I came across a very interesting article on Foreign Policy about the prospects of Palestinian Statehood at the U.N. in September. Kudos to Prof. Carlo Strenge.
I enjoyed it, and it was interesting analysis from a psychologist. I often think a psychological look at international relations is helpful; as it tends to explain actions that political science cannot. If states act like humans, since they are run by them, then it is essential to review the psychological aspects of international affairs.
Personally, giving Palestine statehood is the first step of compromising for a two state solution and more importantly, peace. Its called a two-STATE solution.
In addition as mentioned in the piece, if the PA does not achieve statehood, it will totally delegitimize the moderate leadership of the PA. All credibility would be lost, and radical factions may take control of the PA. Peace will be even farther away if that happens.
Israel must concede on this one, and rise up to have long-term strategy of achieving peace to this issue, rather than short term bickering. One must be pragmatic and sensible, keeping in mind the higher ideals and goals to achieve for the future. If one lets theology and emotion get in the way; logic and problem-solving capabilities are lost.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The Benefits of Multilateral Diplomacy: The Victorious Tortoise
I think the allusion I use in the title of this post is appropriate to describe multilateral diplomacy. The moral of the famous tale about the tortoise and the hair is slow but steady wins the race. I think that is exactly how to portray the benefits of multilateral diplomacy over unilateral diplomacy in the current age. Multilateral diplomacy may be cumbersome, but it facilitates partnerships, brings many voices into the decision making process, and forms a consensus so precious when needing to enforce international agreements. In an increasingly fragmented world order increasingly connected through technology and globalization; it is imperative to embrace multilateral diplomacy as the means of solving global issues and furthering U.S. interests.
In a time whether it is the rise of the BRICS or the relative decline of American power; the U.S. must use the its power as a global hedgemon to its advantage in the international system in procuring interests. Let me use an another allusion to illustrate me point. If a candidate is running for office, they must persuade voters and convince them that their plans are the best for their own interests. If not, the candidate will lose. The same concept applies to the international system. In order to advance our interests and have countries respond in support of these interests; we must use broad diplomacy to engage and persuade other states. If we convince them that the U.S.'s interests will be their interests, then those actors will support the U.S. agenda. Essentially, the U.S. must fully and proactive work within the system in order to steer it into the right direction. Instead of commanding the world as we used to, we must adapt to changing times and work with others to guide it.
Unilateral critics may point that that we don't need the system to get what we want. That is true in minor cases. However, they are wrong in that the U.S. operates on Earth, so we are in the system whether we like it or not. We exist on this planet, so our actions affect other states, and due in part to globalization, their actions have an impact on use. It is irresponsible to act alone and destructively on certain issues without having it legitimized by a majority of the world community. The U.N., the essence of multilateral diplomacy is viewed as a legitimate institution by many states. There are some who see it as obstructive and useless; but these critics fail to see this accepted institution creates accepted policy. The fact that many are involved in the process, even small countries, is viewed by a majority as something that came out of consensus and thus acceptable to the world. The U.S. must continue to use the U.N. as a means of rallying policy. If the U.S. steers states in the direction it wants, and especially if done through the U.N., then our interests can turn into the world's interests. A very powerful thing.
I would like to expand on some things I touched on before: compromise, consensus, and inclusion. Multilateral diplomacy is a makeup of these three ideals. One must be willing to compromise on issue, make a consensus with others, and make sure others are included in the decision making process. The policies that come out of these three ideals are stronger in the long run. Why is that? When actors compromise, they create an agreement acceptable to multiple parties. When actors build consensus, they make sure others are OK with this compromise and are willing to enforce and defend it. When actors include others in compromise and consensus, it makes those included feel like that have a stake in the outcome, and thus builds a strong base of support. The EU's European Council needs everything to be unanimously approved. They do things, among other reasons, so that the final decision is acceptable to all and that each state can provide a defense and reasoning for support a certain policy. Thus, multilateral diplomacy creates solid supporters. In order to advance policy; you need friends that support it.
A common criticism of multilateral diplomacy is that it is slow, and ineffective. These are both true at times. The 6 party talks have failed (for reasons that may not have to deal with multilateral diplomacy but just China's interests. I think if we built an international coalition pressuring China, they would have made North Korea act differently). The G-20 doesn't seem to have produced all that much, and the U.N. is routinely stalemated. I am not denying these points. However, if the U.S. uses its influence and skillfully navigates international forums/organizations, or just builds a coalition on its own, I am confidant these disadvantages would become irrelevant. For the U.S. to maintain is power in the global order, we must become the master of diplomacy.
Another allusion for you. Lets say the world is congress, and each state is a representative. Being unilateral is playing to ones specific interests, thus I think its safe to say this can be likened to being partisan. Being multilateral, negotiating, compromising and including many others, is similar to being bipartisan. If we want to get things done, and I thinks its a safe generalization that people like it when things get "done", then wouldn't it be a no-brain-er to be multilateral? If working with others creates a finished product everyone (or the majority) likes, then shouldn't the U.S. be even more involved so that the outcome is favorable to U.S. policies/interests? Yes, we should.
Though a slower process, in the end it has the potential to create results for U.S. foreign and economic policy. I would rather have something that benefits me long term, and may take a little longer than something that is short term but is faster. The U.S. must be a skilled diplomatic negotiator to maintain relevance, favorable world policies, and power. The way to change/make the system to your liking is to be a part of it; in order to shape it. We must mold the world; it take great skill to do that. The tortoise is famous for beating the hair, now lets apply this important moral for transforming our diplomacy for the 21st century.
In a time whether it is the rise of the BRICS or the relative decline of American power; the U.S. must use the its power as a global hedgemon to its advantage in the international system in procuring interests. Let me use an another allusion to illustrate me point. If a candidate is running for office, they must persuade voters and convince them that their plans are the best for their own interests. If not, the candidate will lose. The same concept applies to the international system. In order to advance our interests and have countries respond in support of these interests; we must use broad diplomacy to engage and persuade other states. If we convince them that the U.S.'s interests will be their interests, then those actors will support the U.S. agenda. Essentially, the U.S. must fully and proactive work within the system in order to steer it into the right direction. Instead of commanding the world as we used to, we must adapt to changing times and work with others to guide it.
Unilateral critics may point that that we don't need the system to get what we want. That is true in minor cases. However, they are wrong in that the U.S. operates on Earth, so we are in the system whether we like it or not. We exist on this planet, so our actions affect other states, and due in part to globalization, their actions have an impact on use. It is irresponsible to act alone and destructively on certain issues without having it legitimized by a majority of the world community. The U.N., the essence of multilateral diplomacy is viewed as a legitimate institution by many states. There are some who see it as obstructive and useless; but these critics fail to see this accepted institution creates accepted policy. The fact that many are involved in the process, even small countries, is viewed by a majority as something that came out of consensus and thus acceptable to the world. The U.S. must continue to use the U.N. as a means of rallying policy. If the U.S. steers states in the direction it wants, and especially if done through the U.N., then our interests can turn into the world's interests. A very powerful thing.
I would like to expand on some things I touched on before: compromise, consensus, and inclusion. Multilateral diplomacy is a makeup of these three ideals. One must be willing to compromise on issue, make a consensus with others, and make sure others are included in the decision making process. The policies that come out of these three ideals are stronger in the long run. Why is that? When actors compromise, they create an agreement acceptable to multiple parties. When actors build consensus, they make sure others are OK with this compromise and are willing to enforce and defend it. When actors include others in compromise and consensus, it makes those included feel like that have a stake in the outcome, and thus builds a strong base of support. The EU's European Council needs everything to be unanimously approved. They do things, among other reasons, so that the final decision is acceptable to all and that each state can provide a defense and reasoning for support a certain policy. Thus, multilateral diplomacy creates solid supporters. In order to advance policy; you need friends that support it.
A common criticism of multilateral diplomacy is that it is slow, and ineffective. These are both true at times. The 6 party talks have failed (for reasons that may not have to deal with multilateral diplomacy but just China's interests. I think if we built an international coalition pressuring China, they would have made North Korea act differently). The G-20 doesn't seem to have produced all that much, and the U.N. is routinely stalemated. I am not denying these points. However, if the U.S. uses its influence and skillfully navigates international forums/organizations, or just builds a coalition on its own, I am confidant these disadvantages would become irrelevant. For the U.S. to maintain is power in the global order, we must become the master of diplomacy.
Another allusion for you. Lets say the world is congress, and each state is a representative. Being unilateral is playing to ones specific interests, thus I think its safe to say this can be likened to being partisan. Being multilateral, negotiating, compromising and including many others, is similar to being bipartisan. If we want to get things done, and I thinks its a safe generalization that people like it when things get "done", then wouldn't it be a no-brain-er to be multilateral? If working with others creates a finished product everyone (or the majority) likes, then shouldn't the U.S. be even more involved so that the outcome is favorable to U.S. policies/interests? Yes, we should.
Though a slower process, in the end it has the potential to create results for U.S. foreign and economic policy. I would rather have something that benefits me long term, and may take a little longer than something that is short term but is faster. The U.S. must be a skilled diplomatic negotiator to maintain relevance, favorable world policies, and power. The way to change/make the system to your liking is to be a part of it; in order to shape it. We must mold the world; it take great skill to do that. The tortoise is famous for beating the hair, now lets apply this important moral for transforming our diplomacy for the 21st century.
Monday, May 23, 2011
The case for Legalizing Gay Marriage: Common Sense
One of the most hot-button social issues in domestic politics is legalizing gay marriage. But, in my view, this shouldn't even be an issue at all. We are a nation of rights, and of freedom. Realistically, legalizing marriage is a religious issue, in which others feel they have the right to decide the actions of others. Yes, we are a democratic society. However, why shouldn't the rights of the minority be protected from being infringed on by the majority? (yes, right out of the federalist papers, for those who want to go back to the founders)
An argument against gay marriage is that its sinful. Look, I am not a religious guy, and I don't mean to tell you that your religious beliefs are false or don't matter. However, just because SOME believe it is sinful according to THEIR religion, why does that have to be the case for ALL of society? If one thinks its sinful, that''s fine. But don't try to tell others they cannot perform an action because you deem immoral. It is not your life their impacting, so in layman terms, mind your own business. Moral are subjective, whether for good or for bad. But that's the truth. There were many in the past that thought it was immoral to have interracial marriage. That is not an issue now, and gay marriage shouldn't be an issue ether. Also, it is hypocritical for some to stress less government and more freedom as part of their morals, when they don't even allow a segment of the population their deserved right to have their love validated in society. Contradiction at its finest.
Another common argument is that if gay marriage is legal, it leads down a slippery slope.
What?!
This goes back to the morals issue, which should be anyone's issue except the couple involved. That is true libertarianism coming from a liberal (go figure). Second, if one thinks that legalizing gay marriage, having the state validating love between two individuals, is a slippery slope, then I think you may need to rethink your logic. Legalizing gay marriage isn't criminal, it doesn't spur violence, and it makes society stronger. How could more marriage rip apart society? If one has an argument on how more love and marriage in society leads to failure, and that's exactly what it is - love and marriage, then let me see it.
Another argument against legalizing gay marriage is that some believe that "marriage" is defined as between a man and a woman. Marriage is a religious institution, and there can be passages in the bible which both support and are against gay marriage. However, in the modern day, the state has institutionalized marriage as well; with benefits going to married couples. Though states go as far as giving gay couples the same benefits in a civil union, just why not call it marriage? When the state gets involved, so does the concept of equality under the law. Would having a gay couple marry de-sanctify your marriage? Would having a gay couple in Massachusetts de-legitimize a marriage in Nebraska? It won't. Marriage is a way to show one's commitment to each other. Though most organized religions may oppose gay marriage for reasons, I hardly think Jesus, or whoever/whatever you believe in, would want you to discriminate against other individuals because of who they love.
I am not pettyfogging the issue. Having a long due right be established is a human right. If you couldn't marry the one you loved, man or woman, because others "disapproved" because of their morals, how would you feel? Take a minute to think about this issue through the shoes of those discriminated against.
Also, many countries have legalized gay marriage. Argentina, a very catholic country, legalized it in 2002. They have no problems threatening to bring down their country except their own politics (doesn't everyone have that problem?).
It is time for the United States to legalize gay marriage. There is no way around it. Some states have done it, its time for all 50 to have the common sense to do it too.
Love is love. There should be no discrimination for "the pursuit of happiness" and the recognition of love.
An argument against gay marriage is that its sinful. Look, I am not a religious guy, and I don't mean to tell you that your religious beliefs are false or don't matter. However, just because SOME believe it is sinful according to THEIR religion, why does that have to be the case for ALL of society? If one thinks its sinful, that''s fine. But don't try to tell others they cannot perform an action because you deem immoral. It is not your life their impacting, so in layman terms, mind your own business. Moral are subjective, whether for good or for bad. But that's the truth. There were many in the past that thought it was immoral to have interracial marriage. That is not an issue now, and gay marriage shouldn't be an issue ether. Also, it is hypocritical for some to stress less government and more freedom as part of their morals, when they don't even allow a segment of the population their deserved right to have their love validated in society. Contradiction at its finest.
Another common argument is that if gay marriage is legal, it leads down a slippery slope.
What?!
This goes back to the morals issue, which should be anyone's issue except the couple involved. That is true libertarianism coming from a liberal (go figure). Second, if one thinks that legalizing gay marriage, having the state validating love between two individuals, is a slippery slope, then I think you may need to rethink your logic. Legalizing gay marriage isn't criminal, it doesn't spur violence, and it makes society stronger. How could more marriage rip apart society? If one has an argument on how more love and marriage in society leads to failure, and that's exactly what it is - love and marriage, then let me see it.
Another argument against legalizing gay marriage is that some believe that "marriage" is defined as between a man and a woman. Marriage is a religious institution, and there can be passages in the bible which both support and are against gay marriage. However, in the modern day, the state has institutionalized marriage as well; with benefits going to married couples. Though states go as far as giving gay couples the same benefits in a civil union, just why not call it marriage? When the state gets involved, so does the concept of equality under the law. Would having a gay couple marry de-sanctify your marriage? Would having a gay couple in Massachusetts de-legitimize a marriage in Nebraska? It won't. Marriage is a way to show one's commitment to each other. Though most organized religions may oppose gay marriage for reasons, I hardly think Jesus, or whoever/whatever you believe in, would want you to discriminate against other individuals because of who they love.
I am not pettyfogging the issue. Having a long due right be established is a human right. If you couldn't marry the one you loved, man or woman, because others "disapproved" because of their morals, how would you feel? Take a minute to think about this issue through the shoes of those discriminated against.
Also, many countries have legalized gay marriage. Argentina, a very catholic country, legalized it in 2002. They have no problems threatening to bring down their country except their own politics (doesn't everyone have that problem?).
It is time for the United States to legalize gay marriage. There is no way around it. Some states have done it, its time for all 50 to have the common sense to do it too.
Love is love. There should be no discrimination for "the pursuit of happiness" and the recognition of love.
* UPDATE: new Gallup poll says that Americans think 25% are ether gay or lesbian. Of course this is not the real statistic of Americans who are actually gay or lesbian. However, if Americans think that a quarter of the population is homosexual, then why deny them the right to have their love recognized by the state? Its a religion and moral issue that should not be involved in policy making. Gay marriage is a right, and it is a great injustice as a country to deny them of that right.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Compromise: The Tool of Leaders
Compromise:
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2. the result of such a settlement.
I think politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have forgotten this word. Americans do care about partisan issues, but they like it better we things get done. In a 24 hour media cycle, where talking heads, pundits, and everyone judges politicians moves; its been hard for compromise to happen.
However, for America to progress, on the budget, entitlements, and everything else, we have to compromise. Politicians have to see above their agenda's and recognize that the greatest generation of Americans made this country what it is by compromising and making laws that advance and empower America. Compromise is not sacrificing what you stand for, but rather the practical way of advancing interests when working with those whom have opposing views. It is, in fact, being practical and wise.
Compromise is not just for the U.S. congress, it serves for all hot-button issues. The peace process in the Middle East is one of them. A peace agreement will cannot be pro-Israel neither pro-Palestine. each has to give more than it wants in order to achieve sustainable peace.
True leadership is shown in hard compromises which leads to a greater solution for generations. As I stated before, one does not have to give up for what they stand for in order to achieve solutions. However, one must be flexible and see the long-term opportunities that they can fulfill their goals at a later date.
Many people are just not capable of compromise, as shown. Those individuals of this flexibility, this long-term vision, this leadership, and this practically must now step up and be the ones to solve world and domestic issues. We must not be distracted from vocal but extreme sides.
Compromise is a tough thing, but it is essential to solve the issues of today. We live in interesting times, and we need strong leaders willing to stand up and compromise for the greater good of society.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
An interview with Uribe and trouble for Ahmadinejad
If you haven't noticed, I love Foreign Policy magazine (just check the archives). They have great, insightful, and well written articles. This time isn't an exception.
There's two interesting articles up. One is an interview with former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe on his current role and ideas in Colombian political life and long-term goals. The other is an analysis on a recent blunder by Ahmadinejad in Iran.
I really liked the Uribe interview, I thought his answers were spot on, and his ideals are just what Colombia needs in order to develop its democracy. Whenever you can change an entire country's mood from pessimistic to optimistic, you know you've done something right.
There's two interesting articles up. One is an interview with former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe on his current role and ideas in Colombian political life and long-term goals. The other is an analysis on a recent blunder by Ahmadinejad in Iran.
I really liked the Uribe interview, I thought his answers were spot on, and his ideals are just what Colombia needs in order to develop its democracy. Whenever you can change an entire country's mood from pessimistic to optimistic, you know you've done something right.
Monday, May 16, 2011
War Dogs; how could anything get cooler?
So when our SEALS went in to get Osama Bin Laden, they brought a war dog with them. Foreign Policy did two stories/photo essays on war dogs. War Dogs are amazingly awesome. Maybe its because I love dogs, or I am done with finals, but I thought its something I would share.
Here's the first one (look at the subtitle).
Here's the second one.
Enjoy!
Here's the first one (look at the subtitle).
Here's the second one.
Enjoy!
 |
Sunday, May 8, 2011
I'm still here
Again, I've been slacking in the maintenance of this blog. Its been a busy few weeks, and I not going to write another post on the death of Osama Bin Laden. Though I can say that I am thrilled for many, many reasons.
Keeped tuned in the next week, though its finals, I should be able to crank a post or two out!
Keeped tuned in the next week, though its finals, I should be able to crank a post or two out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)