Reflection One: Defining World Politics

In response to our session last friday, it must be said that I am both impressed by the knowledge of my classmates and confused by the complexity of the issues we debate. 

At the center of our debate was the fundamental question that, in my mind, still has not been adequately answered: What is not world politics? It is impossible to determine which is the most important issue of world politics without first answering this question. 

During class we explored the full implications of the phrase world politics. This term could be used to describe trade between two governments, conflicts between two nations, or collaborative projects by a group of countries. From these examples it is clear that world politics applies to actions and events that affect institutions at the state level and above. But what about local issues? Could not world politics also transcend to the local level? In one scenario, a case was made that even seemingly insignificant issues could end up with international repercussions, as seen in the rise of Hamas, which assumed the role of the government and shortly after infiltrated it. Granted, such instances are atypical, but that they occur mandates the inclusion of lesser organizations in the category of world politics. 

After our discussion, it is clearly impossible that everyone will agree on a universal definition of world politics. But for the practical purposes of this course, I will infer that world politics is the interaction between two or more parties. It has an impact on an international level regardless of the event, action, or movement that initiates this impact. Whether it is experienced by a few people or by many, there must be a conscious connection between those affected. 

The above definition is crudely stated and vague-but in the study of such a broad topic there must be some degree of the gray area. World politics is a constantly changing and (more importantly) constantly occurring field. There is no correct quantitative answer to a scenario that is still evolving. If there was, it would more likely be found in the more experienced studies of a political correspondent than the disorganized theories of a college freshman. That being said, the great PTJ stated that after three weeks, the only difference between his students and any other political mind was the amount of time that they had invested. If thats the case, in two more weeks we just may have an answer.

Rational Self-Interest

The exhibit on the DC riots was very eye-opening to me. The photos of children living in the alleys of DC were awful. It's sad and unacceptable that that level of destitution existed in the US so recently.

After our discussion I think most of us can agree that world politics is nearly impossible to define. As a general rule of thumb, I’d say world politics is any event, issue, etc that involves two different states, ideologies, etc. Vague, I know. One of us said it best (I can’t remember who, sorry), that “you can’t define something as world politics until after it’s happened.”
One thing that kind of confused me was how so many people seemed to be fans of working for a collective “goal of humanity,” as opposed to working just for a state’s self-interest. These same people also seemed to feel that Palestine was justified in electing Hamas because they would take care of their immediate needs (electricity, plumbing, what have you). If Palestine was working towards a collective goal (which would by default include Israel), they probably wouldn’t have elected Hamas.
Though obviously I’m no fan of Hamas, I don’t have a problem with this. I’m all for states working for self-interest. For example, I’m not a huge fan of foreign aid. If you’re helping a nation that would be beneficial to you in the future, great. But not much seems to ever get done with the aid we give and there are certainly enough problems here at home for which we could use some money. Also, oftentimes it is the same people who condemn the US for being “world police” who also advocate the US sending troops into Sudan. Is an occupation only justified if the occupiers aren’t getting anything out of it?

Response

Since our class continually went back to the example of plumbing in Palestine, I figured I would go back and touch on it now that I have something to add. Anything, such as the failure of a government to provide basic services to its constituents, can elevate to an issue of world concern. However, considering there is no way to judge if an issue is going to have a global effect at its onset, each instance must be judged on a case-by-case basis. If the plumbing goes out in Palestine, an area where there is already a large amount of tension, people will generally be much more willing to elect a radical leader into power if they will provide basic services. And considering Palestine is Palestine and already being watched closely by the world, the chances that another government or private entity will get involved is much higher. If the plumbing went out in Parker, Colorado, we wouldn’t elect a radical who advocated occasionally shooting rockets into Franktown, and I would venture a guess to say it would never become an issue of world politics. However, the problem with this is that it requires a definition of “world politics”, which is something our class realized is rather difficult to ascertain. As I said earlier, I believe defining world politics must be done on an individual basis, but a basic definition must be established. If a state’s government or its people must turn to an outside force, be it a state or private enterprise, to provide something, I consider it an issue of world politics. Of course I am expecting to have to change my already broad definition, but I think it’s a decent starting point.

World Politics and the like

Intercultural understanding and communication is the most essential aspect of world politics. A mutual understanding of the cultures of states and peoples involved in diplomatic relations are crucial. The process of establishing positive communication across completely different cultures and backgrounds is a difficult process that I believe many of us overlook. For the most part, we come from similar backgrounds and situations, or at least have a basic understanding of where we come from. We speak the same language and understand the intended meanings of our colloquialisms. We do not necessarily understand the complexities of learning how to communicate appropriately and with the intended effect with those from regions and backgrounds far different from our own. Though intentions are generally good, simply not knowing or fully comprehending what makes another person think the way they do can have unforeseen and often negative consequences. These seemingly small personal, intercultural relations emphasize the need for cultural understanding and are a microcosm of world politics. Cultural differences between, say, the United States and Iran make it difficult for the two states to communicate, without even bringing the nuclear proliferation and form of government issues into play. Diplomacy is much more effective when all parties involved understand at least basically what the others are looking to achieve and why they are hoping to achieve it. People as a whole are more receptive and willing to cooperate if one has knowledge of their culture and background. It allows people, whether they are heads of state or common citizens, to connect personally and work together more efficiently.
Cooperation between people of vastly different cultures working together towards a common goal is, in my opinion, the overarching goal of world politics. The need for such cooperation has scarcely, if ever, been more evident in foreign policy and the rise of global concerns; from the broad topic of nuclear proliferation to more narrow topics, such as humanitarian aid for Georgian refugees. The betterment of mankind is an ideal that men from all backgrounds can strive towards, the complication coming from the means to that very broad end. Efficient and personable intercultural communications is the only way to facilitate positive change in the world.

Don't be hatin' : The Importance of Maintaining Effective Diplomacy

What is the most important issue in world politics?

When asked to identify the single most important issue in global politics, my first instinct was to isolate several recent occurrences in an effort to evaluate their international significance. The conflict between Russia and Georgia quickly came to mind. Though much of the military conflict has now concluded, the repercussions of such a devastating action have already appeared in the form of thousands of displaced refugees, as well as a sharp increase in international tensions, namely those between Russia and its adversaries from the Cold War era. Shifting to a larger scale, the war in Iraq took center stage. In addition to the humanitarian and economic consequences, the war has had a profound impact on the Middle Eastern perception of the United States. This perspective will play a critical role in the future, as the area’s regional development has already made it into a powerful contender in the international arena. Lastly, I considered the threat of China, which amazed the world with its stunning presentation of the 28th Olympiad while simultaneously masking their complete disregard for human rights. At this point it is evident that while the U.S. and China have developed a mutually welcomed economic relationship, the vast differences in attitude towards their respective citizens offer the conviction that these two countries contain conflicting social values, a trait that would prevent such a  cordial relationship to extend beyond its current fiscal boundary. 

These three examples provide support for my arguing that the maintenance of effective diplomacy is the most important issue in world politics. The art of negotiation apparently has been lost. It may be that we, as Americans, believed strength to be justification for aggression. Perhaps Putin and company had a similar train of thought. And if the Chinese government was more concerned with impressing the global community than ensuring the well-being of its citizenry, it could possibly be because of a conscious desire to flaunt its national strength.  Such a move would indicate that the Chinese are playing the same game as the U.S. and the Russians. Negotiating a compromise, in the politics of today, is seen as weakness. In the current presidential race, Senator John McCain attacked Senator Obama’s alleged weakness, comparing his intentions to meet with foreign leaders to the failure of Chamberlain and the British government to check the spread of Hitler’s armies. The strategy of appeasement had backfired, and instead of resolving the conflict it had escalated into World War II. Fox News masterfully carried the story, hoping to label Obama as a leader who would adopt appeasement as his primary tool of diplomacy. But on that day, while Fox proliferated their message on the impressionable masses, one unimpressed teenager learned a very different lesson. Although I now know never to confuse “appeasement” with “diplomacy,” my concern is that many people cannot make this distinction. In some ways Fox’s message appears to have made an impression on society. The problems between nations will only be resolved when the world’s leaders see beyond this misconception.

It is impossible to be certain of the effects of employing effective diplomacy, but one would have to be exceptionally cynical to predict anything but a positive outcome. Without armed conflict, the humanitarian casualties would be reduced to zero. The government would not require a substantial allocation of funding for military functions, enabling it to address other areas. Effective diplomacy will not solve the world’s problems overnight, but it would mark the beginning of a new era of tolerance, peace, and the ever progressing idealism of humanity.

Coal and oil and gas, oh my!

Energy is a “physiological” economic necessity. It relates to the most basic of human and commercial needs, from food and shelter to industry and technology. The generation and distribution of energy is the most important issue in world politics because it is not only a constant, universal demand but one that all but requires international cooperation.
Every country around the globe, rich or poor, democracy to dictatorship, needs energy resources or technology to function. Without it a nation could not exist, as opposed to other more abstract issues, like human rights, without which you’d just get North Korea. Say you’re sitting pretty on an immense energy source, so it’s not your problem. Well for every nation so well equipped there’s many more dieing, some quite literally, for a share. Whether via friendly trade or violent invasion, chances are they will be quick to make it your problem. Take for example, Canada and the US (friendly) or Kuwait and Iraq (not so friendly). When it comes to fossil fuels and energy generation, if you have it, others will want it. If you want it, you’ll need to get it from them.
The issue of energy nicely blends business and survival on a level that necessitates global involvement, and all within a shrinking timeframe. It has been estimated that the world hit peak oil a few years ago, and is now facing decreasing amounts of energy-producing fossil fuels and an increasing demand for them. With global energy sources dwindling, it’s impossible for any nation to say that energy resources, production and allocation are of no concern. What makes energy so vital and such a perpetually important issue is that, just like another popular physiological necessity, we all need it, all the time, and more often than not we need it from each other.

Question #1

What is the most important issue in world politics today? Why?

While pondering this question, several possible answers came to mind. First was human rights. In my mind, a government’s primary function should be to protect the basic rights of its people, and whenever possible work to improve quality of life. However, as I sat down to write my response, my mind wandered to the economic stability of each country. Surely if a state had a good economy and ample funds it would be able to overcome factors that lead to human rights violations as well as the factors that decrease the quality of life?
As I thought it over, I began to think that it is impossible to pick one single most important issue. Each issue’s causes, complexities, and, even resolutions are dependent on other issues and events around the world. Even if I was able to pick an issue more important than the others, I would always be able to trace its origin back to another issue.
To use the soccer metaphor, the winner of a soccer match is not always the better team. Say that you thought the most important thing to consider when betting on a team was the quality of the players. Of course that is an important consideration, but would this team be able to win without superior training and technique? Are the players suited to the environment? Or even, has the opposing team locked any of the star players in a garage? Even though a team’s goal may be to work towards victory by recruiting the best players, it must consider and adapt to or control all of these other factors before it can have a winning team.
Another example that comes to mind is the recent Georgia-Russia conflict. The issue is much more complex than South Ossetia and Abkhazia wanting to break away from Georgia. Issues affecting other countries directly and indirectly influenced the outcome of this conflict. If Russia had not felt threatened by Georgia’s attempt to join the United Nations, possibly upsetting the balance of power, would Russia have decided to back the breakaway regions? If there had not been claims of human rights violations would the United States have decided to send aid? If Israel did not fear Russia’s alliance with Iran and Syria would they have given further aid to Georgia?
Balance of power, state security, human rights, and the economy all factored into the outcome of the Russia-Georgia conflict, and therefore must all be treated as important issues when looking at the conflict as a whole. Likewise, all of these factors must be taken into account when studying world politics as a whole because it is impossible to say that a single issue can be discussed without a mention of the others.