be seen within Africa as well. The fact that a celebrity like Bono can push his will based solely on his notoriety indicates that there is some strength in having popular support from the multitudes.

            On the other side of the coin this dynamic can also illustrate some promising features. It illustrates that a celebrity can use their social status to push through the agenda of an organization or even academic like Sachs. If Sachs’ economic solutions were fruitful, such a pair could be very significant in addressing extreme global poverty. Unfortunately, this depends on there being no ulterior agendas by either party other than helping the poor and an organization with real effective solutions. While such groups and individuals are conceivable, not all people who stand up to arouse the crowd will have these characteristic. Those that can stir populations and even states into action can have tremendously positive effects but those same kinds of people can also have dire consequences. We’ve seen more than once that the public and even governments can be lead astray.        

Foreign Aid

The topic of foreign aid is one that could easily consume an entire career, much less a portion of an online class. Although my focus area is not International Development, it is an important topic to consider regardless. 

Aid is obviously a controversial topic, and not just in how it is implemented. The basic assumption behind foreign aid, that states and NGOs have the right to dictate to other states how to handle their internal affairs, can be problematic. Instead of looking at these valid critiques of foreign aid, I'd like to examine the idea of utilizing foreign aid for desired strategic affects.

The first example that comes to mind is the Marshall Plan, or the European Recovery Plan. This massive economic assistance plan was designed to enable development in Europe post World War II, which was seen as critical to establish Western Europe as a capable partner in the Cold War. The plan itself committed 10% of the national budget at the time to foreign aid. It was a huge investment, and I suggest it was well spent, given the trade and military relationships between the US and Western Europe.

Another, more modern example of foreign aid for strategic goals can be seen in our relations with both Israel and Egypt. The two nations take the lions share of our 'foreign aid' in the form of military assistance. In 1979, our aid to Egypt was critical in the peace process between the two nations, which have not fought each other since, and in fact work together to an extent in the security realm today. Although this aid is military in nature, it helps to achieve strategic goals.

So what are some potential areas for utilizing aid in a more strategic manner? I think a prime example is infectious disease control. It's easy to ignore problems when they do not seem to have a direct affect on your own soil, but swine flu, bird flu, ebola and now zika have all shown that diseases know no borders. A comprehensive assistance plan that involves all parts of the government, from aid for medical center construction, education for medical professionals, and utilizing the military for assistance during pandemics could achieve much for both the populations directly at risk as well as ensuring the health of all nations. If run correctly, this can also generate soft power for the US.