This weeks reflection

I'd never thought about how to define world politics before because I thought it was obvious. I thought it simply had to do with diplomacy between countries. But during our class discussion I realized that it is a lot more complicated than I thought. Even a simple issue here like plumbing can be considered a part of world politics. However, after listening to everyone speak and reading a number of the blogs I still think that competing interests are the biggest problem in world politics. These competing interests can be between different countries or within the same country. But no matter what the issue is it probably can be considered a world politics issue because the world is a lot more connected than it has ever been before. So even if plumbing is an issue between a government and the people of that country, it still has to do with world politics because chances are the pipes or water come from a different country and are acquired through a trade agreement. The other issues raised, such as education, nuclear weapons, and religion all cause problems because each country has an interest in the subject that doesn't go along with another country's. This makes competing issues the underlying factor in every political issue.

One thing I do agree with is how difficult it is to talk about an issue that has not really been defined. Because it is left up to interpretation, world politics could mean very different things to different people. Until we are able to actually define world politics the question we were given to answer in our blogs might never exist. But because just talking about world politics is somewhat political, it makes me think that everything in some way has to do with world politics. The name "world politics" itself makes any discussion about it a global issue because the definition effects people all over the world.

What I learned in Kindergarden...

This week’s class was filled with state to state relations, the role of the non-state actors, and plumbing. This all started with the question, “What is considered world politics?” And that remains the question. What should be under the wide umbrella of world politics? I look back to Thursday class when we spent a little over an hour and a half talking about if plumbing was considered part of world politics and I have to agree with the idea that plumbing is part of world politics. But I agree with certain reservations. If the plumbing breaks down in a small town in Suburbia, USA then the people will not vote in a radical politician who will try to destroy Canada or Mexico. But in Palestine when the not working plumbing is another woe in a long list, then the election of a radical organization into power is more likely. But this principle of voting into power a person who will deliver the needs of the people isn’t uncommon. It happens in the US, but it isn’t considered world politics. World politics usually requires an interaction between 2 people, a person and a group, or 2 groups from different nation-states. But that only covers a part of world politics. Like PTJ said, “What the question should be is what isn’t world politics?”
The exhibits on DC baseball and the riots were really interesting. The riots exhibit gave me a more intensive look into what happened compared to what I learned in history class. It made me think what people have to go through to finally get justice. I look at the situation in the middle east and see a parallel between the race riots of the 1960s and the people of Palestine. The only difference though is that the race riots weren’t world politics. What is considered world politics needs to be looked at one case at a time. We cannot classify all of a type of events into world politics because there is always that possibility that one trade deal isn’t world politics. World politics is too large a subject to cover in just one entry so hopefully I find some answers this semester.

learning

Last week when we were assigned the question “What is the most important issue in World Politics?” I though the question was hard.  I sat at my computer, contemplating every important global issue I could think of.  I chose the need for improved education I because felt it was the most effective way to solve any form of future and current global issues as well as promote global progress.

I knew that the question was meant to be open ended with several possible answers but I did not realize just how many answers there could be until our discussion on Friday.  Furthermore from our class discussion I came to a new realization about World Politics- anything can become world politics.  Any single event has the potential to effect the globe- well, I might be exaggerating slightly.  

My point is that for an issue to become a global issue there is no set path.  I will use the example we used continuously in class, “plumbing”.  Never would I have thought of it as an issue in world politics, let alone a significant one.  But, as we established in class if the circumstances are right it can be.  Just because my plumbing problems will most likely never be a major global issue doesn’t mean someone else’s won’t be.  I know we went over that point in class but I am still surprised at myself for never thinking about global politics from that perspective.  I makes so much sense now (and makes me better understand why Professor Jackson assigned the question to us.)

Its only been one class, and already I am realizing something I didn’t initially that now seems so obvious.  As corny as this all may sound this is one of the thinks I was looking forward to from this class.  In high school I was one of the most globally aware of my peers- but that’s not saying much.  I am ready to be out of my element here.  But who says that’s a bad thing- it may lead to some interesting conversations. 

Technology in the Classroom

For the first of these weekly reflective blog entries, I’d like to dwell on the use of technology and the internet in Professor Jackson’s class, and more generally in education. I was initially skeptical of this class’s electronic components: maintaining this blog, checking Professor Jackson’s blog, using his online calendar to make appointments, turning in papers via email, and listening to podcast lectures. This skepticism stems from my experiences in high school with teachers attempting to incorporate the Internet into their classrooms, and universally failing to do so effectively. While pioneering and pedagogically defensible, streaming video, Wikispaces, and web quests weren’t useful: the high-tech bells and whistles took time and energy away from substantial education. In my high school television class, for example, the more time we were required to spend uploading content to the internet, the less time we had to find, film, and produce news stories.

I’m hoping that this will be different. I think the course syllabus provides an excellent pedagogical rationale for blogging: it opens up the conversation in a way that conventional papers can’t. After Friday’s class, I’m looking forward to more of that dialog and discussion, and blogs seem like an effective place for that dialog to occur. However, I do think that we should have been provided with instructions on how to meet the technical guidelines listed in the syllabus. This isn’t a computer science class, and it is unfair to ask us to spend time and energy researching the technical workings of blogging.

The other electronic components of the class aren’t backed by an educational justification in the syllabus, and I’m a little more hesitant to embrace some of them. We’re supposed to listen to online podcasts (by Professor Jackson) on course topics, which I’m not very keen on. It is difficult enough to pay attention to a lecture when you’re in class; I think I’d get even less out of listening to my professor lecture on my iPod. It doesn't involve the student in what is happening. A nearly opposite problem could occur with the videos we’re supposed to produce: we’re asked to do too much and get too involved. Multimedia can be fun, and its certainly possible that students do better when they’re enjoying themselves, but I worry that the time I’m using editing and filming video could detract from the substantial content of the project, or from my performance in other classes.

I suppose I’ll wait and see. I’m not ready to pass judgment – and I don’t think any of these things would seriously impact how much I enjoy or gain from what (so far) has been an interesting and engaging course. I could be pleasantly surprised.

The most important issue in world politics

The most important issue in world politics is the competing interests of each country. This competition not only creates economic rivalries, but makes it hard for certain countries to get along politically. A current example of this would be the Russia and Georgia conflict. Russia wants to reclaim Georgia, while Georgia wants to retain its independence. Political dissent between countries and maybe even more importantly, within countries, prevents people from being able to work together. America has been dealing with this to some degree in the past few years. With our government run by a republican President and a democrat-controlled Congress, very little has been done. That is why I think this is the most important global issue because it impacts many people differently. Unfortunately, we live in a world where the values and actions of one country can greatly impact another. As a result, in order for the world to solve some of the most pressing concerns of our time, such as global warming or international human rights, countries will have to work together. However, the belief that we will somehow be able to all get along is unrealistic, especially when America alone is divided as much as it is. Also, because most countries do not share the same values this will almost never happen. I guess the best we can hope for is that in the future enough people will continue to fight for justice and equality against those that abuse their power.

the MOST important issue in world politics

At the beginning of the millennium the United Nations set goals for itself in hopes of creating a better world.  Of the eight Development Goals the second was to achieve universal primary education.  Although the term primary education may be most commonly associated with basic education such as math or reading primary education allows for more.  Education means more then learning the basics- it teaches the ability to think for oneself.  

The world today is filled with chaos- the majority of which comes from ignorance and individuals’ inability to think for themselves.  As a whole, people need to learn more; knowledge is needed to have the basic ability to think for his or herself.  Unless instructed on all aspects of a situation- does one have a right to form an opinion?  Although one cannot always escape the environment in which he or she is raised in and the ideas within the environment one has the right- and responsibility to be informed of all aspects of a situation.

People who are not educated are easily taken advantage of; they are quick to believe others- especially under times of distress.  Education allows people to be exposed to different ideas, cultures, beliefs, and ways of life.  It allows people to compare the situation to a way of thinking or living that may better suit them.  

Why education when often people suffering from lack of education are suffering from other issues as well?  Education is a ticket out, lack of knowledge only prolongs a problem.  Educated people are needed to solve global problems.  Ideally, if people are educated they will learn both sides of a story rather than only look at it from one perspective.  With a understanding and compassion for the other side problems can be solved.

***when a person is educated they can make a more informed decisions about important global issues such as nuclear proliferation and foreign policy

Issues in World Politics That Are More Important Than The Ones AngelDust Talks About

What is right isn't always popular.

In foreign policy, that can be a problem. To be more precise, foreign policy isn't crafted in a void, but rather in a political context. It isn't guided by the national interest of a state as much as by political interest of a leader and, alas, those two interests are not always synonymous. It is difficult to conceive of a system in which foreign policy is determined by entirely bureaucratic means, and it is questionable whether such a system would even be desirable. As long as the current system continues, the domestic public will (for better or worse) continue to play an important role in the formation of foreign policy. Perhaps the most important issue in world politics is ensuring that the public, not just a select diplomatic corps, possesses the kind of global cultural literacy necessary to make informed judgments regarding policy.

There is no single cause of international conflict. In some cases, self-interest may compel states to compete over limited resources. In some (rare) cases, there may be a clear moral imperative to act. But it seems improbable that all global conflict can be traced back to rational self-interest. There is little rational explanation, say, for genocide: why should Sudan exert resources and draw international criticism in order to destroy a sizable part of its own labor and product market. Some policies can only be explained by ignorance and misunderstanding, by clashing perspectives drawn from clashing cultural backgrounds. Conflict stems in large from differing etiquette, differing interpretations of history, differing values (and the differing governments they lead to), and the simple fear of differing cultures.

One of the core functions of diplomacy is to build cross-cultural understanding. Yet the diplomatic establishment, whether out of myopic ignorance or a curious code ethical code, serves only to develop this cultural literacy among a small number of diplomats and politicians; it entirely ignores the general populace, one of the most powerful players in the formation of foreign policy. The influence of the general populace on policy is most obvious within a democracy: leaders who support unpopular policies are ejected, as was the case with pro-Iraq Republicans in 2006. But authoritarian regimes are equally chained to popular demand: waging a war requires some modicum of popular support, and dissent against authoritarian regimes tends to come in more damaging forms (coups and revolutions).

The influence of the people on foreign policy tends to corrupt rational self-interest. To some degree, this is inevitable: the interest of individual citizens sometimes diverges from the interest of the state as a whole; most notably, it is rarely (if ever) in the best interest of citizens to sacrifice for future gains. But the far greater cause of corruption is simple ignorance.  This is most visible (and most critical) in examining American (and European) policy towards China: most Americans seem unaware of the Eastern conception of human rights, or even of China’s collectivist mentality that reacts strongly and negatively to external criticism. Cultural literacy may or may not be able to reconcile substantially values, but by promoting respect and awareness of these differing values this literacy can combat the innate human suspicion of that which is foreign.

 

 

 

The Most Important Issue in World Politics

With the advent of nuclear technology, the world entered a new age of science and weapons. The Cold War caused the United States and the Soviet Union to fight for the alliances of other nations. To help secure their power, the US or the Soviet Union would place missiles and other destructive arms into their “allied” nations. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the world was left with an abundance of dangerous technology lying around in relatively underdeveloped regions. Even though most of these weapons were dismantled, the plans and technology are still widely available. Nuclear proliferation is the most important issue in world politics.
In recent years there have been two countries that have quickly developed nuclear technology. These countries are Iran and North Korea. Men who have strong anti-Western policies and ideals rule both. North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Il, has tried to prevent the United Nations from entering the country and checking on its nuclear development. The nation was supposed to release documents to the global community about its program by the end of 2007, but failed to do so. Iran has constantly refused for other nations to look at its nuclear programs. President Ahmadinejad has been publicly known at threaten Israel, a major US ally, and the United States. If Iran finishes and develops a true nuclear weapon arsenal then the world will back to the Cold War era of brinkmanship.
The world is already a dangerous place with the US, Russia, Israel and China possessing a large nuclear arsenal. Luckily we are all allies for now. If a country that is known to dislike Western ideas and traditions develops a nuclear arsenal then the whole world is threaten by nuclear war. Therefore, nuclear proliferation is the most important issue in world politics.

First Post

Hey y'all. Welcome to The A Team blog.