Reflection: Power in Numbers

If I could summarize my first week of classes in a couple of words, it would be my feelings as a “small fish in a huge pond.” My self-identity as a “small fish” can only be explained by the piercing and everlasting passion that the global scholars' cohort has, as well as the freshman class in intellectual curiosity and for implementing change. Somehow, the academic passion and political atmosphere, one of the main reasons I applied to American, has become the most frightening thing. From my small town in northern New Jersey, I was one of the only politically involved students in my school and now I am attending one of the top politically active universities in the country. 

While at first, I found these differences in backgrounds intimidating and became lost in obsessing over my worth and value in a group that can contribute so much, I soon realized that mindset would not allow me to grow and evolve. It is admirable to view how all our different upbringings and roots have led us to American University as Global Scholars. I doubt I will ever not be, at least a little, overwhelmed, in the idea of how truly global we all are, but that is what inspires me. Hearing our discussions and seeing how each individual has so much to contribute, is truly inspiring. We are a school of fish, each one of us is vital for our academic survival. Our challenges make us stronger and build a new community that is not based on our pasts. 

In combination with the idea of community being formed over one event, The Truth About Awiti by CP Patrick showcases the theme of being a “small fish in a huge pond.” Although Awiti was the instigator in forming these destructive and terrifying storms, she needs the help of other slave spirits. One angry spirit is never enough and that is why Awiti gathered up a community of slaves. She built a strong army, connecting to all their waves of anger and uniting them through their desire for revenge. It is fascinating how powerful something can become when many small parts join together.

Finding The Roots

In my first Culture and Religion class with Professor Abu-Nimer we talked about being able to find commonality between seemingly irreparable goals when confronting conflict. That classroom conversation caused me to think about one of my most formative reads over the past year, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher and William Ury. In the book, they laid out techniques on how to discover and then work off a common ground to help aid successful negotiations. That morning I had entered my writing class where we talked about the idea of a ‘second conversation’ in writing where it becomes a reader’s responsibility to not only consume the surface topic the author is writing about, but to discover the underlying conversation the author is entering in as well. In many cases, this might be the topic you care about. For instance, someone might not be interested in boxing, but they might be a social justice activist interested in how boxing worked as a mode of social mobility. Even in our world politics classroom discussion on how to create a healthy ‘community of learning,’ people mentioned that when debating we should try to understand the background of the individual and how that has shaped their current perspectives. Basically, my week should be themed: Finding the Roots; finding the root cause of conflict, the root goals and interests of a country, group, or individual, the root issue a writer is trying to get to, and the root values of a person. Being a human that likes to narrow things down to a nice conclusion, motto, or moral to follow like an algebra student in search of x, I narrowed my theme of the week to one lesson: In deeper understanding there lies commonality.  

Now, how does this relate to our class discussions or the question of the week?  Well, when Wednesday passed, and I began to read different people’s blogs and listen to our cohort’s conversations concerning their take on the most pressing issue in world politics, I got excited. People discussed topics ranging from climate change, border disputes, gun control, to, as one blogger put it, the “Cold war Redux”. These topics may seem disparate, but upon a closer read, I realized there is a commonality within many of my classmate’s blogs. People are concerned with growing partisanship. This partisanship takes on a troubling role within a singular country’s government such as the case with US gun control policy, or, more often the case in this week’s blogs, it rears its head across state borders. In many of my peer’s blogs the partisanship was labeled as nationalism, yet in others it was more vaguely depicted with the issue of being unable to unite in finding a solution for a common issue such as in some of the blogs on climate change and the blog on the rising migrant crisis. Asim Siddiq in his blog “A World on the Brink of Disaster” described, what I believe is the issue of partisanship, as the “constant power struggle, [where] countries remain too busy trying to one-up another rather than solving any real issues.” In issues across the board we are being confronted with a frustrating rise of partisanship that makes any attempts to solve common problems on the international scale ever the more difficult.  Now the question becomes, if no one wants to work together to solve an actual global issue how can we solve the issue of not working together? If my lesson of the week rings true, maybe throughout the year if we can practice in our class looking a little deeper and striving for a deeper understanding of world politics, we can find a solution and a common process of getting there.  

A parable used in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher and William Ury (paraphrased by me) 

Two people are fighting over the last orange exclaiming immovably that they both need it. What do you do? 

You split the orange and half and send them on their way, but both remain unsatisfied despite the sharing appearing to be fair. 

You bring the both back, but this time you ask them WHY they each require the orange. The one says she wants to make freshly squeezed orange juice. The other says she wants to make orange cupcakes. This time you send on of them off with the juice produced from squeezing the orange while you send the other one off with the left over peel to make orange zest. Both leave happy and satisfied. 

  

Gun Control: Controversial Shift- Blog 1

Access to a gun is something that is becoming more easily accessible. In today's world buying a gun is just a few clicks away, and guns are being sold and bought by individuals who are not legally authorized to have possession of a gun. According to The Second Amendment of the US constitution” A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But what if this right is impeding on the human right to life? What if this right is leaving school children and grocery store shoppers in a constant state of anxiety since they could never know if they may become a victim of the next active shooter event? All in all, the central question is with accessibility to firearms being so easy, how do we protect our nation from the dangers of misuse? With the recent active shooting events reflecting a misuse of firearms, and gray areas in the governance of firearms, gun control has proven itself to be the most pressing issue in world politics. 

Living in Cincinnati, Ohio just shy of a year, I resided in the city at a critical time, which has been considered one of Cincinnati's most violent year regarding gun violence. One thing that saddened my heart about this reality is the simple fact that many of the faces shown on news station were people of color. Many of the guns involved in these deadly gun crimes were committed using guns that were illegally accessible on the streets. Week after week, the community suffered more deaths and dangerous altercations, and no one could seem find a solution for the violent episodes. The main conclusion the city has come to is the fact that the root of all the violence starts at home, and many of the people involved in shootings are from populations more susceptible to a lack of direction, support, education, and mental health issues. One solution to this could be the government requiring certain gun education and awareness to be taught in school, which would establish a culture of gun safety, and equip families with the proper resources to encourage safer home environments. This would help prevent and heal community trauma (Prevention Institute).

Observing the gun-laws in countries with the lowest rates of gun violence should guide the U.S in a direction in which gun-violence decreases in the U.S. In Japan, which has the lowest rate of guns owned, as well as the lowest rate of gun related homicides, a way that Japan achieves this low rate is through strict restrictions on specialty weapons (CFR). This restriction decreases the opportunity an active shooter would have to carry out a malicious plan because he or she would lack the proper resources. Another good example of strategic gun control leading to a decrease in gun-related deaths is the UK's Firearms Amendment Act, which tightened the weapon list, and banned some semiautomatic guns (CFR). The government's choice to do so has proven to have had a positive impact on the amount of gun violence the country has experienced since.

Another solution to the issue of gun violence would be more government funding for mental health in communities and for individuals. In many of the U. S’s deadliest active shooter incidents there was a disconnection "from healthy relationships and from belonging to a broader community" (PBS).  The shooters were lacking an important aspect of the human existence, and in many cases were left feeling unfulfilled and angered because they feel they deserve the same human experience as a human with healthier human interactions. If more funding was allocated to mental health by the government, then people would have the opportunity to learn more about building healthy relationships and balancing mental health. People dealing with diagnosed mental illnesses may even develop the courage to stand up. Ultimately, all lives matter, as well as all rights matter, and this fact would be better reinforced and supported by the American people receiving more support from the government to combat the ill consequences of poor gun control. To conclude, changes to gun control laws in the U.S would lead to a controversial political shift, and a fight for what many American see as a violation of their second-amendment rights. 

Sources:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/why-mental-illness-cant-predict-mass-shootings

https://www.preventioninstitute.org/focus-areas/preventing-violence-and-reducing-injury/preventing-violence-advocacy

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons

Cyberwarfare: The Evolution and Escalation of Global Conflict

“Technology goes beyond mere tool making; it is a process of creating ever more powerful technology using the tools from the previous round of innovation.” –Ray Kurzweil (Singularity Hub)

The pace at which technology has progressed throughout the past century is hard to comprehend. From the Ford Model-T to Teslas and "smart cars", and computers the size of large rooms shrinking into the screens that slide into your pocket; society has benefitted greatly from the forward momentum of innovation. People can get from place to place in record times, sharing information and media is easier than ever, communicating across continents takes a simple press of a button. 

Yet, these revolutionary developments in technological capabilities that have boosted the quality of life have also brought about insidious mechanisms to cause destruction, escalating global conflict. The urgent nature of the matter is realized in Moore's Law which contends that the efficiency/capability of computers doubles roughly every two years [Encyclopedia Brittanica]. This makes the lurking dangers of cybercrime one of the fastest-growing threats to both public and private entities with no geographical barriers.

In recent years the need for protection against large scale, heavy-hitting cyber-attacks has skyrocketed.  Shockingly recent incidents—such as the August 2019 cyberattack campaign allegedly perpetrated by APT10, a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group, against major US utility companies [Forbes] or Mircosoft's July 2019 report on nearly 800 Russian and Iranian cyberattacks launched against foreign NGOs, political campaigns and Thinktanks [WSJ]—support this claim.

As a result, this new plane of warfare forces governments to pour money and redirect limited resources into cybersecurity. A study conducted by the Ponemon Institute, a prominent cybersecurity research group, shows that attacks are taking increasingly longer to recover from and costing more and more to prevent/defend against [LA Times].

Even assuming that the nations and large private corporations of the international community could afford the mechanisms by which to sufficiently defend themselves, there is a final element of cyberwarfare that is perhaps harder to deal with: the ambiguous and intangible nature of attacks. For example, the difference between intelligence efforts and violent strikes is hard to distinguish when it comes to cyberwarfare. Additionally, dramatic incidents that stir national governments into action, such as the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor or 9/11, are inherently less likely to be as identifiable and emotional events when it comes to cyberwarfare. This results in a situation in which cybercrimes allow for discrete and anonymous—yet brutally destructive—mediums of attack.

  

In conclusion, the impact of cyber warfare on both public and private sectors, as well as its difficult-to-trace strikes, and seemingly uninhibited reach combine to create an unsettlingly powerful threat to world politics.

Blog Post #1: Global Imperialism

A political cartoon depicting England's imperialistic nature.

The most pressing issue facing world politics today is global imperialism and the effects this long-lasting practice has had on less developed countries. The success of many of today's more developed nations has been built on the backs of developing countries. These countries continue to be taken advantage of, stifling their own development and perpetuating the issue of extreme poverty.

Take the Rwandan genocide for example. Back in 1916 when Belgium colonized the country, the two different ethnicities in Rwanda—the Tutsis and Hutus—had to carry identity cards, and Belgium gave preferential treatment to the Tutsis. Tensions between the two ethnicities increased and so when Belgium granted Rwanda independence in 1962, the Hutus took over and genocide ensued. Rwanda is still recovering from the genocide and is developmentally struggling to catch up with the rest of the world. Rwanda is ranked 158 of 189 countries in the Human Development Index (HDI), which is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable, and have a decent standard of living. This lack of development leads to lower levels of education, older technology, and a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP), among other things. According to the World Bank, Rwanda's GDP in 2018 was $9,509.00 million USD, while Belgium's was much higher, at $531,766.94 million USD. This stark difference in GDP shows how Belgium benefited from having Rwanda as a colony and how hurt Rwanda became. This lack of development leads to greater possibility for extremist organizations to grow as they target and recruit from local populations, greatly threatening our global security. A lack of development leads to poverty, where individuals face hardships such as food insecurity, lack of clean water, and lack of a quality education. All of these issues create the possibility for health risks as well as a population more apt to violence and a weaker economy. Imperialism has certainly left its mark on the countless countries it has affected, and will continue to threaten the world if not properly addressed.

Imperialism is not currently being kept in check as we watch China infiltrate many vulnerable countries. In Africa, Chinese companies are making contracts with governments to help develop land, which seems like a noble cause at face value. When you dig a little deeper, you can see China's exploitation of African people and resources in the way they take their natural resources without transferring any skills to local populations. In Sri Lanka, a Chinese state-owned company made a deal with the government to help build a port in a very strategic location, giving the country a loan to help finance the project. However, China knew Sri Lanka wouldn't be able to afford the loan payments, so they gained control of the port and 15,000 acres of land around it for 99 years in December, when the payments couldn't be made anymore. This modern imperialism not only stifles the native Sri Lankan economy, but threatens their political sovereignty as it is kept in debt to China and feeds China's imperial ambitions.

If we allow countries like China to continue these actions and don't help the countries that have already been affected by them, then we will end up with an unbalanced world not living up to its full potential.

Press: The Most Pressing Issue

Perhaps one of the only things that can connect all people is the spreading of news, whether it be by gestures, word, television, or paper, all humans are linked together in their deep-rooted desire to know things and share perspectives on their surroundings. Our world is formed by these connections and our politics are deepened by the passage of news from ear to ear. If reliable and truthful media is so important, how have we allowed the media to become so deindividualized, consolidated, and censored when being created and distributed?

From Gutenberg to Gates, the platform and distribution of media has undergone a multitude of changes. One of the most pressing concerns of the content civilians receive today is the mass consolidation of media outlets by only a small handful of major corporations. This media conglomerate has diminished the legitimacy of the published press; reducing investigative journalism and feeding different variations of the same story to major news outlets. Without the support of new and explorative content, journalism is left in the hands of the suits of Wall Street, a place where words are only valued by their dollar sign, not their meaning.

On top of that, a multitude of countries are still under the red hand of censorship. How are the citizens of North Korea supposed to fight for their political rights when they are fed media that forces them to support a centralized dictatorship? Aid and change cannot be provided for these countries until their voices can be heard in the news. This censorship and shortage of real news are contributing to the lack of cohesion and organization between rulers. 

When the public is not allowed to find their own beliefs in the truth and is instead swayed to believe certain sides, politics does not bend on the scale to justice, but instead corruption. Still, why would the media consolidation be the world’s most pressing issue, when the amazon rainforest is in flames, Yemen is in a Civil War, and the United Nations and European Union often seem absent in times of need? The thing is, if the media remains unreliable and illegitimate, opinions and perspectives from major corporations will continue to be placed on individuals. This leaves our most powerful leaders, not working to better the same world, but in their own world, and nowhere closer to enacting solutions to the problems that plague this globe. When media is not truthful, how can world politics be?

Is International Cooperation at Risk?

There are few issues governments around the world can agree on. There are even fewer matters individuals can all unite over. The question of what is the most pressing issue in world politics today, is not one of those. Depending on a person’s or nation’s perspective the most pressing global concern might be the lack of sanitized water and malnutrition, the refugee crisis, or climate change. The interconnection of issues further complicates the debate as it morphs into a chicken or the egg argument. For instance, a global cohort may agree that poverty is a pressing concern, however, one country might believe lack of education is the root issue while another country believes lack of resources is the true pressing matter. One issue, however, shakes the very foundation of global cooperation. It has the potential to prevent any substantive  attempts to unite internationally with the purpose of solving any one of the myriad of multifaceted global issues. What issue could possibly have the potential to divide the global community worse than football divides Pennsylvania residents? Nationalism. 

Some people believe patriotism and nationalism are one in the same, so they might beg the question, “What the big deal is about some national pride?” Although originally these words might have been synonyms, in today’s climate there is a fine, but important, line between nationalism and patriotism. For the sake of this blog, I will follow the distinction set by Merriam- Webster (link below). Where patriotism is the love and devotion to one’s country, nationalism comes into play when a person begins promoting their country, culture, and interests above all other differing nations or identity groups. In current events, nationalism has reared its ugly head in Brexit negotiations, elections from France to Brazil to the United States, and the Syrian refugee crisis has produced multiple examples across Europe and Australia. Nationalism can depicted with the rise of white supremacy movements in the United States which have resulted in a concurrent rise of hate crimes and xenophobia. Empathy for people of other nationalities is, arguably, on the decline in unfortunate conjunction with the increase of an isolationist mindset and racism. If the current trend of nationalism continues and international cooperation deteriorates, how can we expect to combat current or future global issues like climate change, poverty, or refugee crises? 

 

The above video is from one of my very favorite T. V. shows, Madame Secretary. One of the topics deliberated in the most recent season was, in fact, nationalism. I believe the above clip did an excellent job of outlining some concerns and important points surrounding the topic. I would love to hear what you think! If you require subtitles or would like to watch the episode in full, I encourage you to log into a Netflix account and look it up!

Nationalism v Patriotism definition link

Click here for an interesting article on nationalism by BCC