Sunday, August 27, 2006
On the internet
"On the Internet" by Dr. Dreyfus, makes an interesting claim in the first sentence of his introduction. "The internet is not just a new technological innovation; it is a new type of technological innovation." Professor Dreyfus seems to be insinuating that the internet is a paradigm shift in technological innovation. In the past technological innovations were geared toward specific task and sometimes had consequences into other parts of our lives. The internet, on the other hand, transcends or has come to transcend the idea of being a “tool” or “device” and has become an alternative reality.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Horn of Africa: History of Instability
Horn of Africa: a history of instability
The term “Horn of Africa” generally refers to Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and perhaps Sudan. I like to believe that all geographical societies have “great” history. Some societies, due to better record keeping, remaining ancient monuments, and political dominance, have been better at telling their story. The Horn of Africa is a place of immense historical importance for Africa, the Arab and Muslim world, and the Christian world. I could be a classical romantic and talk about the great and lost accomplishments and civilization of the ancient Horn of Africa. I think this would be good for intellectual curiosity but futile for general development theory: technologically, economically, and socially.
I would rather focus on the modern Horn of Africa: a history of instability. The historical instability in the Horn is more due to exogenous forces than domestic. Unfortunately, my knowledge in the particulars of the historical influence of the Arabs and Westerners (particularly, the French, English, and Italians) is very limited; as such, I would rather refrain from elaborating. Yet, their influence in the instability cannot be ignored.
The recent instability, after World War II, is one of the residual affects of colonization, and the growth of the modern nation-state as the means of grouping, among others. The affects of colonization gets the most attention from popular news and publication. The more interesting and usually unknown is the issue of the rise of the nation-state.
The nation-state (Eritrea or Germany, for example) is a modern social construction that started in Europe and spread around the world. The modern nation-state is also a result of the capitalist system; the state serves as a market for the exchange of goods and services. So as the European dynastic states colonized regions and peoples they also formed nations out of their new colonies. So in the Horn of Africa—and around the world—the people did not recognize themselves as Ethiopians, Eritreans, or Somalians but members of smaller groups: Tigrinya, Amharic, among others. The creation of the modern nation-state, imposed on them by powerful foreign forces, regrouped existing groups into a unit that was historically and socially not failure to them. Now, instead of being Tigrinyian people they were Eritreans, instead of being Afars they were Dijiboutians, instead of being Oromo they were Ethiopians, instead of being Tunnis they were Somalians, instead of being Atwots they were Sudanese.
As a result, the current peoples of the Horn are forced to accept the rules and demeanor of the modern nation-state. For example, the Ethiopian state feels it necessary to incorporate all Habesha persons and territory under a single flag to become a strong state, and Somalia wants to regroup all of their lost territory from Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Kenya to become a strong state, and Eritrean (the smallest state in the region but is able to contribute influence more than one would think it could or should) political leaders are willing to go to any length to remain a state, even at the cost of severe suffering.
Combine the influences of colonization and the rise of the nation-state we get the current mess in the Horn—I don’t want to undermine other possible causes, like religion. The people, never mind the states, need to recognize they need to cooperate and improve their lives.
Disclaimer: The writing above is not researched in the proper manner of higher education scholarship. Though, I’m confident that the general theme is accurate. Please conduct your own research. Additionally, if one finds any mistakes in what I wrote please make me aware.
The term “Horn of Africa” generally refers to Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and perhaps Sudan. I like to believe that all geographical societies have “great” history. Some societies, due to better record keeping, remaining ancient monuments, and political dominance, have been better at telling their story. The Horn of Africa is a place of immense historical importance for Africa, the Arab and Muslim world, and the Christian world. I could be a classical romantic and talk about the great and lost accomplishments and civilization of the ancient Horn of Africa. I think this would be good for intellectual curiosity but futile for general development theory: technologically, economically, and socially.
I would rather focus on the modern Horn of Africa: a history of instability. The historical instability in the Horn is more due to exogenous forces than domestic. Unfortunately, my knowledge in the particulars of the historical influence of the Arabs and Westerners (particularly, the French, English, and Italians) is very limited; as such, I would rather refrain from elaborating. Yet, their influence in the instability cannot be ignored.
The recent instability, after World War II, is one of the residual affects of colonization, and the growth of the modern nation-state as the means of grouping, among others. The affects of colonization gets the most attention from popular news and publication. The more interesting and usually unknown is the issue of the rise of the nation-state.
The nation-state (Eritrea or Germany, for example) is a modern social construction that started in Europe and spread around the world. The modern nation-state is also a result of the capitalist system; the state serves as a market for the exchange of goods and services. So as the European dynastic states colonized regions and peoples they also formed nations out of their new colonies. So in the Horn of Africa—and around the world—the people did not recognize themselves as Ethiopians, Eritreans, or Somalians but members of smaller groups: Tigrinya, Amharic, among others. The creation of the modern nation-state, imposed on them by powerful foreign forces, regrouped existing groups into a unit that was historically and socially not failure to them. Now, instead of being Tigrinyian people they were Eritreans, instead of being Afars they were Dijiboutians, instead of being Oromo they were Ethiopians, instead of being Tunnis they were Somalians, instead of being Atwots they were Sudanese.
As a result, the current peoples of the Horn are forced to accept the rules and demeanor of the modern nation-state. For example, the Ethiopian state feels it necessary to incorporate all Habesha persons and territory under a single flag to become a strong state, and Somalia wants to regroup all of their lost territory from Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Kenya to become a strong state, and Eritrean (the smallest state in the region but is able to contribute influence more than one would think it could or should) political leaders are willing to go to any length to remain a state, even at the cost of severe suffering.
Combine the influences of colonization and the rise of the nation-state we get the current mess in the Horn—I don’t want to undermine other possible causes, like religion. The people, never mind the states, need to recognize they need to cooperate and improve their lives.
Disclaimer: The writing above is not researched in the proper manner of higher education scholarship. Though, I’m confident that the general theme is accurate. Please conduct your own research. Additionally, if one finds any mistakes in what I wrote please make me aware.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Berkeley Political Review
The New Missile Crisis
On July 4, 2006 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, known as North Korea, threatened the tenuous stability in East Asia, making it arguably one of the most dangerous regions in the world. North Korea fired six short range missiles into the Sea of Japan and a long range missile, which, if perfected, has the capability of reaching the United States, but that faltered seconds after fired. This unleashed an international fervor among superpower states and a regional crisis, wondering what provoked North Korea to act in such a manner.
The most immediate cause has been that the Bush administration has taken a much tougher stance toward North Korea than previous administrations. Additionally, President Bush has made explicit comments that have made the North Korean government uneasy about their national security, including the infamous “axis of evil” speech. The administration’s foreign policy, actions and rhetoric have been viewed by North Koreans as particularly aggressive, with a willingness to use military action. North Korea’s anxieties regarding United States aggression can be seen in their letter to the IAEA regarding their withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty: “…US tyrannical nuclear crushing policy toward the DPRK… As soon as the Bush administration officials took power, they made it a policy to crush the DPRK with force of arms, and completely blocked the already-begun DPRK-US dialogue… “
President Bush followed his January 2002 State of the Union ‘axis of evil’ speech, on June 1, by declaring a new doctrine of preemptive military action against rogue states that participate in nuclear proliferation. As expected the North Korean’s perceived this as a prelude to future threats. North Korean negotiators have insisted that they would continue with nuclear developments until the United States entered into bilateral talks to draft a non-aggression pact.
In October of 2002 the Bush administration confronted the North Koreans about their clandestine uranium-enrichment program. As a result, the 1994 Agreed Framework Treaty, which requires North Korea to halt its nuclear ambitions in return for energy supply, unraveled in 2003 when North Koreans pulled out. In a joint article Jean du Preez (International Organizations Nonproliferation Program) and William Potter (Center for Nonproliferation Studies) said that, “North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty is in reaction to its inclusion in the ‘axis of evil’ and being targeted by the preemptive strike policy”.
The Iraq invasion, and subsequent war, were deciphered by the North Koreans as an omen for future aggression. James B. Steinberg, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, points out that “[g]overnment officials and analysts in this region [East Asia] are looking at Iraq through the lens of its implications for the crisis that affects them most directly—North Korea. All the countries in the region are anxiously awaiting signs of whether the U.S. action in Iraq presages a more confrontational approach to the DPRK.” With the uncertainties of future US aggression and the fact that they are targeted as an “outpost of tyranny,” the building of a military deterrent, evidenced by the missile launch, is a way for North Korea to “flex its muscle.”
When North Korea pulled out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003, a series of talks, referred to as the six party talks, were initiated among China, Russia, North Korea, the United States, Japan, and South Korea. The purpose was to find a peaceful means to resolve the issue. Daniel A. Pinkston, a North Korea expert, believes that the six party talks are now “dead.” For the North Koreans, the six party talks were a mechanism to get a non-aggression pact from the United States and a means to talk directly with the United States instead through intermediaries. Yet, the United States has refused any form of “official” direct talks with North Korea and maintains that all military options in regard to North Korea are “on the table.” In other words, no non-aggression pact is being offered by the United States. These contrary policy goals and diplomatic approaches have led experts to conclude that the six party talks are “dead.”
With the backdrop of the “axis of evil” statement, the Iraq war, the failed six party talks and the policy of preventive military strikes it should be clear that the missile launch was a message to the United States. This is even more true because of the symbolic decision to begin launching on the fourth of July and the fact that one was a long range missile that could theoretically reach the United States. While the message can be deciphered in different ways, the cause for the missile launches are clear: the North Koreans feel they are threatened by the United States and its regional allies. North Korea has made it clear that they capable of defending themselves and are capable of causing havoc in the region—in particular to the two United States allies: South Korea and Japan.
While the US is, typically, confident in its ability to defend against state attacks, the missile crisis should make clear that if the tenuous stability in the Korean peninsula was to collapse, North Korea would act aggressively toward all its enemies, including the US. Major attacks on South Korea and Japan, would lead to catastrophic human lose and crippling affects to the international and American economy. From a defensive perspective, North Korea, by attempting to launch a long range missile, made it clear that it may also attempt to launch attacks on the United States. Additionally, with China and Russia being allies of North Korea and with United States responsibilities to its East Asian allies, there are worse scenarios possible. These reactions by North Korea to the actions of the US will, in turn, have further consequences in the international arena.
The New Missile Crisis
On July 4, 2006 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, known as North Korea, threatened the tenuous stability in East Asia, making it arguably one of the most dangerous regions in the world. North Korea fired six short range missiles into the Sea of Japan and a long range missile, which, if perfected, has the capability of reaching the United States, but that faltered seconds after fired. This unleashed an international fervor among superpower states and a regional crisis, wondering what provoked North Korea to act in such a manner.
The most immediate cause has been that the Bush administration has taken a much tougher stance toward North Korea than previous administrations. Additionally, President Bush has made explicit comments that have made the North Korean government uneasy about their national security, including the infamous “axis of evil” speech. The administration’s foreign policy, actions and rhetoric have been viewed by North Koreans as particularly aggressive, with a willingness to use military action. North Korea’s anxieties regarding United States aggression can be seen in their letter to the IAEA regarding their withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty: “…US tyrannical nuclear crushing policy toward the DPRK… As soon as the Bush administration officials took power, they made it a policy to crush the DPRK with force of arms, and completely blocked the already-begun DPRK-US dialogue… “
President Bush followed his January 2002 State of the Union ‘axis of evil’ speech, on June 1, by declaring a new doctrine of preemptive military action against rogue states that participate in nuclear proliferation. As expected the North Korean’s perceived this as a prelude to future threats. North Korean negotiators have insisted that they would continue with nuclear developments until the United States entered into bilateral talks to draft a non-aggression pact.
In October of 2002 the Bush administration confronted the North Koreans about their clandestine uranium-enrichment program. As a result, the 1994 Agreed Framework Treaty, which requires North Korea to halt its nuclear ambitions in return for energy supply, unraveled in 2003 when North Koreans pulled out. In a joint article Jean du Preez (International Organizations Nonproliferation Program) and William Potter (Center for Nonproliferation Studies) said that, “North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty is in reaction to its inclusion in the ‘axis of evil’ and being targeted by the preemptive strike policy”.
The Iraq invasion, and subsequent war, were deciphered by the North Koreans as an omen for future aggression. James B. Steinberg, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, points out that “[g]overnment officials and analysts in this region [East Asia] are looking at Iraq through the lens of its implications for the crisis that affects them most directly—North Korea. All the countries in the region are anxiously awaiting signs of whether the U.S. action in Iraq presages a more confrontational approach to the DPRK.” With the uncertainties of future US aggression and the fact that they are targeted as an “outpost of tyranny,” the building of a military deterrent, evidenced by the missile launch, is a way for North Korea to “flex its muscle.”
When North Korea pulled out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003, a series of talks, referred to as the six party talks, were initiated among China, Russia, North Korea, the United States, Japan, and South Korea. The purpose was to find a peaceful means to resolve the issue. Daniel A. Pinkston, a North Korea expert, believes that the six party talks are now “dead.” For the North Koreans, the six party talks were a mechanism to get a non-aggression pact from the United States and a means to talk directly with the United States instead through intermediaries. Yet, the United States has refused any form of “official” direct talks with North Korea and maintains that all military options in regard to North Korea are “on the table.” In other words, no non-aggression pact is being offered by the United States. These contrary policy goals and diplomatic approaches have led experts to conclude that the six party talks are “dead.”
With the backdrop of the “axis of evil” statement, the Iraq war, the failed six party talks and the policy of preventive military strikes it should be clear that the missile launch was a message to the United States. This is even more true because of the symbolic decision to begin launching on the fourth of July and the fact that one was a long range missile that could theoretically reach the United States. While the message can be deciphered in different ways, the cause for the missile launches are clear: the North Koreans feel they are threatened by the United States and its regional allies. North Korea has made it clear that they capable of defending themselves and are capable of causing havoc in the region—in particular to the two United States allies: South Korea and Japan.
While the US is, typically, confident in its ability to defend against state attacks, the missile crisis should make clear that if the tenuous stability in the Korean peninsula was to collapse, North Korea would act aggressively toward all its enemies, including the US. Major attacks on South Korea and Japan, would lead to catastrophic human lose and crippling affects to the international and American economy. From a defensive perspective, North Korea, by attempting to launch a long range missile, made it clear that it may also attempt to launch attacks on the United States. Additionally, with China and Russia being allies of North Korea and with United States responsibilities to its East Asian allies, there are worse scenarios possible. These reactions by North Korea to the actions of the US will, in turn, have further consequences in the international arena.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Order
My current research interest is in the realm of order in international relations. What is order? Particularly, what is order in social life? Does order among people differ than order among states? Once the "best" definition of order and the "best" end from order are discovered, what mechanisms are to be implemented in order to reach that end? These are problems in which I'll be thinking about for the remainder of this academic year, given that I don't change my research area.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
the nation-state
I'm beginning to lose my faith in the nation-state. The nation-state which is such a new institution, relative to human existence, has become a political dogma. There must be a better system.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Truth
Recently I was listening to Noam Chomsky being interviewed and there was one thing I thought was worth sharing. For those of you who have a natural disposition to think, it may be worth reflecting on.
He was talking about an interview in which he had with a popular US magazine. Prior to the interview he was scheduled for a photo shoot. First they took about 200 photos of him. At the end of the session he was asked to take his glasses off. At first he refused because he claimed that he only takes his glasses off when goes to bed. Then he agreed to take them off for one shot. When the magazine was published they chose to use the photo of him without his glasses.
This may seem very trivial and beg the response, big deal. The point is that when the magazine published the interview and his photo they were not necessarily interested in the truth, but in marketing or trying to get the best piece out. Chomsky was wondering, as should we, is truth no longer the best. Does everything have to be manufactured and marketed to get the best result?
I don't know if there is a right-wrong or good-bad answer but it is interesting.
He was talking about an interview in which he had with a popular US magazine. Prior to the interview he was scheduled for a photo shoot. First they took about 200 photos of him. At the end of the session he was asked to take his glasses off. At first he refused because he claimed that he only takes his glasses off when goes to bed. Then he agreed to take them off for one shot. When the magazine was published they chose to use the photo of him without his glasses.
This may seem very trivial and beg the response, big deal. The point is that when the magazine published the interview and his photo they were not necessarily interested in the truth, but in marketing or trying to get the best piece out. Chomsky was wondering, as should we, is truth no longer the best. Does everything have to be manufactured and marketed to get the best result?
I don't know if there is a right-wrong or good-bad answer but it is interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)