From the affiliate blog, The Choke Point!…“Now Get Back to Work!”.
Posted by: jgpradke | November 28, 2011
“Now Get Back to Work!”
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by: jgpradke | November 16, 2011
My Wife Won’t Let Me Say Anything!
Posted by: jgpradke | April 16, 2010
Idealism vs. Realism; a Modern Approach to Capitalism vs. Socialism
April 16, 2010
James G. Pradke
The age old discussion on the philosophical theories of idealism versus realism is beginning to take shape as one of the hottest topics of debate amongst the international relations community today…and rightly so. International relations theorists are beginning to take a more defined approach in following patterns of policy and in doing so, place these categorically into the right or left columns, the right representing realism and the left idealism. Sides are being drawn around the debate table and individuals are showing signs of identifying themselves as realists and idealists. The approach that policy must be established by the here and now and the measure of those policies find root in anticipated gains, costs, necessities, and chances of success versus vision, forms, and humanitarian ideals demonstrates the potential argument that the debate of realism versus idealism is, in fact, an evolutionary byproduct of the great debate on capitalism versus socialism and poses a less objectionable discussion for the majority (Graebner, 2002).
With momentary abandonment from the political arena, the original philosophy of idealism was developed by the ancient Greek, Plato. It was he who conceptualized that “ideas are the only true reality, the only thing worth knowing (Cohen, 1999).” The literal definition as provided by Merriam-Webster exposes idealism as a theory that reality is formed from that which is perceived. This reality develops itself from the conscious efforts of humanity (Merriam-Webster, 2010). As a philosophy, idealism has since gained ground in curriculums that require academic thinking such as education, social sciences, psychology, and international relations. The theory of idealism, as provided by the literal definition, bodes well for continued gains, in some political landscapes, toward a recognizable and legitimate construct to an idealist approach toward policy making. These landscapes might include requirements for humanitarian assistance or international interventions on issues of grave concern. One such issue would be the recent intervention with Iran and their aggressive pursuit toward a completely operational nuclear capability. In this case, the international community has perceived the reality that an Iranian nuclear player would be potentially destructive to the balance of power throughout the Middle-East. Consequently, as diplomacy fails, international sanctions are being introduced with the intention of thwarting such Iranian developments.
Socialism is oftentimes associated with economy and political structures that are “for the good of the people.” Many business references agree that socialism is an “economic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution (Investor Words, 2010).” Considering socialism on a much larger scale, politically, the socialist construct is essentially an idealist concept based on perceived reality versus actuality. The idea that the state owns the property and manages the equal distribution of resources for the good of the people falls directly in line with the definition of idealism, a theory that develops itself from the conscious efforts of humanity. This line of approach then, in fact, categorizes early socialists such as Henri Saint-Simon, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels as the pioneers of political idealism. Further defined by Che Guevara in 1965, a Cuban representative to the Afro-Asian Conference in Algeria, “socialism cannot exist without a change in consciousness resulting in a new fraternal attitude toward humanity, both at an individual level, within the societies where socialism is being built or has been built, and on a world scale, with regard to all peoples suffering from imperialist oppression (Aleida, 2005).” Guevara distinctly points out that in order for socialism to exist the requirement for a conscious effort resulting in a new attitude toward humanity must be made. Whether recognized or not, Guevara provides an early definition and further development of political idealism.
“Realists believe that reality exists independent of the human mind. The ultimate reality is the world of physical objects. Truth is objective and understood through observable data (Cohen, 1999).” We give credit to Aristotle, the Greek philosopher and, surprisingly, a student of Plato, for providing the spark which would ignite the debate of realism versus idealism. Relying on the same resource for explanation and foundational understanding, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary claims that realism dismisses idealization and presents a theory which focuses on concern for fact or reality while rejecting the impractical and visionary (Merriam-Webster, 2010). Realism, therefore, provides a scientific approach to the truth. If it (the truth) does not exist physically, it does not exist.
Political realism finds itself most comfortable embedded in the national and international agendas of military and economic strength. The early stages of realism were founded in Europe but later developed in the colonial United States. The idea that the state would defend the country’s interests using established rules of diplomacy and war acted as a platform not to negate the validity or avoidance of war but rather promulgate its validity (Graebner, 2002). Would a realist approach toward Iran, as mentioned in the discussion on idealism, be feasible? Not unless a new arms race is the desired end result. A realist’s approach to Iran is reflective in the Israeli response to the Iranian effort. Israel continues to give serious thought on a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear sites and has recently chosen not to disclose what, if any, nuclear capabilities they, themselves have (Steele, 2008). This is an indication that the beginning of Israeli efforts to protect national security is forgoing the acceptance of idealistic diplomacy and, in turn, the policy makers have established a focused agenda on the reality that Iran will obtain its capabilities in generating nuclear weapons.
Political realism and idealism as theories of practice and approach in dealing with global states are beginning to drive the justification behind the courses of action that players rely on to develop policy. Specifically, “realists are often criticized for ignoring domestic politics (Walt, 2010).” One such example where this may be the case is the United States’ current actions on limiting its nuclear arsenal in conjunction with Russia’s reduction, while ignoring the increased capacities of India and China. “In realist terms, champions of the deal are inflating the value of nuclear weapons at a time when U.S. interests are best served by deflating it. By doing nothing to constrain India’s capacity and will to expand its nuclear arsenal and by hinting that a more robust Indian arsenal can help balance China’s power, the U.S. sends an inflationary signal to the global marketplace (Perkovich, 2005).”
In between the realists of the colonial United States and present day Israel, there existed a more fervent discussion on capitalism and its relationship to socialism. Capitalism correlates to realism in that it supports the realist theory that more is better and the “more” is obtainable by the strongest. The heavier theoretical reliance upon survival of the strong while cutting out the weak dismisses the socialist idea that equal distribution for the good of all people is a legitimate and prosperous course toward economic development and international security. As the process of globalization boils over with market saturation, the question arises of whether or not capitalism as a platform of foreign policy in an economically tangled world is necessarily the correct answer toward security and strength maintenance. Thus the return to realism on the political front provides the conservative thinker with a doorway into a room that contains the basic justification for capitalism supported by realist doctrine.
In the evolution of both idealism and realism, there exists, respectively, a pendulum swing from idealism to socialism to idealism and realism to capitalism to realism. Contemporary international relations theory has successfully defined the political liberal versus conservative using nothing more than original thoughts as presented by the ancient Greeks. We are able to trace the political development of idealism and realism from Europe into the colonial United States where it became a “recurrent, contrapuntal theme of statesmen and politicians, commentators and theorists (Graebner, 2002).” The will always be differences that exist between idealists and realist and the silent war on semantics and approaches to foreign policy will continue to wage on. However, there exists a necessity for a balance of power to exist between these two paradigms and one cannot do without the other. A justified approach to utopian type policy making would be an examination of issues from both the realist and idealist perspective. The marriage between the two must exist in the international arena and no unilateral approach on the realist or idealist side is truly legitimate. Robert Wright (2006), in his article which appears in the New York Times entitled “An American Foreign Policy that Both Realists and Idealists Should Fall in Love With,” presents a new concept which is representative of a bilateral approach to policy making that presents an effective balance between realism and idealism. He labels this paradigm as progressive realism, a theory which reconciles the humanitarian aims of idealists with the powerful logic of realists (Wright, 2006). In today’s globalized world where economies and societies continue to struggle with power balances and pieces of an economic pie a common sense bilateral approach which unites idealism and realism is critical to the establishment of any modern states development of foreign policy.
Bibliography
Cohen, LeoNora M. (1999). Philosophical perspectives in education. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from Philosophical Perspectives in Education website http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/ed416/PP2.html
Graebner, Norman A. (2010). Realism and Idealism. Retrieve April 10, 2010, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5215/is_2002/ai_n19132473/
idealism. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idealism
March, Aleida. (2005). At the Afro-Asian Conference in Algeria speech by Che Guevara. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from Ocean Press website at http://www.oceanbooks.com.au
Perkovich, George (2005, May 15). A realist case for conditioning the U.S. – India nuclear deal. Presented before an NPEC Seminar. Washington, DC.
realism. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realism
socialism. (2010). In Investor Word. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from http://www.investorwords.com/4613/socialism.html
Steele, Jonathan. (2008, September 25). Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran. The Guardian. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1
Walt, Stephen. (2010). The Polish tragedy. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from http://walt.foreignpolicy.com
Wright, Robert. (2006, July 16). An American foreign policy that both realists and idealists should fall in love with. The New York Times.
Posted in International Relations | Tags: conservative, Diplomacy, economy, Foreign Relations, globalization, government, Idealism, International Relations, Iran, Israel, liberal, politics, Realism, United States, World Events
Posted by: jgpradke | March 5, 2010
In Response to al-Maliki’s willingness to request extension of US Forces
Greeted this morning by the announcement that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is considering the possibility of asking U.S. forces to stay was rather discouraging. Sustainment of US Military Troops in Iraq is not the answer. Oil is no longer a viable consideration and it is moot to discuss why we are here. There are so many dynamics at play here and no one seems to quite get it. The problem starts with an Iraqi government that is intensely full of corruption and individualism versus nationalism. This bleeds into the government agencies such as the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi Security Forces. Absolute control and the desire to horde versus pushing assets out to the people is killing this place. Who is here taking care of the needs of the people versus themselves? Who is here to ensure that the very basics of humane existence are being met? Where are the efforts to clean and rebuild? They are not here.
Next you have the split between Arab and Kurds, Sunni and Shia, and the existence of splinter groups supported by various outside states. Picture this, the Sunni withdraw from running for office leaving a dominated Shia government supported by Iran. The Kurdish presence in the government is virtually non-existent and therefore renders their representation useless. The Sunni need to maintain some sense of control so what do they do? They attempt to topple the Shia (Iranian backed) government through the use of fear and terror tactics. The Government responds through the use of GENOCIDE (which I might add is a ridiculously hot topic right now) by trying to eliminate the Shia and also the Kurds who are trying to establish their own credibility to the North in Kurdistan. In order to assist with attacks on the very elements which were designated to provide much needed security, the Shia continue their rebellion first by encouraging all Shia to withdraw from government security elements to include the police and army . Now you have security forces on security forces, trained by US, and though limited in skill, effective. Keep in mind that remaining US Forces will be considered a government supported security asset and that the Sunni will attempt to disrupt US military efforts.
In the mean time our sly fox Iran continues to filter support to both the efforts in the North and to the Shia supported government. After all, the support they offer is now (because of a Shia Government) legitimate. So what is the end result of all of this? 50,000 US NON COMBAT Troops caught in the middle of a Middle Eastern Firestorm from hell and an unwarranted “partnership” established between Iran and the US as we would both exist to support the “Iraqi Government” and a civil war that will potentially be bloodier than any civil war known to the Middle East. Keep in mind that Iran cannot afford a strong Iraq. There is too much at stake for Iran who is in hot pursuit of nuclear assets and Middle East domination. Without Iraq, this will indeed be the case. Is Iran strong enough or stable enough to fulfill the role of “middle east superpower?” No, absolutely not. However the one nation that provides this capability and is the closest US NATO Ally is now facing being accused by the US of an apparent genocide that took place in 1914. We need to move on and focus on the here and now. Recently there were several arrests of members of the separatist organization known as the PKK or the Kurdistan Workers Party. Do not hesitate to think that this organization, which is in support of a separate Kurdish State is not functioning in conjunction with the Kurds in the northern portion of Iraq. The PKK role is joint with that of the Kurds in Iraq. This is a territorial fight in order to establish a Kurdish State with its own sovereign identity. The US will need the continued assistance of Turkey and vice versa. This organization paired with the Kurds to the south, while momentarily disrupted, will continue to fight to establish its own foothold in Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey. They feel that they must, they have nowhere else to go.
The US will not be effective as a sole supporting element in Iraq. They do not possess the strength to “go it alone” any longer and this situation requires immediate international action which will not happen. Sustaining US Troops will continue to frustrate the situation both at home and abroad.
CNN. (2010 March 4). Iraqi leader willing to ask some U.S. troops to stay. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/04/iraq.us.withdrawal/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Posted in International Peace, International Relations, state building | Tags: Armenian Genocide, basic human needs, Conflict, defining the state, democracy, Diplomacy, Foreign Relations, government, hierarchy of needs, International Relations, intractable, intractable conflict, Iran, Iraq, Military, peace, self governance, state building, Turkey, United States, World Events
Posted by: jgpradke | January 7, 2010
What Dreams May Become (One Perspective)
The day was sunny, the leaves of the trees were so very green and the sun glistened, dancing playfully as the laughter of the stream rolled up from the moss covered rocks. The water ran around my ankles, cool, refreshing and bringing life back to my tired feet. I was there, in the stream, alone, captured by the breeze as it swept across my face. The scent of all that is enveloped me, I was the earth. My feet grew into the ground as it fed me full of knowledge and strength. I drew upon her for nourishment, life, energy, and wisdom.
My fishing rod, an antique fly, was my only accompaniment. I cast long and steady, the line arching beautifully, a scene captured only in movies. The line sang, as it tossed the hand woven bait through the air, tickling the tip of the water and enticing the object of my moments being. I caught one; a champion trout was in my hands. Beautifully it glistened, its flesh, reflecting the colors of hope, and then I noticed. The eyes of the fish seemed to be staring intently at me, they burned into me, begging me for something, its face frowning, and startled. Taken by the image, I lost track of what I was doing. It wrestled its way free from my hands and descended back into the cool water.
I looked down where the fish had landed, expecting that, with a flick of its tail, it would dart away, back to its life, free from harm and capture once again…but it didn’t. In a panicked motion, it kicked its tail and turned, the pain and anguish still on its face, it could not swim. Paralyzed, it wriggled in place once more and then lay lifeless in the stream whose waters had become still and now displayed signs of perfect stagnation. I looked deeper into the lifeless pool and realized the hundreds of other dead fish mounting, the look of defeat, sadness, and pain upon their faces. The once clear water had now clouded with dust upon its surface and the image that was once transparent… was no more. Still standing in the pool, I began to weep for the lifeless beings, my heart ached and the type of sadness that only stems from loss overwhelmed me. I awoke from this dream, only to experience it again, and even once again. It has been three times now and I believe there is a reason. Since this dream, I have realized visions of these scenes several times and cannot seem to let go of the unheard screams pouring from the very souls of what was once life.
Yes, this is only a dream and some dreams are strange, others horrifying. In this case, the emotions felt were overwhelmingly sad. Some would take this, and shrug it off, saying “that’s just crazy, dreams don’t mean anything” and venture so far as to make fun. This comes only from insecurity and the inability to relate at such levels as to delve into one’s own emotions let alone publicize them. This is a direct display of weakness and self insecurity. Others will remain silent, read and relate, while others will chime in, voice their opinions and interpret something for themselves from these writings. Nonetheless, regardless of response, I will disclose, at the risk of speculation and scrutiny, precisely what I have construed and understand to be the message.
People often ask of me, from where do I draw my strength and energy. Well, let me tell you, I draw it from a new found relationship with my God and prayer. While my religious focus may not be aligned with the majority, I draw my synergy from God and feel closer to this being more and more intensely each and every day. My primary prayer is for wisdom. I am very intent on this and draw upon my relationship with God and others through the wisdom that I’ve been afforded, which, incidentally is not very much! However, I take what I can get and I listen. God speaks to us in so many ways the problem is people have lost their ability to really listen. The words of God are not as complicated as one may think. Am I saying that God has spoken to me? What I’m saying is God has spoken…he speaks to everyone, but few choose to listen. There was meaning in this dream, and I have chosen to listen.
The foundation of life is water. Our earth primarily consists of water as do our bodies. Without water, there can be no life and with poisoned water, life becomes death. The greater population within waters, as most of us comprehend, is fish. No one can argue that water provides life, which is populated by fish and other basic life forms. The oceans serve as the womb of life, giving breath to new forms each and every day. We discover these over time, and the adventures associated with new discovery continue. The trees, the breeze, and the life that I experienced prior to witnessing my dying fish are all results of the life giving waters. Once these became still, so did all of life. So the core of this dream is in fact water. The remaining questions are as follows:
What does the water represent?
How did the water become poisoned?
Why was I standing in the water?
And how do we keep the waters flowing so as not to experience the death associated with its poisoning?
Simple…water represents hope. It provides the essence that the people require in order to live, thrive, grow, and love. Water represents habitat. The homes over our heads, the areas where we go for long walks, that single favorite spot where we dwell when we need to escape. I am in a world where hope, habitat, and faith are waning. The people here are screaming for help but their voices are not being heard. I have been told by two local citizens in just twenty four hours that, and I sadly quote, “Iraqi people are bad people, we have done wrong and the God is punishing us, I live in a world of dogs, and there is nothing I can do, we deserve this” and the other, without knowing what his comrade had stated, declared “I hate my country, I must leave, we are going to destroy ourselves because we are broken, no one cares and I must just get out of here.”
We, the people, are the fish. We scream for help and false promises made by governments along with misconstrued hopes are the poison from which our water contaminates. We live in a world that we are unable to change. We look upward, panic stricken, saddened by our deeds, looking for someone to help and we see no one, the water has clouded because it has become stagnant. Hope has failed and no longer flows.
I stand over and observe, unsure of what to do, but continue with diligent prayer. My feet embedded in the earth from whence the water once flowed, are frozen in place, and I am forced to look down and see, without the ability to make change or influence, the sadness of those that truly feel lost. We must remain cognizant of the plight that our world is going through. It is, in fact, suffocating us and because we, as a world, have become so “international,” the plight of one will, consequently, be the doom of another.
I write today, because I feel designated and obligated, to deliver to all who will believe, a reminder that God has charged us with the care of this earth and its inhabitants. We can no longer stand as a single entity, thinking only of the self, relying on fate to carry us through. We must look to reach out an encouraging hand to one another because times will worsen. Do not let our daily lives of comfort mis-guide us on a path in which we choose to squander the present at the cost of building a future for our children and our children’s children, pushing us far from the harsh reality of what may come. Do what you can with what you are given. Give hope to those that will listen, give reason to those that doubt, and lead those who are lost back home to clear waters, so that they may live once again. This is our charge, and this is my dream, and perhaps now, it is yours.
Posted by: jgpradke | December 24, 2009
A PLEA FOR PEACE
IRAQ – I was driving down one of the war trodden main supply routes the other week. Concentrating on the road, looking for anything suspicious, I could not help but acknowledge to my gunner what destruction does to a society. It seems that every time we “roll out” our discussion includes this topic in some form. The trash piling in the dirt, the once emblazoned buildings, and the people, wrinkled, somewhat sad, and hardened by war and the stress it brings, paints a very plain picture of true struggle and broken will. With the exception of an occasional flash of traditional red, or the dusty green leaves of the palms, the image is bland and dry, leaving one in a pre-conditioned saddened state of mind even before realizing the true meaning of our presence here. Of note, up ahead, was an animal on the side of the road, lifeless, and still.
Even the grayness of this donkey seemed to fade. In part, abandoned, no master in sight, his eyes closed, as if he had chosen this very spot along the road to lie down and die, there stood above him the most saddening scenes of the day. Another donkey, obviously in mourning for his lost companion, he stood above his friend, loyal even in death, as traffic nonchalantly passed by. The passers by failing to acknowledge the fact that donkey or not, something or perhaps someone lost a companion and friend, continued on with their day failing to witness what was, perhaps, a most tormenting experience. The tears in the eyes of this innocent being, was too much for me to manage. I got back to my forward operating base, found a private spot, and wept.
Such is life…we come, we go, but what have we done to provide ourselves with the loyalty and commitment to each other that, even as human beings, we would stand with those lost. Regardless of background, race, religion, or sex, we as the residents of this world have responsibilities as caretakers, charged by God to manage and take care of the world he provided. Whether by natural causes or in war, who will come to the comfort of those who have experienced loss? The donkey, though his existence may be menial on a day to day basis, epitomizes what it is to serve and what it means to be loyal. They live in peace and experience only that which their master charges. We continue to forego peace and destroy that which our God has designated our responsibility.
So here we are, another holiday season comes and goes and another year approaches with promises of strained interpersonal, intranational, and international relationships. The will of the people moves with the ebb and tide of unpredictable governments and the struggle between what is right and not right ensues. We, as the responsible inhabitants of this planet must begin to realize that the happenings and events, not only within our designated borders and territories, but throughout, are directly the end result of individual decision-making and consequential actions. Recognizing that human beings, alone, possess the ability to influence the physics of nature (as it relates to climate and global conditions), of economy (as it relates to recession and the plethora of issues surrounding economy), and relationships along the full spectrum of their ability to exist (individual through international), is where we must begin before the seeds of peace can be planted.
Consider this…. Individuals make decisions; Decisions produce outcomes; Outcomes, both negative and positive, produce leaders; Leaders influence individuals and individuals decide whom to follow. Coagulated groups then form as leaders gain followers. Still with me? This is probably better depicted graphically, and I will provide one at a later time. This sequence then recycles itself and at times gains enough momentum to provide those identified as leaders with power. The power to influence people is only as strong as the collective group allows it to be. That said, should not the equation for peace be legitimately easy? Trust me, it is. The difficulty lies within the spirits of our global leaders. All may say they want peace, but few have decided collectively what exactly this means.
When considering the road to a peaceful world, the burden of leadership rests with those appointed and/or supported by the people. I would argue that the burden and responsibility is misplaced. Each of us, individually, remains wholly responsible for the status of our world. Whether it is peace or war, we the people of all states, make the decisions that influence outcomes. Whether it is who we vote for during an election or to pull a trigger on a roadside bomb, whether we throw our trash outside of a car window or start a recycling program in our own homes, the decision rests with each of us. We must honestly look inward and ask, “What have I done this year to bring peace to the part of the world that I remain responsible for?” We must examine the inner being, the self, and decide what we are capable of accomplishing toward making our world just a little cleaner, a little better, a little brighter. When we all, as a world, accomplish this and work together to achieve, then and only then may peace be possible. Leaders are no different than followers. They bleed the same blood; they breathe the same air and receive an education at the same schools. Leaders are people; the difference is that you and I, people, have chosen to support their dreams and desires. Consequently, we all remain wholly responsible.
I traveled the same route the very next day. The donkey, whose companion had died, was now lying next to his loss. Still along the side of the road, his head had come to rest on the stomach of his loss. I observed closely, and then, found myself sobbing. I could no longer hold back the tears that welled from within. I looked up at my gunner who was sobbing too; my driver was in the same state. The donkey, whose companion had died, had finally found peace. He too had passed…surely from a broken heart. The cars nonchalantly drove by, no one stopping, no one caring for anyone or anything but themselves. In a world that is torn by war, a world that faces climate crisis, a world that faces threats from our fellow mankind, can any of us afford to think of just ourselves? Where does this leave tomorrow’s children? Perhaps they won’t care either. After all, we’ve taught them to care only for the single most important person…themselves.
To all who are still reading, I wish you a sincerely beautiful Christmas and many returns for the New Year. The tone of this blog may seem dark, but the idea is bright! We have a world that needs some work. We must, united, stand together, roll up our sleeves, and do what we were originally charged with by God. That is to take care of that which he bestowed upon all of us…this earth…and each other. We must continue to pray but we must also continue to stand only for peace, differences exist, but let us hope that people, on the whole, are smart enough to see through these and find resolution. Our world calls to us. We must listen!
Posted in International Peace, International Relations, state building | Tags: basic human needs, Conflict, Diplomacy, economy, Foreign Relations, government, hierarchy of needs, identity, International Relations, intractable, intractable conflict, intranational relations, Iraq, peace, self governance, state building, war, World Events
Posted by: jgpradke | December 16, 2009
The UN…Worthless?
The scope of any organization is limited to that of the desires of the membership contained therein. Therefore, the ability and influence of an organization to shape the behavior of its members is limited to the allowances prescribed within the realm of its active participants. The membership that controls the balance of power within the organization, in fact, possesses the ability to influence the direction and behavior of those retaining the lesser power. Given this premise, the United Nations, as it exists today, possesses zero capability to influence powerful nation-states and must rather succumb to their will or face, when it comes to approaching the decision making table, intractability which the world has played witness to time and time again. Referencing my earlier posts on ‘Nuclear Defiance’ and the blatant power plays of Iran and North Korea, you can not argue my prediction that sanctions would not work and that the abilities of the United Nations continue to falter.
So, rather than beat around the bush, just who are the powerful nation-states that we make reference to? Arguably, the title is awarded to those who possess the decision making ability within the most powerful section of the United Nations, the Security Council. The permanent members followed by the non-permanent members have been dubbed the most powerful as determined by position and status quo within the organization. Article 23, Chapter V of the Charter of the United Nations lists these as The Republic of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States as the permanent member of the Security Council while the General Assembly elects ten other members to be non-permanent members. So just what ability does the UN possess in shaping the behavior of these nations? None. That is…not directly.
What the UN does provide is a forum for which these nations can come together to discuss the issues surrounding them as the world, through the process of globalization, becomes a smaller place. This, in turn, may provide for indirect influence of those deemed as “power players” though ultimately, the criticisms of one member state of another are usually presented unilaterally versus from a united platform such as the UN Security Council. The Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 presents a solid case for this. While the US and others offered harsh criticism to the invasion, there was no evidence of unified criticism or attempts to thwart such an invasion from the UN Security Council. However, one could argue, that the forum the UN presents certainly provides for open discussion of the events, platforms for indirect criticisms, and perhaps some limited influence from within. Is the value of an ‘open forum’ for more discussion what the world needs right now?
Keep in mind that the removal of a member, especially one that is permanent, would most likely be catastrophic to the United Nations. This would only occur in the instance of another global conflict where a truly intractable situation amongst the members of the Security Council presented itself. This multi-faceted marriage of the P5, in itself, limits the ability of the UN to truly influence those that hold the cornerstones upon which it gains its strength, core, and structure.
RESOURCES
Bennett, Leroy A. and James K. Oliver. 2002. International Organizations, Principles and Issues, 7th Ed. New Jersey: Prentie Hall
Mobley, Victor. “World Response to Russian Invasion of Georgia,” Associated Content News. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/950265/world_response_to_russian_invasion.html. accessed on 13 December 2009.
Posted by: jgpradke | December 14, 2009
Globalization versus Neo-imperialism…A Title Fight, Live, in the Ring of Semantics
Interdependence, a common, single word at the core of both globalization and neo-imperialism is beginning to take form as a war of semantics begins to ensue amongst international relations theorists and today’s current policy makers. I would argue that the idea of “interconnectedness” is a more accurate description of exactly the premise behind globalization. However, interdependence as presented by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in an article published in Foreign Policy magazine, “Globalization what’s New? What’s Not? (And So What?),” suggest that the term is, in fact, intertwined with the definition of globalization. “Globalism is a state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multi-continental distances.” Examples of this are sited as they pursue a discussion on economic interdependence, military interdependence, and environmental globalism, social and cultural globalism and use the relationship between Asia and the United States as solid descriptors to support their definition. My criticism lies not in how they define the occurrences between a growingly interconnected world, but that notable theorists and policy makers are failing to recognize that interconnectedness when transformed to interdependence, especially when considering economic and military interdependence, becomes neo-imperialism.
Using economy and capitalism as the means of expansion, Lenin in his 1917 pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, recognizes that imperialism is given birth from capitalist existence. “Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general.” Imperialism and neo-imperialism is grounded on the capitalist idea that expansion is necessary. Expansion drives globalization. The collection of wealth drives the capitalist, and the idea that when it comes to economy, more is better, provides for autonomy within the capitalist society. When paired with such organizations as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) neo-imperialism finds strength from within, versus the old imperialist reliance of military force to provide geography (colonization) which in turn provides growth of economy.
“What sets imperialism of the capitalist sort apart from other conceptions of empire is that it is the capitalist logic that typically dominates….” DAVID HARVEY, The New Imperialism
Theorists today should take into consideration that globalization represents interconnectedness while neo-imperialism is a viable explanation for interdependence. We cannot argue that globalization is occurring throughout all worlds. The reliance of the global population and the emergence of such organizations as the IMF, WTO, EU the African Union are all evidence of this. The interconnectivity amongst member states is noted. However, the world is predominantly capitalist driven. Capitalism drives expansion, which in turn provides the opportunity to create the need for long term interdependence.
RESOURCES
Keohane, Robert and Joseph Nye. “Globalization What’s New? What’s Not? (And So What?).” Foreign Policy, Spring 2000.
Bhagwati, Jagdish. “Coping With Antiglobalization: A Trilogy of Discontents.” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002.
Lenin, V. I.. (1963) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin’s Selected Works, Volume 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers, Moscow. Week 1 Lecture Notes
Posted by: jgpradke | December 4, 2009
INSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, POLICIES, AND THEORY DO NOT APPLY
Saddam Hussein, former militant dictator of Iraq, ruled his nation using measures of extreme control exercised through the manipulation of fear tactics and the deployment of catastrophic consequences dealt when the population failed in their ability to abide by the rules of the land. These procedures while, inhumane and unacceptable at times, were the means by which the people were able to acceptably live and survive. Today the people of Iraq tell a story of justification as to why Saddam Hussein was an acceptable dictator.
“Saddam was able to keep the hundreds of cockroaches that exist within our country constrained; keeping them under control and punishing those that defied his bidding. Once Saddam was removed, these cockroaches were no longer contained and now run wild amongst us spreading corruption and hate across the land. When Saddam was in power, we had only one tyrant. Now we have hundreds.”
We’ve just previously stated that the “state is a commodity of the people.” In a dictatorship this is not the case. The people are, in fact, a commodity of the state which is held under the finger of a single leader. This leader benefits from the needs of the people and this, in fact, violates the principles behind decent humanity. The ability to make one’s own decisions and freedom of voice, influence, and life in general are all jeopardized under a dictatorship. So, is the answer to evolving a state government which consisted of a former militant dictatorship to replace it with the same? Obviously not, but institutional principles, policies, and theory will not work either. The state, because it is a commodity of the people, is a living, breathing organization, designed by the people to evolve, change, and mold in accordance with the evolution of basic human needs. State building must begin with the basic requirement that people have immediate needs that must be met. These include, and will be discussed in detail further, food, water, a place to discard waste, shelter, and security. These needs have existed since the beginning of humanity and will never change. Biology, physiology, and psychology drive these basic needs and arguably have a tremendous impact on any government. Dictatorship or democracy, supremacy or capitalism, we can argue that any government which fails to address the basic needs of the people who, in fact, own government will indeed collapse.
Solving the problem of nation-state building through democratic reforms that are ‘cookie cutter’ in governmental theory and practice are inadequate solutions to the challenges which face the architects of today’s modern state. The simple answer to the “why?” of this question is the fact that the needs of one individual differ from another. For instance, one man has employment, is able to feed his family, and owns a house, while the other remains desolate, without food or employment, and his family has abandoned him considering him without value and shameful. In a world where these situations are rather common, reform requires that it address the needs of the majority. In a war torn nation, these needs tend to be those as described in the latter scenario. The problem with the ‘cookie cutter’ democratic solution of “all people will have a voice, and this voice will be heard through a free vote process” is, in fact, the very freedom enablers provided through this democratic “practice.”
Corruption is fed by the needs of the people and they will flock to those that can provide. Iraq again poses monumental examples of this. A multitude of organizations continue to form within the borders of this ancient land presided over by a youthful government. These organizations are collectives of people, some of which are driven by ideologies, both religious and non-religious, while other organizations have grown out of spiteful retribution which they feel are owed to those that have destroyed what they believe as acceptable. The success of these organizations thrive because they, through the absolute control of resources (mostly financial), are able to meet the needs of its members, paying them for acts of misconduct against the Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police, coalition forces, and other organizations. These rogue organizations, for those who live within their immediate areas, in essence, are meeting the very basic of needs better than the government who reside only in Baghdad.
So is the democratic process all for naught? Absolutely not. It is the timing with which the principles and practice of democracy are implemented that is so critical to the survivability of a democratic state. First and foremost, the needs of the people must be met. Second, the corruption which has surfaced must be eliminated to the best of the state’s ability. Third, the government must be fluid enough to avoid corruption from within and realize that they exist in the short term to evolve into what will become a long term democracy.
Posted in International Peace, International Relations, state building | Tags: basic human needs, capitalism, democracy, Diplomacy, economy, Foreign Relations, government, hierarchy of needs, identity, International Relations, intractable, intractable conflict, intranational relations, Iraq, neo-imperialism, peace, self governance, state building, United States, war, World Events
Posted by: jgpradke | November 23, 2009
Discovering the Basic Needs of State Building
If you are reading this on here please keep in mind that this is the text of a developing book on the art of state building in today’s world. The thoughts here are of my own convoluted ideas and may or may not be substantiated with academic resources. That said, the writings contained herein remain my property and due credit is requested when using these expressions throughout your own work. As this book develops, I sincerely hope you are able to enjoy the experience of its creation. Of course the complete ideas will not be exposed until the final product is finished. Please feel free to challenge the ideas and thoughts and, by all means, make comments! Thanks and enjoy!
James Pradke
INTRODUCTION
Whether we like to admit it or not, the United States has immersed itself in the business of state building. Entering into strange worlds, committing itself to a war based on enemy ideologies and techniques that are elusive and frustrating, the government is finding the task more daunting that it could have ever imagined and support of the people in general is waning. One cannot fault the US involvement in these worlds, after all their efforts are, in fact, “justified.” How so? The issue is security. The protection of those needs that are basic and considered the “inalienable right” of the human race is arguably, one of the primary responsibilities of any government. Albeit tedious, accepting the responsibilities associated with state building as a means toward improving national security has generally proven successful. The process has taken the worse of enemies and, over time, evolved them into powerful and long term allies. The remnant states of key enemies during World War II are good examples of this. The price, however, is always catastrophic and requires that all parties involved understand the definition of the state, its basic premise for existence, the purpose of governance, and how to sustain and grow the final product, in this case, the nation.
DEFINING THE STATE
First and foremost we must discuss the definition of what exactly is the “state.” Is it a collective of people co-existing within a set of boundaries that have happened to evolve over time resulting in cultural differences with which that group chooses to associate? Well, yes, that is it…in part. However, the state as we recognized it yesterday cannot simply be brushed off today in a single one sentence definition. Today’s nations are complex with abstract problems. Not only are there challenges with international relations, the intranational relations within every nation’s boundaries pose new challenges for state builders, maintainers, and sustainers. In today’s world, some intranational relations challenges have just as great an impact on the international community as the local community. That said, the approach to state building must target the core of any problem, no matter if it be inter- or intranational, before it ends catastrophically.
First things first, the state is not an institution. An institution is an organization or group gathered for the specific purpose of collecting and managing assets. Examples of such organizations are financial institutions where their primary focus is the collection and management of financial assets. Others might argue that the policies of a state’s government, responsible for the establishment and organization of laws, constitute the government entity being recognized as an institution. The state, though it may possess institutions within, is not an institution. Throughout this text, the state will be treated as “for the people by the people.”
Each of us possesses the capability of creating and collecting laws that we manage within ourselves. These are known as morals and ethics, codes that we choose to live by and thus these codes are essentially turned into laws. We define this as self governance. The moment that we begin treating the self as an institution we begin to eliminate the human elements which exceed the capabilities of an institution. This is the difference between the institution and state. The human factor, the ability and right of each individual to live within their own sets of collective ideas and norms, and the ability to manipulate these to an ever changing environment, negates the states qualification as an institution. In other words, financial assets, no matter how governed, do not possess the ability or capacity to change the rules or laws during an economic downturn. People, individually or collectively may impact and dictate change. Bottom line, people are not commodities of the state. The state is a commodity of the people.
SocialVibe