Blog entries are in chronological order

January 3, 2005:  It is now the new year, my winter term course is going great, and since I doubt too many people are logging in to see my blog during the break, I'll keep it brief.  Relief efforts are mounting to help people victimized by the Tsunami in Southeast Asia.  The US increased its aid from $35 million to $350 million after severe criticism for doing too little.  Japan has pledged $500 million, and the US is also sending military help to the region.   A lot of the criticism of official US efforts may be a bit too severe.  While the US does not give much foreign aid to third world countries (as a percentage of GDP), in this case there is a massive amount of private giving from American citizens which is significant.  Still, $5,000,000,000 a month in Iraq vs. $350,000,000 total (though I suspect it will rise a bit) for Tsunami victims shows where our money is really going.  

January 7, 2005:  The Tsunami disaster has grabbed the world's attention, and in many ways I'm really heartened by the response it is generating.  I still find myself troubled by the issue of the impact on children.  CNN had a special where they talked about how people may prey on children left behind by turning them into slaves.  Some will be sold as sex slaves, others for menial labor, and others will be turned into soldiers.  The idea of a small child, losing his or her parents in a sudden disaster, and then being grabbed and abused and enslaved is so sad I couldn't listen to the story without having to fight back tears.  How can such a thing happen in the world, how can we allow it?  But what can we do?  People who abuse and use children like that are worse than terrorists.  Terrorists at least have some kind of cause they are fighting for, as evil as their methods are.  These people are just destroying lives for profit, and doing so in ways that cause long term suffering and psychological/physical damage.  Behind that, it goes on and on.  I don't think this is something we can solve with just more money, or 'getting the bad guys' through enforcement.  That would help.  But there are deep issues of culture, governmental priorities, international priorities, and building cooperation between states that need to be dealt with in order to destroy the capacity of groups to successful engage in such atrocities.  It really is sad to think of the people involved, knowing that millions out there, many very young, are caught in such a living hell.

I also found a story by a Swedish man, who told of how he was holding his two year old son and then as he shifted his grip he lost his son to the waves.  The son's last words were "daddy, I'm scared, help me."  He found his wife, but his son is still missing, almost certainly dead.  I couldn't watch that without breaking up, in no small part because my son is 21 months old and I suddenly was imagining what it would be like to be in that position.  I know that people are focusing too much  on the tourists rather than the natives, and that this is only one story out of many, but still the emotional impact of one story is something one has to be able to feel, since we get numbed by numbers like 150,000 dead.  That story was followed by the story on sex and slave trade of children, which put me in a rather numb mood for awhile anyway.  Since I started this "blog" at the time of the Beslan terrorist attack in Russia, the issues have been war, terrorism, and now disasters and sex trade/slavery.  And I really believe that I am feeling international relations more intensely than ever before.  I find myself emotionally slammed by these stories, as I imagine myself or my child in various circumstances, and think about what the people involved are experiencing.  But as I said a couple of entries ago, I can't let that make me cynical, angry, or apathetic.  That doesn't do anyone any good.  But one can't shove these issues aside.  There still is far more beauty and love in this world than evil and hate, no matter how much the latter makes the news.

January 20, 2005 – A new semester underway, and even after teaching, gee, 15 years now it still is fun to meet the students in a new class, and start rolling after a break.  To be sure, it was a short break thanks to winter term teaching, but I always enjoy the first week of class.  In my Introduction to International Relations course I’ve re-designed the entire course, dumping the textbook, and trying to integrate technology and student involvement more than before.  One goal is to work to make international relations real to students by stressing the human side as well as the social science side.  I don’t think those two things are contradictory, though the traditional approach to social science is that sentimentality and emotion cloud reason and scientific analysis.  If you study war or third world poverty, the argument goes, you should disengage yourself from the suffering or human cost, and look for causal relationships, and develop theory.  Only this way can one generate the knowledge required to practically solve problems.  Emotion can motivate the choice of a topic, but not the way a topic is studied.

At one level, that argument is accurate.  Science and reason have a power of their own, and polluting it with our subjective feelings likely does little more than obscure truth rather than enlighten.  However, humans do have emotions, and the reason why people don’t want war, don’t want human trafficking, don’t want famine, and don’t want suffering is because of a kind of emotional empathy we seem to naturally possess.  One can recognize that aspect of social life not only to choose a topic to study, but to integrate ethical concerns into the study.  The head has to rule the heart, not stop it from beating.

Especially for students first learning about war, third world poverty, human trafficking and the like, abstraction of the concepts to scientific categories to analyze avoids allowing students to truly learn what these things are.  We in the US have, for the most part, little contact with the kind of intense violence and poverty that affect much of the world.  We make choices about going to war, or about whether or not we should help another country, based on ignorance of what the choices really are, and what they mean in human terms.  It does no favor to students to say “this is social science, leave your emotions behind, there is no place for sentimentality.”  It also wouldn’t be right to go to the opposite extreme and say “forget science and analysis; feel the pain, do something!”  The goal in that course will be to wake students up to the reality of what events in the world mean to real, living people, and then work from there to develop the capacity to think critically and rationally about how to study, understand and perhaps solve the problems that we uncover.

January 21, 2005:    I'm impressed by the energy and idealism students are showing for various concerns and issues, there seems to be more student involvement than in recent years.   This is really a positive development, we all can play a role in shaping our community and even our planet, but too often people lock themselves into little cages of apathy.   There is a danger though, and I apologize in advance if this sounds preachy (but I get preachy at times -- blame genetics, my Grandfather was a Lutheran Minister).   There is one thing you have to avoid as you continue your education and activism is a world with too much war, and too much suffering.  You must at all costs avoid becoming a frustrated idealist.   Frustrated idealists become cynical, bitter, depressed and really rather sad.  You don’t want to go there; it isn't pretty.  The problem comes from the fact that they are good, principled people, and see the world as how it could be, how it should be.  Early on they want to change the world, make it right, and see progress.  But the world doesn’t work that way.  Change is slow, and even if 95% of what goes on is positive, the other 5% will stick out and force one to notice.  At some point they think, “my ideals were wrong, the world is a horrid place and not changing, and people are greedy and dishonest, unwilling to do what is necessary to make the world what it should be.”  That’s when the bitterness sets in, that’s when life becomes a burden, that’s when such people lose part of their soul.

Be more like Hubert Humphrey, the “happy warrior.”  Fight for your beliefs, recognize every little thing makes a difference (the old notion of a butterfly flapping its wings in the amazon causing major changes in weather down the line).  You won’t know the positive impact of all that you do, you won’t see how what is done in this life can be part of changes perhaps decades after we’ve finished our short dance on this planet.  So always hold on to your dreams, never surrender your ideals to cynicism, and keep your idealism pragmatic.  That is the secret to a happy life, not letting others, no matter how mean and nasty, to control your thoughts and your happiness.  Rather than letting the pain and suffering in the world bring you down, respond by doing little acts of kindness, knowing that you can’t solve everything.   Don’t wake up someday and find you’ve become a frustrated idealist.   That's all for today.

January 26, 2005:  Today is so far the deadliest day for American troops in Iraq -- 31 dead in a helicopter crash, and 5 others in separate attacks.  As Iraq moves towards elections, the violence continues.  Meanwhile, the Senate is set to confirm Condolezza Rice as Secretary of State, though not after a day of Democratic lambasting of the failures of the policy towards Iraq, and questioning Rice's honesty in presenting the threat before the war.

Will the elections help?  Perhaps.  If a new government comes to power that can claim legitimacy, and set a time table for the Americans to leave, that might undercut the insurgency.  On the other hand, if the new government is Shi'a dominated and seen by the Sunnis as a threat, it could move Iraq closer to civil war.  In that case, the insurgency could be long lasting, aided by support for the Sunni from Syria, and from terrorist organizations who are operating extensively despite the American presence.  If somehow the results are disappointing for the Sistani Shi'a list, and Allawi remains in power, there is a danger that the Shi'a loyal to Sistani (or al Sadr) could join the insurgency.  Now, they have focused on gaining power via these elections, the first time the majority Shi'a population in Iraq has had a chance for power.

That is the only reason the elections have a chance.  Sistani has ordered the faithful to vote, and squashed any desire from Shi'ite groups to violently resist the Americans.   Yet the Americans are nervous about his party, as it has extensive links to Iran.  The US is talking about Iran as a threat to the region, and recent reports suggest that the US may be close to unleashing a military attack on Iran.  I find that hard to believe -- Iran would be a much stronger opponent than Iraq, and we can't handle Iraq!   The claim is that Iran is close to being able to produce nuclear weapons (and of course the US can't be wrong about something that important, can it?)  But absent a real invasion, there is no way to know if an air strike or even a number of them really would get the targets.  Such strikes would likely arouse anger in Iran at the US (the fantasy folks who thought Iraqis would welcome Americans with flowers and candy think now that Iranians who want reform would welcome us weakening the current regime...fat chance!), and might even push Iraq towards Iran if the Shi'a are in control.   Iran is a Shi'a state, and since 1979 has a theocratic government.  If Iraq becomes the first Arab Shi'a state (Iran is Persian), close Iraqi-Iranian ties could thwart US goals in the region.

And our President?   I said once he's like Woodrow Wilson with a machine gun.  He is talking about "ending tyranny," and "expanding democracy."  Well, no one wants tyranny, and most of us want democracy expanded.  But using military force to do it suggests all you have to do is "get rid of the bad guys" and things will be alright.  That isn't how the world works; that kind of strategy will fail.  No state can "end tyranny," and as Walter Lippman pointed out long ago, states have to have foreign policies they are capable of achieving.  Otherwise, foreign policy disaster is likely.   Iraq is a mess.  The elections could help, and perhaps set Iraq on a path towards stability in years to come.  But they could make things far worse too, especially if Iran is attacked by the US or Israel. 

Meanwhile, in my International Relations class, students are reading "First They Killed My Father" by Loung Ung, who survived the Cambodian "autogenocide" as a little girl, and watching the film The Killing Fields about the same event, as I described a couple entries ago.   If not for American intervention in the region, the Khmer Rouge would likely have never gotten so popular, and the mass killing there might not have happened.  I wonder if politicians ever learn from history?    More on what we can learn from that case and this case later, but now this blog entry is already a bit long!

January 28, 2005:  This week in International Relations we watched The Killing Fields and students read the book First They Killed My Father by Loung Ung, who was five years old when the Khmer Rouge took power.  Belonging to a middle class family, she and her family had to flee Phnom Penh and try to survive.  It chronicles her struggles as they moved from village to village before she joined a Khmer Rouge labor camp.  The journal entries and web entries of students reacting to it shows that they are shocked, saddened, and appalled by the events.  More importantly, they are understanding that the reality of politics and international relations is human, not just abstract.   The role of the US troubles them, most never realized that the US invaded Cambodia, or flew over 3000 bombing missions.  This was before the Khmer Rouge came to power, but those actions helped generate antipathy to the US and the corrupt pro-American Lon Nol government, thereby allowing the Khmer Rouge to draw more recruits and become powerful enough to take over the country.  Today as we finished watching the film, I could tell a number of students had been crying and were moved.  The challenge now is to move from immersing students in a case they had never heard of before (only a handful of students had ever heard of the Cambodian genocide) to reflecting on what this means, why it happens, and how the international community deals with issues of human rights.

Usually those are the last issues covered in the course.  I used to start with the European angle -- how international relations developed, how theories emerged, the impact of the World Wars, and then consideration of theories of conflict, international political economy, and finally international law and organization.   This class is in a way reversed.  The Cambodian case will open a discussion on human rights, and how international organizations and international law can make an impact (ranging from UN intervention to various groups sponsoring the rescue of children, or efforts to remove landmines from places like Cambodia, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc.)   Then we'll move to looking at conditions in the third world.   Besides some academic readings, we'll read another book focused on Southeast Asia, The River's Tale.  It is not a poli-sci book, but rather the story of a New York Times reporter who journeyed down the Mekong river from Tibet through Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia, into Vietnam.  His portrayal of the cultures, lifestyles and people he encountered is gripping.  I like the fact it takes us back to Cambodia to connect with the first part of the course, but the purpose is also to simply get people to think about the reality of life in the Third World (in class we'll also discuss Africa and the problems there).  The last part of the course focuses on war and international conflict.  I think I'll cover most of the important poli-sci concepts, but more important in a country where students really don't know much about what is outside the US, and don't understand the issues, it's most important people come away from the course with not just knowledge of basic facts and theories, and a better comprehension of what all of this means in human terms.   

February 2, 2005:  In thinking about cases like Cambodia, the Balkans, and Rwanda, the question that is obvious is: are these exceptions to a human nature that is essentially kind of empathetic, or are these signs that humans have a deeply flawed nature.  I understand the different beliefs about human nature, and ultimately we can't "know" for sure. But I do think that the psychological bias of "ignorance of the non-occurrence" comes into play. We don't notice the good, we notice the bad.

The Balkans seems to be a case where the natural empathy people have is subverted by cultural beliefs which program people to fear other identities, or hate others by associating historical memories with them. That's perhaps why studies show that cognitive skills are more important than empathy in creating tolerance. If people understand reality, they won't fall for the nationalism, racism, fear, ideology and the like.  They won't be programmed to de-humanize the "other."

In the book "First they Killed my Father" by Loung Ung, who was five years old when the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia, she describes how in response to the horror she became filled with rage and hate for a time, fantasizing about killing the people who were killing her family. That strikes me as demonstrating WHY we have that capacity to de-humanize and hate; sometimes we need it to survive and to struggle.  Without that rage, she may have given up, or succumbed to the sadness of the tragedy that she so vividly describes.   So maybe human nature is basically good, but with a capacity to de-humanize and do evil -- a capacity that humans unfortunately need in some circumstances. The problem with modern society is that cultural, political, ideological and social conditions can be used to "turn on" that part of our nature in cases where it isn't truly needed. 

February 9, 2005:  Initial returns from the Iraqi election suggest that the Sistani list will garner a little over half the vote, while the Kurds are the second largest vote getter.  The American backed Allawi list is coming in a distant third, followed by the radical al-Sadr list and some Sunni parties.  This creates real dilemmas for the United States.  First, Sistani and the parties at the top of his list are allied with Iran.  Since it is likely that someone from this list will be the new Prime Minister, the US could be in an awkward position of threatening Iran (as Secretary of State Rice did today, as she condemned Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program) while supporting a state that is friendly with Iran.  Not only that, but we'll be training the army of a state that is likely to be allied with a state the US may contemplate attacking.  At the very least, that's tricky!  They had hoped Allawi would be strong enough to form a coalition with the Kurds and some of the more secular groups on the Sistani list.  That now seems unlikely.

If the new government emerges as pro-Iranian, it will clearly be a victory for Iran (just as the first Gulf War benefited Iran).  But it won't reflect a monolithic Shi'ite system.  Iraq's Sistani has a very different perspective on the role of Islam in politics than Iran's Khomeini (the one who guided the revolution in 1979).  Still, the dream of some in the administration of having a pro-American Iraq giving the US leverage to increase pressure on Iran seems to be slipping away, even as there is some hope that Iraq can stabilize in the coming years.

Secretary of State Rice also condemned and seemed to threaten Syria.  Syria is accused of aiding Iraqi insurgents, a charge they deny (though they admit they can't control all the border crossings).   What do we make of all of this, is the US set to expand the military conflict?  I think the answer has to be no, this has to be saber rattling to pressure these states, not a prelude to war.  The United States military is stretched extremely thin, the National Guard is in crisis in terms of numbers, and the idea of wars against Syria and Iran, which could destabilize the entire region, simply is inconceivable.  Furthermore, the budget President Bush sent to Congress has massive debt, dramatically cuts programs, increases what states have to pay, and has generated a lot of opposition, even from Republicans.  That budget doesn't even include the cost of the Iraq war (that is funded through supplemental budgets), let alone new ones.  Iraq demonstrates the limits of America's military power, and arguably weakens the effect that threats such as those being made by Secretary Rice will be taken seriously.  Iran knows the US doesn't have what it takes to launch a war.

But what about precision strikes to take out Iran's nuclear capacity?  That is conceivable, but unlikely to work, and could simply put the US in a box where we have to either retreat or escalate.  Given past history, the choice would probably be to escalate.  That is one scenario which could get us caught up in a mess we can't handle (not that we are really able to handle the Iraq mess), but for which there is no way out.   Similarly, Israel could strike Iranian reactors, or even attack Syria.  But given the progress on dealing with the Palestinian issue, I find it unlikely that Israel would start a war with Syria.   An Israeli strike on Iranian reactors has the same problem an American strike would have (they likely wouldn't get them), and that could bring the US into the picture.  So while all out war is unlikely, there are scenarios where, if the US or Israel believes that they can get political benefits with some limited missile strikes, things could spiral out of control into a situation that would be disastrous.

Bottom line: I really hope that Rice is simply providing rhetorical pressure, not really setting us up for a military strike, even if it is limited, and even if it is carried about by Israel.

February 11, 2005:  Is a new kind of McCarthyism lurking around the corner?  The attempt by the neo-fascist wing of American politics (read: the far right, especially some talk radio extremists) have been out to get a Colorado academic named Ward Churchill who wrote an inflammatory piece after 9-11, suggesting that many of the victims of the terrorist attacks were similar to the Nazis.   His reasoning was that many workers there support the military industrial complex and financial institutions that, in his view, do economic and military violence to third world states.  In essence, he makes the case for the terrorists against America, stating why the US is considered a legitimate target, for reasons that aren't just 'hatred of freedom' or 'evil insanity.' 

Is he convincing?  That should be the question people ask.  They should confront his argument and respond.  Instead, simply for suggesting that the terrorists may have a legitimate grip, and suggesting that some victims may have been doing evil, he is tarred and feathered by the neo-fascist wing of American politics (note: I do not use 'conservative' or even 'the right' here -- conservatives and 'right wingers' are not the same as this neo-fascist wing, which is still narrow) as being illegitimate simply for stating that view.  They have used death threats to keep him from a public speaking engagement, and are trying to get him fired.

Regardless of what anyone's view is about what he said (and I personally think that many of his points are valid, though I would disagree that in any way shape or form terrorism is justified by them), the fact is academia is predicated on the willingness and ability of people to put forth and defend ideas, especially those that might be politically incorrect, or challenge conventional wisdom and political authority.   Any attempt to stifle that by personally challenging people for the view they take (again, not refuting it, just attacking him for making the argument!) is anti-reason, anti-academic, anti-intellectual and anti-rational.  All of us in academia, including students, have to recognize that it is absolutely necessary to defend the right of people like Professor Churchill to speak out and address issues, even if it makes us uncomfortable.  This goes for the neo-fascist wing of the far left too, which has tried to silence free discourse in the past as well.

If someone makes an argument we find offensive or unsettling, attack the argument.  Refute the argument.  Don't try to get the other person fired or disciplined.   Academia is the world of ideas, and it is fundamental that no one attempt to stifle ideas.  We have to speak out against and confront the kind of McCarthyist attack that the Churchill case represents.

February 14, 2005:  In Iraq election results show the Shi'ite list backed indirectly by Sistani (the United Iraqi Alliance) with just under 48% of the vote.  A state department official speaking anonymously said it was very good that they didn't get a majority, because now they have to work with others.  The American media is also almost uniformly reporting that they lack a majority.  Well, that's just not yet clear!  True, 48% is not a majority, but that's 48% of hte raw popular vote.  Seats are proportioned by a formula which has qualifying points (a party or list has to earn a certain percentage of the vote, and provinces are important in this calculation more than the national vote), and it is by no means clear that the final proportion of seats won't be 50% or above.  It might not, but the way this is being reported seems another example of the American media not understanding the basics of political science, or how political systems work. 

Even if they do remain under 50% when seats are determined, there are so many minor parties or lists that are very close to the United Iraqi Alliance that they will not have be forced to seek out partners too diverse to have a majority.  On the other hand, the United Iraqi Alliance has diverse elements, and tough issues could break their solidarity.  Also, you'd need 2/3 agreement for final personnel decisions, and the constitution they'll construct could be veto'd by three provinces voting no (e.g., the Sunni or Kurd provinces). 

This election is not a good result for the American policy makers.  Iran emerges as the "winner," and as I noted a few days ago, the dream neo-conservatives had of an Iraq that was pro-American and helpful in pressuring other states in the region such as Iran is dead.  Iraq has cost a lot of money and lives, and the result has been an increase in terrorist recruitment, and a shift of power from the secular Sunnis to the Islamist Shi'ites who favor Iran (and, thinking of the bombing in Lebanon today which killed a former Lebanese Prime Minister) and would even support Hizbollah.  In short, this war was a fiasco.  Perhaps we can over time repair the damage, but we can't bring back the tens of thousands of lives lost or disrupted. 

February 16, 2005:  Can they be "Syria-es" (serious)?  There is a lot of hawkish talk arising against Syria after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.  Hariri was seen as the best hope to work toward reform in Lebanon, and end the presence of Syrian troops (who were originally brought in with the support of the US against the PLO).   He was close to French President Chirac, and was planning  a come back.  Many are accusing Syria of being involved, though there is no evidence of that, and Hariri had numerous enemies.

Given that in class today we talked about how an assassination led to WWI, it's a bit alarming to see the US withdraw its Ambassador and deliver a "stern note" to Syria.   The talk coming from the administration is tough, adding to their accusations that Syria has been supporting the insurgency.  Some suggest that Syria is in the way of a settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis, and that "regime change" in Syria could make things easier in both Iraq and Israel.  All of that is ridiculous. 

We see in Iraq the difficulties of imposing a democracy, and the failure of extremely optimistic predictions that regime change in Iraq would lead to stability and make it easier to put pressure on Iran.  As I noted last time, Iraq's election is actually making it more difficult for the US to deal with Iran, and violence in Iraq remains intense.  The US is still stuck in a quagmire.  To attack Syria would seem insane.  Perhaps the hawks on Syria believe that expanding the war might create an opening for a dramatic change that isn't coming soon to Iraq.  Maybe.  But the dramatic change would more likely be for the worse rather than the better.  Of course, there still is Iran to worry about.

Perhaps all the talk about Iran, Syria (and don't forget North Korea -- not wanting to be brushed aside by all the headlines from the Mideast, they boldly announced to the world that they did indeed have nuclear weapons last week) is just that - talk.  Perhaps the Bush White House has learned from Iraq, and having burnt their hand on that stove once, aren't going to make the same mistake.  In that case, this is just old fashioned harsh rhetoric to try to pressure a country to change.  That doesn't seem to work much, and given the weakness of the US hand, probably won't work here.  Maybe  a different sort of diplomacy is needed.

February 28, 2005:  Due to the break its been awhile since my last entry.  In Iraq it is clear that (as I suggested was likely) the UAI has a majority in the parliament, and is likely to dominate with their pro-Iranian perspective.   But they are not truly united, and the system demands compromises between groups, so it's not clear what kind of government will form.  Today over 100 recruits  were killed in a suicide attack, even though Saddam's half brother was arrested in Syria.  (Gee, the Syrians are arresting people and turning them over to Iraq -- perhaps the pressure on Syria is working, though the neo-conservatives who really want 'regime change' in Syria might be upset that Syria is removing an excuse for war with this cooperation).   On and on it goes, where it stops nobody knows...(that's a line from an old song, by the way).

I was thinking the other day about how people react to what's going on in the world and the role of the US.  There seems to be a distinct lack of a desire to think critically about our actions, or to question what we're doing.  Because just about everybody knows someone in the military, they don't like to think about whether or not that person is doing something just or good; questioning that would be to think that perhaps a friend or family member is at best involved in a pointless venture, and at worst supporting a kind of evil.  The danger is that our desire not to face possible uncomfortable conclusions leads people to simply ignore the issue.  And society makes that so easy -- our songs, our news sources, our culture mixes a "comfortable patriotism" with a range of distractions ranging from new fashion trends to TV and sports making it easy to avoid thinking about anything else.  We're too busy, and there is a comfortable pleasant alternative to tough reflection.

But, you might say, there are a lot of anti-war folk out there, surely they must be thinking critically.  Not necessarily.  The issues are tough, and the "camps" too often divide along partisan lines rather than reflective lines.  There is an anti-Bush subculture that includes critical elements alongside knee jerk elements, just as there is a pro-Bush subculture with similar attributes.  I worry that the people either in favor or against the war based on critical reflection are a minority.  Most people just don't take the time to think through things, most follow a script of what to think and how to react that emerges from our popular culture, driven in part by not wanting to confront possible dilemmas or uncomfortable conclusions.  In a democracy, we rely on a critical and reflective public for our strength.  That means at first being willing to accept that ones' existing view might be wrong, and not to "pick sides" in some kind of partisan squabble.  It requires individual, critical and reflective thought and analysis, with only a desire to analyze as clearly and completely as possible.

Current blog