Natalia Rojas: 'Islam's Hope' was like Nelson Mandela's Rugby Strategy -- maybe there is something to this?

                I happened to watch my friend watch the Arsenal v. Manchester United game last Saturday. He threw out foul curse towards Arsenal’s Wojciech Szczesny and bashed their fans, and I’ve never seen him so passionate. I can only imagine the streets and pubs of Greater Manchester in comparison to my friends’ Hyattsville, Maryland basement. But, soccer does reach many points across the globe, and in Franklin Foer’s book How Soccer Explains The World, he tries to justify the soccer phenomenon to globalization. I found many of Foer’s arguments to be weak, but there was one on the surface I found I could agree with. His argument: soccer can bring change and new perspectives to countries that shares global values (Islam’s Hope).

I see the similarity of Foer’s Islam argument, to the story of Nelson Mandela’s use of rugby to unite South Africa and throttle them onto the world stage. Nelson Mandela once said, “Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire, it has the power to unite people in a way that little else does. It speaks to youth in a language they understand. Sport can create hope, where once there was only despair.” This quote floated through my mind as I read chapter 9 (How Soccer Explains Islam’s Hope). Foer explains that Iran’s governmental policy transition was supported by the adoption of soccer in their culture. The adoption of soccer influenced the Iranian people as they accepted norms of the west: modernization, western dress wear, competition, and sports knowledge. Even afterwards when religious leaders condemned soccer’s modernity (soccer shorts showing the knees), the Iranian people still kept their passions for the sport and lead to the integration of women at sporting events. While, this is a leap to say the soccer lead to Iranian democracy and greater civil equality, I do understand the mechanics of adopting a sport to be seen as ‘part of the club’ and partially advancing new norms.

Nelson Mandela hosted and won the 1995 Rugby World Cup to prove to the international community that South Africa was a strong united country abolishing apartheid, and that South Africa was successful in their transition of hostile government parties. Nelson Mandela wanted to make South Africa marketable and known to the world, and saw the platform of sports as the most influential way of doing so. Similarly, as the Iranians envisioned according to Foer, they saw soccer as a bridge for them between the West and being seen as modern. Both instances show that sports soccer particularly, is a global culture and a standard for developing countries to adopt and achieve. Soccer has almost become an indicator of a reputable country (on the face that is).

For the arguments of globalization, soccer has the ability to increase interconnected-ness, while we may not speak the same language or have the same cultures, our eyes are all on the ball. Our nations united in sporting events like the World Cup, which bring together diverse countries in the name of hope and learning. While soccer cannot solve the problems of economies, political parties, and terrorism – arguing a constructivist perspective, it can create a dialogue between countries that never existed, communities, and share things that are in common.  Foer explains that the instinct to feel included in the world community leads countries like Iran and South Africa to adopt sports and evolve within themselves to become more globalized; while its more complex than sports, it’s a bridge and a beginning that could lead to something bigger.

Lauren Mishan- Blog 4

The chapter that interested me the most was “How Soccer Explains the Jewish Question.” I think this chapter was very interesting because it discussed how there are very few famous Jewish athletes in the world now. Something that majority of people would overlook, but something that hits close to home to me when I think about sports and the way my religion is connected to it. I thought it was interesting that he brought up this fact that it isn’t very present and that they only come around “once in a decade” (Foer, 65).

            In lecture, we talked about pluralism and how states are no longer homogenous nations, but instead are a mix of all different sorts of people. I think it is interesting how some countries have stayed so homogenous in the sense of religion. We also learned that the concept of globalization includes the flow of ideas, which ties in nicely with when Foer talks about how anti-Semitism spread around the world, and can still be found. Here is where critics will argue that globalization is not such a good thing for these ideas are misconstrued. Foer makes a good point that anti-Semitism is alive and well and is as “pervasive as it has ever been…or even more so” (Foer, 71). Foer moves on to talk about how even after the Holocaust and the founding of Israel, the acceptance of the Jews never really occurred. Instead, the Jews remained foreigners, people that the Europeans could not identify with, but could solely recognize them for their symbols. But even so, globalization helped to transform Europe. Immigrants who mainly have been taking the brunt of the “hate” off the Jewish people have flooded the country, and instead much of the hate in soccer focuses on the blacks and the Muslims.

            I liked that the author then related the way the Europeans perceived the Jewish people using symbols, to the way that U.S. sports teams use Indians in their mascots. Today there are many arguments against teams like the “Redskins,” arguing that it is offensive and should be changed. This is a huge debate that is happening across the country one, which I believe, will never be settled.  

International Organizations: A Critique of The United Nations

One of the most important and applauded aspects of international organizations is their assumed ability to facilitate cooperation among states. International Organizations aim to provide a neutral environment in which states can resolve disputes peacefully or collectively agree on particular issues. In reality and practice however, this is usually not the case. Many criticize the effectiveness of international organizations, and for this post I will specifically discuss certain critiques of the United Nations and why I believe this organization fails to meet its original intended purpose.

            

The United Nations was created in order to provide collective security and promote peace. The main component of the United Nations, the Security Council, operates under the overarching commitment that all states will attack an aggressor state or if one of their members is attacked. This commitment however is not upheld by states/members, even when rare consensus on action is reached. In a recent example (2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis) no action was taken to enforce the agreed resolution to disarm terrorist organizations. In addition, there were no real consequences, as there usually aren't, for violating the Security Council Resolution. This issue take legitimacy from the Security Council and the UN itself, because of its inability to enforce its resolutions and furthermore impose authority when these resolutions are not followed through. It also shows that its members may not actually take the organization they comprise seriously, which is obviously problematic.

            

The Security Council has five permanent members including: The United States, Russia, China, France, and England. This is said to provide stability and efficacy for decision making, however it cannot be expected that all 5 states would agree completely on particular issues. Since each of these permanent members has veto power, it can be argued that these members may often disagree and that no action can be agreed upon and therefore no action can be taken. I question how fair this is, on a small scale level and on a large scale as well. If one of the five members with veto power is not in favor, is it fair to the others to deny action because of it? Or is that part of the system completely flawed and unfair to other members/states that have risen in power over time and might deserve veto power/permanent membership as well?

            

Another critique involving the five permanent members of the UN includes having hypocritical behavior and a sort of leniency with these five. While the UN has condemned Israel for its treatment and behavior towards Palestinians, it has not done the same for China’s similar actions towards Tibetans. This can clearly be tied back to China having permanent membership and veto power as well; any effort to even slightly correct China on this matter would probably render no results.

            

So, if the UN is not exactly neutral and unbiased, and does not seem to take clear and guided action in resolving the issues it has at hand, what is it doing? -Definitely not its intended purpose as an international organization.

-Karla Perez

Main sources- http://www.conservapedia.com/United_Nations

Lecture 11/5

Nuclear Weapons  - Seth Windmuller

Nuclear weapons have been a sensitive topic ever since they were created and eventually used by the United States in World War 2.  Since then, none have been used with the intent to kill but the fear they still strike in the world is pretty significant.  The reason for this is the outstanding amount of damage even one can cause to people and infrastructure of an opposing state.  There are many arguments of whether nuclear weapons should be allowed or banned throughout the world.  I believe that nuclear weapons are an essential part of maintaining safety and security throughout the world.  With that being said, my argument is that nuclear weapons should not be banned or disabled.

Nuclear weapons serve a great purpose with the powerhouse states that have them.  These states are China, United States, Russia, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.  This purpose is a balance between these states in specific.  There is mutually assured destruction that is known between these states with nuclear weapons.  This means that basically if for example, France decided to bomb the UK with nukes, they better be ready to receive the same thing in return which of course would cause so much damage that no one would really benefit from doing it.  With this realization, most likely these states won’t be attacking each other, which creates a sort of balance between them. 

A way that nuclear weapons maintain a sense of safety and security would be keeping terrorist threats and actions to a minimum.  Although there is still terrorism, I believe that nuclear weapons keep terrorists away for fear of what states with these weapons can do by fighting back.  Without such weapons what is stopping terrorists from constantly working to destroy lives of every country. 

There is an argument given by Thomas Schelling where he talks about although banning nuclear weapons would be counter-productive, he believes that reducing the amount of them worldwide might be helpful.  There are a couple of reasons why this would be a good idea.  One would be if the states with nuclear weapons would reduce their numbers and amount of weapons at the ready, the tension between these states dramatically.  Lets say the United States dropped the number of nukes at the ready, China and Russia would feel a little better and less worried about the United States using them ever.  Therefor could increase cooperation between states.  Another good reason to reduce the amount of them worldwide would be so theses nukes have a better chance of not falling into the wrong hands.  By this I mean possibly terrorists or groups who would use these nukes to kill people innocent people all over the world.  This almost happened with Iraq back when we went to war with them.  We believed they had either learned how to build nukes or have somehow gained possession of them.  If a group like ISIS gained possession of nuclear weapons the amount of destruction they could cause would be catastrophic.

These are reasons of why nuclear weapons are needed in this world to maintain balance.  But also at the same time, putting a restriction on the amount of weapons to have at the ready would be smart to control the bad possibilities that come with nukes.

Ellie Silverman Blog Post 3

As the deadline to curb the Islamic republic’s ability to build a nuclear weapon quickly approaches, it is imperative that negotiators must reach an agreement to avoid potential harm.

More than a decade of negotiations must be settled in a matter of two weeks – before the Nov. 24 deadline. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief met for hours today.

Although the U.S., EU and U.N. Security Council imposed penalties to punish Tehran for its covert nuclear program, Iran argued that its nuclear activities are not a threat as they are only used to fuel medical and energy demands. I think it is highly unbelievable that Iran’s efforts are only for peaceful purposes. As Henry Sokowlski identifies three major threats in Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, this is not a scenario that should be taken lightly. If Iran obtains this capability there will be more nuclear proliferation, higher oil prices and increased terrorism to diminish U.S. influence. These consequences are of a major concern if the U.S. is unable to reach an agreement between Iran and international powers.

Currently, Iran has 19,000 centrifuges and the P5+1 want to cut those numbers. At first they wanted to limit the number to 1,000-2,000 but after long talks they are willing to allow more, as long as there is transparent monitoring. The monitoring is in place so that it would be obvious if Iran amped up their programs to actually make a bomb and the international powers could step in.

But I don’t believe Iran can be trusted. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran has not been open about its current and past use of these materials, despite promises. Because of this, the agency said it can not guarantee that Iran doesn’t possess more nuclear materials than identified.  

To make things more complicated in the international sphere, Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, tweeted out a plan to eliminate “the fake Zionist regime,” referencing Israel, one of America’s allies, on Sunday. This made the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirm that Israel would not accept any agreement that would eave Iran as a “nuclear threshold state,” according to The Washington Post.

If Iran is able to progress with its nuclear capabilities this could have dire consequences on the region. Sokowlski argued that Iran would earn support from terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the U.S.. This would completely “undermine U.S. and allied efforts to foster moderate rule in much of the Middle East,” and could result in large-scale conflicts. For example, if Iran is able to gain nuclear capabilities for “peaceful” reasons, Egypt, Algeria, Syria and Saudi Arabia may adopt the same argument.

For all of theses reasons and more, I believe it is crucial for the powers in play to reach an agreement that dramatically curbs Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/high-level-talks-underway-on-iran-nuclear-program/2014/11/09/6b029aa2-67ee-11e4-ab86-46000e1d0035_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-oman-us-and-iranian-negotiators-talk-late-into-night-about-nuclear-deal/2014/11/09/71c257a0-501e-43a5-9ec9-05b28d6514f2_story.html

Henry Sokowlski's Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran reading

Amar Parikh: Arguments for Nuclear Weapons

             There has been a lot of talk about stockpiling nuclear weapons since the end of the cold war and the argument is that should we still need there weapons? The argument against nuclear weapons is that the power of the bomb will have catastrophic consequences to human life. According to ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons)  “No humanitarian response would be possible, and the effects of radiation would cause death and suffering to humans years after the initial explosion”. There are however arguments for nuclear weapons which have the basis of nuclear peace. In this case states that posse nuclear weapons are not inclined to enter conflicts with one another. I argue that states should keep their nuclear weapons so that they can be protected by other states through their nuclear barrier.

            Those not in favor of nuclear weapons argue that the use of the nuclear weapons will lead to mutually assured destruction but it can be argued that this can be a good thing. If one state knows that using nuclear weapons will result in a second strike, in which the other state can be assured to fire nuclear weapons back this will prevent both states from using the weapons. A big selling point for countries to have nuclear weaponry is to elevate their state in terms of power. The power does not come from the fact that a state would use the weapon; it is the fear that the state has in its possession nuclear weapons that creates the illusion of power.

            Since the collapse of the Soviet Union we cannot use history as an example of the benefits of nuclear power. However, with the end of the cold war neither the nature of the risk or the nature of its benefits has changed since. Some argue that within the past 70 years since World War II there has not been any major war since. Because of nuclear weapons the last 50 years of the 20^th century did not witness as much destruction of the world as it did in the first 50 with two world wars. I am not here to say that because of nuclear weapons it will cause world peace because it won’t grantee it. What nuclear deterrence does is preventing wars from going anything short of nuclear and creates a limit of the violence factor.

            There will always be a need for nuclear deterrence whether it is now or in the future. The interest of one state will not comply with the interest of another state. Even after the end of the Cold War Russia seeks to become a superpower state and with possession of nuclear they will use it as a leveraging point to get to this power. The same could be said for China who is modernizing and growing as a nation rapidly. Soon they will aspire to become a superpower and use nuclear weapons as leverage towards other non-nuclear states. Without nations like the U.S., UK, and France to use nuclear deterrence for peace I fear nuclear warfare would have come much sooner and hopefully not later.

Works Cited

"Arguments for Nuclear Abolition." ICAN. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.

"PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Spring 1997." PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Spring 1997. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.

Perkovich, George, and James M. Acton. Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2009. Web.

Natalia Rojas: The U.S. - China S&ED, and Depreciation

        The U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) was established by President Barack Obama in 2009. S&ED is a set of meetings between high level authorities of each of the respective countries; including authorities such the President and Premiers of China and the U.S. Secretaries of State and Treasury. The dialogue includes meetings on U.S. – China military strategy and international economy, for this post, I will be focusing on the economic dialogue. The Sixth Dialogue happened this past July between the Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew, President Xi Jinping, and other senior officials.

The manipulation of the Chinese currency, the Yuan (also known as the Renminbi), by the People’s Bank of China has been under serious criticism by the international community. The depreciation of the currency has allowed for the Chinese to maintain a high export ratio, making the exports of other countries more expensive for other national consumers and companies. Depreciation is the act of manipulating one’s currency to a lower value against the dollar. Even further the Chinese banks were ordered to purchase more U.S. dollars to further depreciate the price of the yuan. Therefore, more countries would purchase their exports.

The importance of the S&ED is to allow the United States to advice and reform Chinese monetary policy without unwarranted interference. The United States emphasized the need for China to support fair competition. The outcomes of the dialogue include China’s agreement to stricter competition law, state transparency, disciplining export financing, and curving excess production. Within the dialogue the two countries took some time to discuss strengthening trade relations, including: intensifying the bilateral investment treaty that in 2015 will aim to have equal access and treatment in each other’s markets.

To tackle China’s currency depreciation manipulation, the country agreed to have financial regulatory cooperation with the U.S., which will direct auditor regulators from both countries to establish cross border inspections of banking policy. As well, China is taking the steps to subscribe to the IMF’s Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS) that will advise Yuan policy and secure exchange rate transparency. (U.S. Department Of The Treasury)

These dialogues are helping China progress to a Flexible Exchange Rate System that will be determined by a free market. Like many economists have theorized, the United States is taking a pro-active role to increase global interdependence of monetary policy. The United States has taken a prescriptive role to tailor the Chinese monetary policy to possibly resemble theirs in the future. Liberals see the S&ED as a U.S. institution that will facilitate cooperation, because without this institution cooperation would not be easy – especially as it can be viewed that U.S. and China are worthy competitors.  This dialogue is all in hopes of reforming a new global economy including growth and fair trade.

U.S. Department Of The Treasury. Press Center: Sixth Meeting of the U.S. - China Strategic and Economic Dialogue Fact Sheet, Economic Track. 11 July 2014. <http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2563.aspx>.

Lauren Mishan- Blog 3

Syria and weapons of mass destruction

Lauren Mishan

            While there are many issues going on around the world, a very prevalent and hot topic is Syria and weapons of mass destruction. It has been confirmed that Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons is estimated to be about 50 percent larger than it was in 2003. Apparently, Syria intends to use these weapons for an external attack, rather than “inside” Syria. But, soon after statements similar to this one were released, allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria came about.

            Syria’s state news agency reported, “terrorists had fired a rocket containing chemical materials, killing 16 people” (BBC). It has been written in numerous articles that President Bashar al-Assad is using chemical weapons against civilians.

What implications does this have for the international community? With the death tolls in Syria rising as well as the number of terrorist attacks, the drawbacks to Syria having weapons of mass destruction is devastating. A country that does not have stable governance cannot contain these weapons to be used for external and military use, but rather face having them fall into the “wrong” hands.

            International organizations like the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was in charge of overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons, under an agreement between the United States and Russia. The Syrian government agreed to surrender its chemical arsenal last fall when “President Obama threatened to launch missile strikes in retaliation for deadly chemical attacks on rebel-held suburbs of the Syrian Capital, Damascus.” While the chemical weapons were removed from Syria and destroyed, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said, “it’s very important, however, even as we mark this moment of removing 100 percent of the declared weapons, that we understand that our work is not finished” (Washingtonpost).

            From lecture, I learned that it is possible to force another country to undertake an action through coercion. An example that the professor used in class was Compellence can be shown through sanctions, or dismantling of nukes, or in this case the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction. Compellence is situations in which an actor ceases or reverses actions because the costs imposed by other actors will be soon outweigh the gains of those actions. In the case of Syria, the US and Russia agreed to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons and if they did not cooperate, Syria would have to face the consequences. “Never before has an entire arsenal of a category of weapons of mass destruction been removed from a country experiencing a state of internal armed conflict” and it was accomplished in a demanding and strict time frame (Washingtonpost).

            Syria is an interesting case to look at when talking about weapons of mass destruction because of the implications it could have on the international community and the drawbacks it could have with a threat of terrorists. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22557347

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/agency-last-of-syrias-chemical-weapons-handed-over-for-destruction/2014/06/23/4eb9a138-fad9-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html