Juggling Act

Just because one theory out of realism, constructivism, and liberalism may be "right" does not mean that the others are wrong. Even if they are incompatible.

The reason for this is because, while you may hold to your one opinion, other countries may hold to a different one. Whether or not the other country's chosen theory is "right", they will follow it and therefore shape the world according to their theory. No matter if they would gain more from following the "right" theory. It would be your folly to be so naive as to ignore the fact that not everyone follows your philosophy and that they will make decisions that affect you, whether or not you like it. Countries must be mindful of other philosophies to be proactive (find the "fox" in you, to channel Machiavelli). Then you could protect yourself from any negative externalities. However, if you choose not to acknowledge that other countries follow different philosophies you will be hurting yourself--possibly lowering yourself to their level or even lower. And then by acknowledging these other philosophies you are legitimating them--which is why they aren't necessarily "wrong".

My logic doesn't just apply to these three theories either. It's more of a philosophy-in-general thing.

We're different.

Truth be told, there isn’t a set way to rule a country. If not, there would have been a manual out by now and everyone would have been doing it. Thing is, different countries, different cultures, different people, different societies all behave differently (hopefully you caught my drift)  and approach issues within the country in order to address the status quo.

The reason why constructivism, liberalism, and realism all exist is because people have developed different needs and the governing body had to address these needs through different means. The governing body has to assure that it has the resources to maintain its people and regulate their behavior in society in order to function as one country. Is one approach more efficient than the other? Not really. Its more about, “which one satisfies people the most and allows me, the governing body, to get the work done?”

Some countries prefer to mute its citizens and hope that their actions will ultimately lead to better results, despite the consequences and hardships society might encounter. Others believe that the best would be to listen to the people or their history to make proper choices. The latter will most definitely give you, the ruler (or government) the advantage to claim that you're only representing the people's wishes (so you won't get full blame for it.)

In the end, you're not going to apply Latin American politics in Asia. Who does that? There is such a great degree of cultural spread that both cannot be applied interchangeably. Are there overlaps? In every culture there are, but the exact similarities will be very minimum. Within these places, you will always find groups that have been excluded from sharing their opinion, and that is where cultures will cross. There will always be suppression of women and minorities.

You’re never going to get a full set on method to approach issues within a country, but it would be convenient to listen to the people and their needs. Perhaps even learn how they want you to execute their ideas. It usually helps. Simply remember that what you do in one country, you can't always do in another.

Oh, the French....

As an American, it was very difficult to understand France’s approach to immigration and French identity. Hearing the diplomat say things like “It’s okay to study another language, as long as you also speak French,” was a huge shock since generally any reference to a “national language” is seen as politically incorrect in the United States. The diplomat highlighted the fact that it was always “French first”. He went into detail explaining that even if you are not ethnically French, to be a proper French citizen you must call yourself “French” over your country of origin, birth, or nationality. This was very strange to me because growing up in the U.S. I became accustomed to answering the typical “What are you?” or “Where are you from?” questions by saying either Arab, Syria, or Arab-American, respectively. In the U.S., people of other ethnicities typically identify themselves first with their country of origin usually paired with “American” (African-American, Arab-American, Latin-American). I could tell by the perplexed looks on everyone else’s faces that they were pretty shocked and confused too.
Additionally, the stance on Arabic/North-African Muslim immigration particularly disturbed me since it was a little personal. Sure, they can claim that the ban on the Niqab and Burka was to assimilate women of all ethnicities to engage with each other and to promote fairness and equality to oppressed Muslim women, but many would agree that this was simply a move to discourage and impede immigration from that demographic. Criticism for French immigration policies is nothing new, and I fear this ban may lead to more controversial policies intended to prevent Arabic/Islamic culture to mesh into the national French identity, such as a ban on the Hijab.
France’s unique national identity, and their stance on its preservation, seems to dim out other cultures in an attempt to maintain their own. While this approach to national identity is not unique France, it is strange to see an extremely democratized, western state take such measures.

Err.. Baseball

I realized I don’t like baseball. It’s not my cup of tea. I don’t understand the logic or even the enjoyment can have of watching one person come up to bat, followed by another, and another.. its never-ending and tiresome. Honestly, its all about the individual and not the group. What’s the point of having a team then? Neverthless, I was impressed by the crowd in the game. Although the stadium wasn’t quite packed, everyone seemed united. Maybe it was because there were screens telling people when to clap or scream or chant. It made me feel more American than I have ever felt. Really. Perhaps it was George and Benjamin racing or the fact that the Nationals colors are red and white, followed by the occasional blue in the background, that I felt as if I was finally embracing the American culture I had so long heard of. I remember watching cartoons when I was younger and developing my own idea of what happened in the baseball stadium. There were peanuts! And hotdogs!

Now, is this similar to what I find at home? Err.. not really. I’ll give it you Americans, you keep your act together during the game. I would be surprised if I was at a soccer game and people didn’t end up breaking into a major fight. I know everyone can’t keep their act together (meaning Americans), but I haven’t heard of a shooting following a baseball game. Why is it so? I mean, in Honduras you know to get out of the stadium ASAP because if not, you’ll confront two major soccer gangs.

I really don’t know how to tie things in the end. Baseball isn’t my thing, but I admire the sportsmanship from both the team and their fans. I wonder though, if Honduras were to get rid of the hooliganism in regards to soccer, will it have the same impact on society? Will it mean as much? People are “hooligans” because they find that they cant find their place in society and are able to develop an identity with soccer. Will we be hurting society? It unites the country, but hurts it at the same time. 

Identity from the Outside in

Which came first, the chicken, or the egg? As with people, nations tend to form their identity based on what others think of them. It would seem appropriate for a country's citizens to form their own identity from shared characteristics (language and other commonalities like money), but I find that it's the opinions of outsiders who really form the identies.

For example, the United States didn't label itself the economic powerhouse of the 20th century. It kind of just 'happened' and then when other countries started looking up to the United States after WWI for guidance and military power, the United States stepped up to it's new role as a global power. Since then, Americans have clung to that identity.

Nor did the United States send out Americans back in the 1800s to tell outsiders that the Untied States was the "land of opportunity". No, that came from the outside in as well.

At the French Embassy, it was also obvious that the French were clinging to their own idea of themselves through their language. They're doing this because in recent years, individual European countries are blurred into the whole of the European Union. Everyone wants an identity of their own, and the French have been used to being considered a leader in Europe so they won't let their above-average identity get mixed in with the rest.

Another bit of French identity--wine and cheese--would also not be a major part of their identity if not pointed out by others. It was not the French who determined that their wine and cheese was better than anyone else's. Someone on the outside has to point out that their wine and cheese was superior to their own before the French could legitimate this as an identifying character.

Reflection:Identity Crisis

When we first started this week and listened to the constructivism podcast, I have to say I was pretty confused. It seemed to cover so much. There was mention of multi-lateral institutions and matters of identity and everything in between. Now that we've talked about it in class it seems to mostly be about identity and how it plays into states' actions and reactions towards other states. It really caused me to reflect on our own identity. It is something I have been concerned about for quite some time now.

In South Florida where I grew up, we have a large mix of just about every ethnicity you could think of. The two largest minorities are Hispanics and Blacks. We have serious identity issues in South Florida. Kids walk around with backpacks that have the Venezuelan, Colombian, Puerto Rican, Haitian, etc... flag on them. Even though most have limited knowledge about world affairs they would often discuss how much they think America is terrible and they wish they could go back to their own country. Part of this is just ignorance and maybe a lot of it is the current economic situation. This is not something that is going to help our nation in the future. We need people who are going to care about what happens here and want to make a difference. There are limited shared values and frankly many of us just don't get along.

There is no appreciation for our nation and those that sacrifice to make the life we enjoy possible. This is not just among the minorities from abroad however, which is even more disturbing. It is the average wasp too. They would say the pledge over the intercom and no one would stand up and say it except for me. Not because they disagreed with it, but because they were too darn lazy to stand up and say it. Some would dismiss this and say they were doing out of some sort of self-righteous disagreement of American policy but that was just an excuse. I would end up shaming people including teachers into standing up and saying it. The teacher who is supposed to be an example to others just sat there, surfing the web while the pledge was going on. This is main reason why we will be surpassed by other nations like China who have much more nationalistic pride than us.

I will end this with an example demonstrating why the demise of our nation could occur. My philosophy teacher asked the class after we watched Saving Private Ryan, "Let's just say hypothetically if China attacked us on our turf, who would sign up and join to fight them?" I raised my hand, a sort of aggressiveness building in me already even though it was hypothetical. I looked around and realized I was the only one in the class of thirty except for one other kid. I looked at the teacher in desperation. He said, "Yeah, I don't think I would either. I'd probably run and take it easy until it blew over or something." This was disgraceful, disgusting, and disturbing to me. Imagine if the world had said that about the expansion of Nazi Germany. We'd all be speaking German right now. Fortunately I feel that this culture of thinking and acting is limited to areas like South Florida. I guess the question is, is this lack of identity and pride a result of the enormous diversity or is it some other factor at play?

Normal... But Only If They Say So

If Obama were to announce tomorrow morning that women would no longer be allowed to drive in the United States, I suspect that it would not just be Republicans painting Hitler mustaches on the President’s face. Yet to the 27 million residents of Saudi Arabia, such a law has become an acceptable piece of infallible legislation. While we may deem Hugo Chavez an out of control socialist and label Khamenei as a crazy old man, these leaders are not in fact crying out for psychiatric care, but rather exercising their power within a delicate range they have found to be acceptable within their territories. Supreme leaders are not stupid, but rather sly creatures with heightened political instincts that allow them to test the extent of their power. There are undoubtedly social norms and expectations within each nation, but rather than limit the power of a government, these unofficial codes are most commonly set by the nation’s administration. The United States was formed as a representative democracy, thus leading our population to feel entitled to certain rights as American citizens; however, the people of Nigeria have come to accept the corruption and human rights violations that exist under the Jonathan regime. Why? Because this is all they know, and all Nigeria has ever shown them. Consider the Islamic Republic of Iran: Prior to 1979, the Shah ran a somewhat democratic operation under the watchful eye of the United States. Once Khomeini entered and seized control, democracy was thrown out of Iran, and this charismatic leader warped societal norms and crippled previous expectations. The West can mock the Ayatollah all it wants, but his cunning disposition and manipulative powers cannot be denied.

Unfortunately, this manipulation often goes unnoticed. I never like to assume, but I would consider it a fair assumption to state that American citizens feel as though they are entitled to a certain level of privacy, and that it is a societal norm to not have the government meddling in your personal affairs. Yet In recent US history, the PATRIOT Act of the Bush (or shall I say Cheney) Administration seems to have trampled that assumption. Perhaps these cunning leaders, with their use of fear tactics and hot button phrases like “national security,” manipulated society’s expectations to advance an agenda…all within the established and tested delicate range. After all, even Bush wasn’t dumb enough to take away a woman’s right to motor vehicles. They are well aware of just how far they can push our norms.

Yet sometimes leaders go to far. Green movements arise in a not so stable Iran, and history has shown us the ramifications of a leader acting outside of the acceptable range of power abuse. For the Che has spoken, and “against brute force and injustice, the people will have the last word – that of victory.”

Social Norms and States

As we talked about states and where they derive their power and authority from, something occurred to me. I realized that once a system is in place, especially after a long time, that it is less likely to be challenged and more likely to be followed to some extent and even supported by the population. As people grow up in our society or any society for that matter, they become accustomed to that way of life. It is only really, when people get a taste of something better or have a good situation go bad that they rebel. That being said, the state has alot of room to maneuver and act in its interest. People are raised such as in America, that the state's interests are the same as the people's. This is because their identity of who they are and what they stand for is linked to the territory they occupy and the social norms established by the state.

In America, our social norms include a culture of individualism and freedom. This restricts the state in a large way. However, the state will use this to take action as well. For instance when the state feels threatened it will appeal to the norms of protecting our freedoms for justification of an action. One could argue that this is a sort of propaganda but I would disagree and say that this is a very real part of our identity and when the state feels threatened in this manner the people genuinely feel the same way. This is what allows the state to take such broad action that you wouldn't expect out of a liberal democracy. In a nation like ours however there are still moves that the people would see as clearly violating our social norms. For example, many cities in the United States advocate putting more surveillance cameras in public areas. They want to do this to help manage national security. However, despite this clear and precise reasoning, many Americans feel uncomfortable with this and have voiced their concerns through organizations such as the ACLU. It is not the norm in America to have surveillance everywhere. We have always been afraid of the "Big Brother" government. This is not the case in Great Britain.

I would make the case that each state's power and abilities are limited to the social norms and tradition established by each state respectively. Great Britain has no issue with their extensive public surveillance because people are comfortable with it and see it as a role government should be playing. However in the US, our culture and tradition that make up our social norms make this uncomfortable and people are unwilling to allow the state to pursue this. In countries like North Korea where the norm has been isolation and ignorance, the state gets away with much more because that has been the norm and is expected in that country.

Social Norms

For a country, its social norms are developed by the people, meaning, every country will technically have a different set of norms, yet there is a possibility of overlapping. Based on history and culture, society will create a set of norms that it deems necessary for all members to follow in order to eliminate inappropriate behavior and encourage a unified community. Normally, members who choose not to follow the established norms will find themselves facing penalties for their wrongful behavior.

One can question whether or not the people or the government are the ones who establish these norms within society. In the U.S, the belief that a social contract is upheld within its borders allows citizens to uphold their civic duty in checking the balance of power of the government and ensuring that authority does not take advantage of its position and deviate from its role. Since the state then is a representation of the people, then one can assume that a state must represent the groups that live within the country. Conduct that singles out a state or leads to the persecution (not necessary a violent one, but where the country views negatively on a group). Although, this statement varies with every state. Society is going to expect for their representatives to support the views of the majority of the population, where if there is a minority group, representatives may be required to go against these groups and install laws that affect the wellbeing of these individuals. The overall intention is to protect the majority at the stake of the minority.

Society expects for its representatives to able to accomplish their objectives, whether to improve the economy, social conditions, or foreign relations, with diplomatic measures. Nevertheless, a country is very flexible and is open to the use of war and terror, as long as the condition of the country is addressed and improved. The people are willing to waive the social norm of the belief of right of life, and enter war, to protect the future of the country.

When undergoing these steps, society expects that since it has granted its authority the leeway to surpass some social norms, that the government will report truth in their reports. When a government lies to its people, the people have the right to question and revolt against the government, because it is no longer favoring their interests.

In all, the government is able to step out of the social norms that society has established for it, as long as it maintains its role of serving the people. 

Reflection 4

One very important point was brought up during the last class discussion on liberalism and the advantages and disadvantages to an uninformed/misinformed vote: "stupid people are a demographic too", as it was so eloquently phrased. This really sank in for me. I was so focused on the causes and effects of misinformed/uninformed voters that I forgot to think about the actual voter. The fact is that in a democratic government every citizen, of age, should be represented fairly. This means that every single group of people should have a voice in the political process.

So who cares about the impact of an uninformed vote or not voting at all, the process of voting is better for a liberal society simply because a ballot is casted and a demographic's opinion is represented. Whether the effect on the country is positive or negative is up for much dispute, but the effect on the theoretical principles of democracy are quite clear: all people should have their voices heard in a democratic state.

I think more and more people started to realize just how significant a vote was when Professor Jackson mentioned poll taxes and literacy tests. Immediately, people recognized the fact that no election should ever be restricted to entire demographics, and as it was aforementioned, misinformed/uninformed voters classify as a demographic, so fairly, it could be stated that since all demographics should be represented in a liberal state, an uninformed/misinformed vote is better than no vote at all.

Reflection - 9/21/2010

            I’ve always heard of the State Department, but I honestly never knew what its role actually was. It surprised me that such an important part of U.S security and issues regarding foreign affairs were only minutes away from campus. I’m not sure how many others feel the same way, but when it comes to the U.S, I’m stumped. I don’t do it on purpose – its not as if I intentionally aim at being ignorant of current affairs, but I find that school tries to breeze through material and since I’m not introduced to the topic in the classroom, I have no driving force to allow me to explore other topics. What I intend to get at is that I always understood that the State Department took care of affairs.. that revolved around.. well, the state (U.S).  I  wonder how many other Americans are in my shoes – figuring out how to survive, and lack either the time or resources to be able to educate themselves on what’s going on within their country.

            On one hand, I did go to school in the U.S and I have a strong academic foundation, but at the same time, I’m not exactly the most informed. I think that were we can distinguish who is actually active and who sits in the background and lets things take their own toll.

Mr. Bame gave me a new perspective on my education. As cliché that may sound, but I felt that he shed some light on a grey area and allowed me to develop an understanding of what to do with my career. Despite the fact that I don’t intend to work at the State Department or follow a similar career path, I was fascinated with the manner that he presented himself and his working life. At one point, I was so compelled to consider a career as his. Nevertheless, I did realize that if I wanted to be satisfied in the future, I had to choose a career that would bring the best out of my passions and me. To get there though, I know that these four years I should embrace them and explore D.C fully to be able to finally have an understanding of how exactly this country works.

Another Reflection....

Over the course of our class discussion about whether or not uninformed voters should, in fact, vote, i changed my mind. A lot.

At first, I thought that whether or not an uninformed voter should vote was dependent on where they got their information from. The point of a vote, to me, was to carry out a demographic as a representation of what the country needed most. Getting their information from the media was the only worry I had, because of it's power to sway people from the position they should be given their socioeconomic situation. For example: you don't want the media swaying a family on welfare for a politician who's in favor of very expensive green energy facilities in their area because that would raise their taxes or take away from social programs they need.

Now, I don't really think it matters whether or not people vote uninformed. For one, a liberal society only fulfills it's ideal if everyone votes. Which people don't do anyway in the United States. That, and the fact that politicians are generally fickle and don't always adhere to their platform. Take, for example, Obama. Maybe McCain would've ended up fulfilling the platform goals of Obama. And then to address my worry about the media having an inordinate amount of sway over voters: in a liberal society the media is free, and therefore any worries about one political party having an unfair sway over voters is needless. They do have influence, but who's to say that the democrats have convinced 5 would-be republicans, and the republicans have equally convinced 5 would-be democrats? Another point that was brought up was whether or not a liberal society should educate their citizens. I think, in an ideal liberal society this should happen, but because China owns the United States there are better places to put our money. Especially considering that we are not in a state of anarchy. Our liberal society filled with 54% of voters who actually care (uninformed or not) is plodding along quite well. So does it matter if they vote or not?

On a side note, there are liberal(ish) societies that have elections democratically. Not necessarily free (or uncorrupted), but elections nonetheless. In these societies, it definitely is better that people vote--uninformed or not. At least they should be informed enough to know the non-corrupt candidate and vote for them.

A Week of Liberalism: Reflection

For most of this week we have been focused on the liberal theory of international relations. We all seemed to agree that it was an ideal system and as professor Jackson pointed out in class on Friday, we have grown up with it. It think our discussion led up to a critical junction when professor Jackson asked us if liberal society is so good, should everyone have it? I have no doubt that a liberal society such as the United States is the most free and peaceful system we have to date. Liberal societies tend not to fight one another and society is characterized as a democratic republic form of government. This gives people a voice and opportunities to better themselves. I think that if it is possible, that all nations should attempt to have a society much like this.

That being said I also respect sovereignty. If a people decide for themselves that they do not want a liberal society, then that is their choice. Unless they pose a national security threat to ourselves or our allies than it is really their own business as to whether they have an open liberal society. There is a catch with this as well however. I only approve of this as long as everyone has equal opportunities to live differently. For instance, I feel that if in Afghanistan the people really wanted to live by Shari'a law then so be it. However, if there are people who chose not to live by strict Islamic law then they should be allowed to exercise their own beliefs.

This begs the question that since freedom of religion, expression, and equal opportunity are a part of liberal society then wouldn't this be a case of a liberal society in Afghanistan? My answer would be if you limit a liberal society to these things, then yes. I feel that a true liberal society encompasses so much more however. My bottom line is that if a people decide for themselves (people being the key word) that they want to have a more authoritarian and hierarchical society then that is their right as a sovereign people. The key is that they must still have the opportunity to choose for themselves and not be persecuted for political and ethnic reasons. Given these this information I would advocate that a liberal society is the best way to guarantee this freedom from the beginning and that is why you do not see peaceful and sedate authoritarian regimes.

To Vote, or not to Vote. It's hit or miss.

I do not think that it matters whether an uninformed voter votes or not. Not because I'm apathetic, but because both have evils that balance each other out. Also, because there is probably an equal number of uninformed voters who vote, and who don't vote at all (assuming that those who are informed vote).

If an uninformed voter chooses to vote, there are a few issues. The first is who he chooses. Does he choose randomly, or does he pick someone who they have heard name-dropped, but know nothing about? Assuming that most people don't want to waste their time standing in lines to vote if they're merely going to play eenie-meenie-miney-mo, we can also assume that, if an uninformed voter votes, they'll vote for someone they've heard name-dropped.

The name-dropping is the worrisome part, specifically because media comes into the mix. The beauty of liberalism is that every socioeconomic group is represented. However, this is easily corrupted when the media provides the name-dropping that would normally be ok if it came from friends or family (because they're in the same socioeconomic status and represent similar interests to the uninformed voter). Political campaign commercials can easily sway an uninformed voter without actually saying anything about their campaign, simply because they know the name of the candidate. The uninformed voter may also know one or two trivial facts about the candidate, which they use to legitimize their vote.

If media wasn't in the mix, then uninformed voters being "informed" by friends and family would be sufficient to carry out the balance of socioeconomic interests.

Summed up, an uninformed voter who votes could either be helping or hurting their own cause, depending on where they heard of the candidate they voted for: friends/family or the media.

On the other hand, an uninformed voter who doesn't vote is simply not representing himself. He's not hurting his cause (voting for the party that has a platform that would adversely affect him), but he's also not helping. Apathy could be ok if he instead would have voted for someone name-dropped by the media, but then apathy in large quantities (as in more than 50% of the population) is hurting the system as a whole.

It's really a hit or miss for an uninformed voter. He could:
--Help his socioeconomic group (by voting for a name-dropped candidate from family/friends)
--Hurt his socioeconomic group (by voting for a name-dropped candidate from the media)
--Do nothing by not voting

Education - That's our basis in voting

Is an uninformed vote better than not voting at all?

           

 In evaluating this situation, it  must be understood that both decisions with result in negative effects within society. The criteria then shifts to: Which will have the greatest negative impact on society? 
            The rise of uninformed votes is due to the lack of public funding for education. Citizens will base their opinion not on their situation, what is convienent to their lifestyle, or what represents their beliefs, but rather, culture will manifest itself greatly and alter the mindset of the voter. In regards to Latin America, voters tend to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and they tend to favor platforms that represent their Christian ideals. Nevertheless, issues such as the death penalty, abortion, and marriage rights are not the only issues that define each platform, yet society tends to have a sole focus on social issues because that is what they can develop a personal connection with.

            

Although an uninformed vote may seem as if it has positive aspects such as the influence of one’s culture, our backgrounds can actually be deterrents for progress and change. Society has witnessed the suppression of many individuals due to culture and how it limits individuals in expressing key issues that influence their daily live. If one were to make an uninformed vote based on their cultural values, one maintains the status quo of society. In Latin American, making society as it is generally tends to promote the suppression that has remained within society and acting passively (despite the attempt in voting).

            

Corruption in voting in Latin America is not only affected through bribery of poll counters, but as well as going into rural areas and convincing an uneducated population about concepts that they have no solid foundation in. People lack a proper understanding of the effects of bringing someone into office can have on the overall state of the country. Before Honduras’s coup de etat, President Zelaya was trying to encourage rural communities to allow him to amend the constitution in order for him to have unlimited presidential terms. Honestly, people have no idea what has happened previously in dictatorships, what provoked them, and how to confront them. Their lack of an education eventually led to a widespread support of rural society supporting Zelaya. In this case, an uninformed vote can lead to the destruction of the government structure and alternate a political system.  

 By not voting at all, the individual remains silent. One may question whether their silence is an attribute to the lack of suppression and agreement with how society is. Others can argue that a lack of voting represents resentment to the voting system in the area and by not voting, the individual is expressing their discontent with the system. Nevertheless, I believe that by not voting, the individual understands the problems that may arise out of not voting, and have has been able to weigh out the consequences.

 In all, we must be pushing for the spread of education to those who do not have easy access and by providing them with this resource, society can shift more towards liberalism and represent its people. I arise to the conclusion that the negative effects of a misinformed weighs more than not voting at all. 

Don't Know? Don't Vote!

America has the lowest voter turnout of the industrial world. (IDEA) That being said, I would not advocate that we try to get everyone out to vote at all costs. Unfortunately we seem to have a culture of apathy towards politics and social issues in our country among the general populace. Fortunately however, the people who are apathetic and therefore not versed in current events, politics, and domestic policy are the ones that do not turn out to vote. I say that if a person is ignorant of the issues and candidates they should not vote because it corrupts the integrity of the election. The only people that should vote are those with knowledge of these things. They are the ones who stand to gain or lose the most by the election and are clearly the ones that care more about what happens.

I feel that our nation is still liberal if a majority of the people do not vote. If the others did in an uneducated fashion a person could get elected by passions alone or by chance. In regards to the former, it is very dangerous and could lead to emotions overruling logic. Dangerous leaders have been elected in this way in the past. With the latter, it is not a fair representation of the will of the people. Those who are uninformed are not really active citizens. Active citizens are informed of the issues and make calculated and thought out decisions on who to vote for based upon a set criteria. The uninformed voter can't possibly do this, ruining the legitimacy of the election.

In a matter so important as choosing the next leader of the free world, it should not be left up to chance and passions of uninformed voters. It is unfortunate that the majority of people in our country fall into this category. Rather than forcing them to vote, it is actually our civic duty to try and educate these people of the issues and if they still choose to be ignorant, then so be it. It is their choice. In the end, it is better if a person who has no concept of the politics of the time not vote, rather than do so uninformed. Leaders should be not be picked in a random and emotional fashion, but through an educated and well thought out process of decision-making.

Sources: http://www.idea.net.int/

Reflection 3

In reading The Prince, this week, one of the prevalent motifs really stood out to me. The message that Machiavelli seemed to push was that the image of being something is more important than actually being something. Specifically, he claimed appearing “virtuous” is more important than actually being a “virtuous” leader. I started to apply this notion in other parts of life, specifically in academia. After reading Lost in the Meritocracy I saw a similar theme: in contemporary academic culture, often times appearing to be intelligent is actually more important and more respected than actually being well versed and educated on an item. The article described that the students who didn’t actually read assigned literature, but simply criticized broad, overarching traits of the genre were the ones who were awarded most. I found a lot of truth in this. Often times you see students who participate in discussions to simply tear apart a book with criticisms, rather than brandish knowledge through deep discussions on specific examples or lines from a given reading. Often times the loud, outspoken students who skimmed, if anything, the assigned literature seemed more intelligent than perhaps the quiet student who took diligent notes and read various analyses in addition to the reading. Since the quiet student didn’t boast their opinions aloud, does that mean that the outspoken student should be considered smarter?

Provoked by both of these readings, I began to think: is the perception really more important than the reality? After musing this concept, I came to the conclusion that there are two answers to this question, at least in my opinion. I found that on a personal scale of importance, reality is construed as more important. Obviously, on a personal level, the image you uphold, whether it represents your reality or not, cannot be more important than your actuality. However, in relation to the rest of the world, how you are perceived is more important. People don’t always have time to discover the depths of an individual’s nature or personality, so perceptions and first impressions are of the utmost importance. If you put on a façade that you are a man of wisdom and virtue, will be treated as such. Moreover, if you act in a rude manner, whether you are a genuinely benevolent person or not, you will be perceived and treated based upon the traits you openly possess. I see this exemplified by the fact that naturally, we judge people based upon the traits they outwardly convey, rather than those at the bottom of their heart, no matter which is stronger feeling. Though this seems to be a reoccurring trend in human nature, I am not sure whether I am comfortable with it or not.

9/11 x9

This Saturday marked the 9th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 plane crashes. Over the past few years I have been educated with more information than I was provided when I was 9 years old, but at the same time my mentality hasn't changed. In a bad way.

I still remember what I was doing at the exact moment I learned of the event: I was reading a comic at my desk before school had officially started. "Class, something really bad just happened for America," my teacher carefully circumvented the issue, "Some parents may come to pick their kids up, but there's no need to worry. Everything will be OK."

As soon as I got home, my parents didn't educated me much further into the event besides the knowledge that 2 planes had hit important buildings in New York City. I didn't know why, and it didn't occur to me that many people had just died. Watching TV, I could see that this was something BIG for America. The words 'terrorism', 'Osama bin Laden', and 'Afghanistan' became new words in my vocabulary. But still, no one told me what had happened. Why it had happened. Who did it. What was going to happen next?

From the beginning, my mindset towards the 9/11 attacks was more apathetic than average. While now I understand the implications and events of that day, I still don't think I have the reflection and remorse that I should. Even on the subject of terrorism, I have adopted the mindset of 'making a subject a big deal as an individual makes it a big deal for everyone'. I choose (unfortunately) to push it to the back of my mind.

In the jumble of it all, an interesting point was brought to my attention concerning the way that America chooses to recognize this memorial. Instead of remembering the people who died in the crash, the media throws in references to terrorism, national security, and Islamic extremism. While all of these are relevant to the 9/11/01 event, the references seem to contaminate the memorial.

To the USA: I want to call you "home".

 I quite don’t understand the meaning behind patriotism yet. On September 11, 2001, I went to school just like any other child, I returned home , did my homework, and took a nap. I probably would have remained sleeping on my living room couch had it not been for the commotion my family was causing as they huddled closely to the television hearing the evening news. Univision kept repeating the same image: two buildings, two airplanes, fire and smoke.

Perhaps it was the lack of a connection between the event and my personal life, but I didn’t tear up, feel nervous,  or begin to hyperventilate. I was simply shocked. I didn’t understand how the “land of opportunities” my parents migrated could result in a “land of fears.” My perspective of the United States altered after the event, where it no longer remained on a pedestal.

My elementary schools years allowed me to grasp a basic understanding of U.S history. Text books were always bias – in favor of the U.S – and unwillingly, my perception has been altered. I can’t fully blame my education; my parents play a significant role. Despite our poor economic conditions, my parents reinforced the idea that we were better off living in the U.S than in Honduras due to the vast resources that they provided.

That night, my only worry lied within one sole question: Where do I go now? The next days,
I expected my parents to give me a sign that we were moving to a distant country – one that could ensure our safety. After that week, I knew I we weren’t moving. I didn’t question my parents. I made sure to watch the news, waiting for a breaking news story. That day never came. Life went on and nothing changed. I’ve always wondered if people reflect on September 11 and think thoroughly of the nationalism it stirred and whether they felt a sense of unity.

              
I still don’t fully understand the meaning behind September 11 yet. I expect that my four years living in Washington, DC will give me a better understanding of what it means to be an American. I was never part of a community that embraced the red, white and blue. This country has offered me so much, and I feel dissatisfied knowing that I have not yet developed a sense of nationalism. Perhaps that day will come and I won’t be left waiting.

9/11 Reflection

"Rowland. Your mom called and wanted me to tell you not to worry and that she's ok," my fourth grade teacher told me during lunch on Tuesday September 11th, 2001. I was in fourth grade. I had no idea what she was talking about. I knew my mom was in New York City, so I thought maybe there had been a really bad car accident in the city or something. One by one, kids started getting taken out of school early. One of my teachers turned on the news and I saw both the towers on fire with a gaping hole in each. For the rest of the day it was chaos. Teachers were running around making desperate phone calls, crying, and all the kids were completely confused. Eventually I was taken out of school by a family friend. My dad was on high alert on the SWAT team and I found out my mom was in a hotel across the Hudson watching the whole thing unfold. While I didn't understand the significance of what had happened at the time it etched a very emotional feeling in me. I slowly came to realize the world would never be the same.

As the 9th anniversary of 9/11 passed this Saturday, I was training on a military base in Virginia and I really came to understand the cost of freedom. I realized that we take so much for granted and do not really understand what the cost of our ignorance towards the outside world is yet. So many people advocate a much more isolationist attitude towards our affairs. I believe it is more important than ever to reject this line of thought and gain an understanding of different cultures and philosophies. We have to engage the world in a positive manner.

Relating this to the hegemony article we read, I find that it is extremely important that we maintain security of our interests abroad and remain engaged on the world stage. If we keep a constant presence across the globe we can keep tabs on our interests and the threats that face us as well. However, we must do so with discretion. We must factor in the effect our presence has on the local populace. This goes not just for war zones, but bases in places like Germany and Japan.

For nine years we have been fighting a war against an enemy who uses all of our weaknesses against us. They use the tools of the modern geopolitical structure to fight us. They create a negative world image of us, use propaganda through Al Jazeera and the like, and count on us to perform classical military maneuvers. If we are to beat this we have to become smarter and more committed. The result of the war on terror will be mirrored by changes we see in our own society. If we can't get out of our current state of apathy and ignorance, we will lose the war. If we learn to adapt, become well versed in world affairs, and as a population realize a common purpose, we will win. I believe if we win the war on terror, and more immediately the war in Afghanistan, we will be able to keep our hegemony. If not, we will lose it because it will be a sign that the US can not adapt to the changing world.

On this anniversary of 9/11 I hope that we as a people do not forget what the cost of ignorance is and make changes to our behavior. As Alfred said in Batman Begins, "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy." I hope this will not be the case again.

Sorry Machi, Things Have Changed

Morals aside, Machiavelli offered some pretty sound advice to the average ruler back in the day. However, times have drastically changed and it simply wouldn’t be possible to execute the same ruthless techniques for acquiring power. In this age of growing globalization and interdepedence, it is almost impossible for a ruling elite to make a decision without being overlooked by another ruling body. Whether it’s the US or the UN, if a ruling elite tries to implement the same cold-hearted approach towards gaining or maintaining power they inevitably will face opposition.

In the era that Machiavelli spoke of, ruling elites could get away with unchecked brutality towards those that they governed. No other state would stand up if a ruler decided to decimate an entire village that was rebelling against oppression. Often times, the destruction would be so swift that word of the attack would hardly spread past the principality’s borders. Now, not only do human rights activists, international NGOs, and global super powers like the US heavily regulate "moral standards" for most countries, but virtually all infractions or suspicions are under heavy supervision through extremely advanced intelligence agencies. Also, any cases of gross human rights violations to acquire power usually immediately make headlines on a global level. Darfur ring any bells? Unlike in Machiavelli’s time, crushing an entire group of people doesn’t simply get overlooked and forgotten. The influence of the media, a factor that didn’t exist in his time, greatly impairs Machiavelli’s advice, especially in a world where various organizations and states act as “global policemen”.

But the question arises, what about the US? Are they not a global power many believe cannot be checked by any other state? Can’t they easily get away with following Machiavelli’s advice? The answer to this is simple. The United States simply cannot follow Machiavelli’s advice because it does not pertain to the US. Machiavelli clearly establishes that his advice in no way, shape, or form should be applied to the dynamics of a republic of any sort. He makes it clear that his advice can only successfully guide ruling elites of principalities. Though, it can still be argued that international organizations or other global superpowers would try to thwart any immense human rights violations if the US did in fact follow a Machiavellian approach to gaining power. So in reality, a ruling elite could very well follow Machiavelli’s advice in contemporary conditions, but, fortunately, they won’t get far.

The State is still King

Today's world is a very different world from the days of Machiavelli. Or is it? Despite all the talk of globalization and the rise of ideological groups. Things are moving along a line that is much like what Samuel Huntington points out as a cultural clash occurring through a world still dominated by nation-states. (Clash of Civilizations par.2) I would agree with him that the territorial state is still the dominant and only recognized form of government in our world today. While many groups have become blurred the primary apparatus through which political will is projected is the state. That being said, Machiavelli's suggestions and "rules," upon how a successful ruler should conduct their affairs is still relevant.

If you look at contemporary history states have acted in a manner most consistent with realism. While there have been moves to a more liberal approach, such as the establishment of the U.N. and other multi-national organizations, states still act in their self interest. For example the United States joined an alliance in NATO because it served our self interest to protect ourselves from communist expansion. Also while organizations like the U.N. serve as a place for certain standards and regulations to be established, states like the U.S. will only oblige them if they are in their self interest. Machiavelli talks about forming strategic alliances as they are necessary. (The Prince Ch.7 pg. 25) Essentially there is definitely a level of cooperation but it is done as a legitimizing force for the government of a nation trying to convince its people that it is doing right. Especially in a largely democratized world that we have today, rulers and governments are forced to gain the favor of their peers and the common people, which Machiavelli says is key.

The way in which governments and rulers do this is very much in line with Machiavelli's suggestions. Governments/rulers often will conduct bold feats militarily or politically to establish their dominance. (The Prince Ch. 6) An example may be the Gulf War and the more recent Iraq War. It could be seen as an example of showing the how much "virtu" the United States possesses. In today's world I would say that these moves are done to establish a reputation of dominance and strength on the international stage rather than domestically.

Under contemporary conditions, I think if a state is to be successful it must act with the principles outlined in The Prince. I think that the amorality in Machiavelli's writing comes from his belief that to rule your state in an irresponsible and unstable manner to which you do not put forth the best interest of you and your people, is more immoral than committing some disagreeable acts to instill order or establish dominance. I would tend to agree with this because to allow your state to fall into anarchy and disorder will lead to much more evil and wrongdoing than using force to establish stability. However, we have made progress in international cooperation so I would hesitate to become too absorbed by self-interest. The bottom line is that I feel as time goes on there will be circumstances where being cooperative and peaceful is in the best interest of the state and one should make these alliances. However there will always be times when this is not the case as well. As long as state is still king, Machiavelli's rules will be very applicable and helpful to governments and rulers.



Sources: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations

Machiavelli, The Prince. Translated by David Wootton. Published by Hackett Press 1994. Print.

Muslim Terrorists

September 10, 2001, I was an innocent 4^th grade boy. September 12, 2001 I was deemed a terrorist. Since Fox News didn’t have the same appeal as “All That” at age 9, I was never formally informed or warned in any way of what I had become. This made my next few weeks of school all the more painful. I remember the first time I started being treated differently. It wasn’t immediate; the idea that Muslims and Arabs were evil trickled down quite slowly from parents to children. I was sitting at a lunch table, eating PB&J with the usual crowd, when someone flicked a pebble at my head. I turned around only to find three fifth graders, two girls and one boy, all making gun-like hand gestures at me, pretending to shoot. In response to my puzzled look, they stated that terrorists weren’t welcome to sit in the same area as them. The harassment continued, and only got worse over the next couple weeks. It got to the point where I didn’t want to come to school anymore. I started to wish I hadn’t been so proud and open about my culture and religion. What was once a source of interest and popularity among my primarily homogenous peers had become a magnet of detestation.

The aversion to Islam and Middle-Easterners only strengthened over time, forcing me to have to learn to adapt to this new world of discrimination and harassment. I was never a big fan of the name “Ahmad” as a child, but I never thought it could engender the hatred it did after 9/11. By middle school I was so afraid, ashamed, and embarrassed of my name that I would come to each of my classes on the first day of school early enough to ask the teacher to replace the “Ahmad” on my files, desk tags, and bins. High School rolled around the corner, and by this point I was accustomed to constant jibes of “Allah Akbar!”, “JIHAD JIHAD!”, and “Terrorist!” as a part of an average week. The most dreaded of days were those that I had a substitute teacher. If I didn't come early enough to tip them off, along with the mispronunciation of my name came whispers and looks of repulsion from my classmates.

Touring the September 11 section of the Newseum revived so many memories I had pushed away. Walking through the exhibit, I could imagine how people would’ve reacted to my presence at the peak of the anti-Arab era. Would I have been harassed for simply being there? I began to wonder why the anger was so fixed upon Arabs and Muslims and not the true enemy. One of the biggest reasons for the discrimination that ensued was media and their misuse of the word “Muslim Terrorists” rather than correctly specifying the attackers “radical”. The blurred line between Islam and radical, terroristic and perverted Islam completely evaporated to so many news reporters around the country. Even now, nine years later, I hear reporters like Glenn Beck, spewing poisonous remarks about Islam and Muslims as a whole. How can I possibly expect the country to become accepting of Muslims and Arabs when the media continues to drill the idea that Radical Islam is the same as Islam? Nine years later and I am still wondering when things are going to get better. When Mosques won’t be taboo. When I can go through the airport speaking Arabic with my family without getting strange looks. When my own name won’t qualify me as a terrorist.

There's a Green Arrow in the Lounge Pointing Up?

At the Newseum, I was intrigued to see the pattern of the headlines concerning Hurricane Katrina. At the time of the hurricane in 2005 I didn’t follow current events that closely. Of course, I knew of Katrina and the problems, but I hadn’t actually looked at the papers. Therefore, the pattern of the headlines was especially intriguing. On the first day (before the hurricane) smiling faces were on the headlines about people wondering if they should pack up and go inland—a flippant attitude towards hurricanes; for the next three days into the hurricane, headlines screamed “CHAOS”. It was the fourth day that interested me, because the headlines finally made references towards fixing the housing issue, rescuing stranded families, and the government funding emergency aid. It was shocking to me, to see that the government took so long to respond to the problem.
Our other mandated exhibit, September 11, was also interesting but for a different reason. The video on the camera crews showed the footage that I never got to see as an 11-year-old. Film containing the emotion of the reporter; film showing the collapse of the trade towers; film screaming with the sound of the second plane as it swoops overhead and into the building. This wasn’t pictures, this was real. There was a reason the footage we saw in the Newseum wasn’t on national television.

Reflection on Soccer Game

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed the DC United soccer game despite their loss and the goalie's horrible mistake that cost them the game. The first thing I noticed was simply the low attendance at the game. There must have been less than 5,000 people in attendance as opposed to over 50,000 at an NFL game. The few people that were there were very energetic and excited for the team. There was a lot of flag waving, songs, and chants that I found really interesting. I have grown up with a love for soccer because it, along with little league baseball, was one of the hallmarks of my childhood. This explains my feeling for the game. However, many people in America do not share my love for the game.

In some communities I feel that it is not even offered and when they see it on television it is something foreign. As America increasingly diversifies, sports that are dominant in other countries like soccer, are becoming ever more popular. For some people this represents a threat to the national identity of the United States. Others do not like it for the fact that it is foreign. We as a country have never really had a passion for it and only recently has it become commonly played by children in numbers like that of basketball or baseball. Therefore we are not energetic about it because we as a nation do not feel it represents us. We have tried to ignore it and do our own thing out of some sort of nationalistic/xenophobic feeling.

I myself, am deeply nationalistic and have a passion for advancing the American identity as something whole and united. However, this does not mean I exclude soccer. In fact I see it as a chance for us to project ourselves into the international community in a new and stronger way. If we could only unite. Instead of going to soccer games in America and waving flags of other countries as was done at the D.C. United game, we wave the American flag and back our teams all the way. If we could project this nationalism on the field of soccer, the world will see us in a new light. Not divided, but strong under one flag. Instead of being isolated and trying to project our strength by turning inward, we should look at soccer as an opportunity to project our power and solidarity through a respected venue. Soccer is an international sport and how we decide to treat it will show the world who we are as a nation.

DC United: Thank you for reminding me of home

I had never been to a soccer game within the United States, until Saturday. It wasn’t particularly boring, but it wasn’t like anything back home. It felt as if Americans approached the game with such elegance and high etiquette as they sat in one area and watched the game from their seats; perhaps Latin Americans couldn’t enjoy a game in a civilized way. The lack of enthusiasm in my section led me to move to a more hyped up area, where I was surrounded by different Latin American nationalities. It felt like home.

         Just as football and baseball are typically “American sports”, soccer defines the childhood of the average Latin American. Our culture teaches us how to be proud of our colors, our people, and our skills on the field. It only seemed natural when an elder would sit down the children of the neighborhood and discuss soccer legends that grew up in the same location. With time, soccer represented something different for us all. To some, it meant a pastime, to others, it was the basic foundation of our culture, and to a selected few, it was their future. I was never particularly good at the sport, but it allowed me to develop a connection with my country.

         In the DC United Game, I was surrounded by other Latinos who were trying to replace their national team by adopting an American team as their own. The same chants that roared in Honduras’s national stadium rang within the crowd. It didn’t matter if you were wearing an Argentinean jersey, or if you were displaying a Mexican flag. We were all united. But how did Americans display their unity in an American game? Through my perspective, it seemed as if people had an objective stance, but I wonder if that was true? Or was that the norm behavior for a soccer game?

Nevertheless, I don’t want to pinpoint my culture and claim that is a “go-happy” event; its nothing of that sort. In Honduras, the two national teams, Olimipia and Motagua, both have affiliated gangs that have increased the crime rate drastically these past three decades. My home is located three blocks away from the national stadium and its an unwritten rule among families that during games, children cannot be playing outside, errands should be done at a different time, and all doors windows have to be closed.

         This past summer, Motagua played against a Canadian team, where both team ended up tying. Olimpia’s gang ended up stationing itself at one end of my block in order to humiliate all the Motagua fans as they departed the stadium. In response, Motagua’s gang arrived at the opposite end of the block. The presence of both teams ended up escalating to a gang fight of about 300 per gang. Once the sound of a shot was heard, all the families rushed to the first floor in order to avoid a bullet going through the roof. There had been reports of family members being killed because of bullets that trespassed the roof (as in, someone shot the bullet into the air, not intending to shoot someone directly, and the bullet returned toward the earth, and made it through the roof). That night, we spent about two hours waiting for the screams and commotion to die off. For women, it is very dangerous to wander in the streets, as there have been cases where gangs kidnap women of the opposite team and hold them hostage for ransom.

Despite soccer’s importance in my culture, it has divided us tremendously. Americans gain my respect in that sense. Of course, there is a very extremist fan in every game that likes to cause chaos, but it is nothing like Latin America. Latin Americans confront a population within their own country that do not endorse sportsmanship. Some families do not allow their children to go to game until a certain age, and when they do, they make sure their child is blessed before they head to the game.

From my experiences, soccer isn’t part of the American culture. I believe their love towards sports is more directed in baseball and football. The laughing, screaming, and chanting at the DC United game was part of the soccer experience, and although one section did not take part, I believe we all enjoyed the game in our own manner. Although this isn’t my soccer team, I was finally about to have a healthy dosage of American nationalism. 

The United Nations is Soverign

The United Nations is a sovereign body in the world, yet not formally considered one. The United Nations is made up of many sovereign nations that work together equally (in most cases) and therefore have authority. In our class discussion, it was noted that to have authority, the body that is to be sovereign needs territorial boundaries (because there needs to be a community that recognized the authority). However, because the United Nations is made up of countries that have their own territorial boundaries and recognition of authority over them, the people recognizing their country also recognize the laws that their country made in conjunction with the United Nations. Alex Hochman recommends that the United Nations take Antarctica as their territory. Territory and recognition problems aside, the United Nations also has the legal authority to declare war.
The United Nations also has power in the world; power being defined as lasting influence through the military, economics, leadership, and relationships with other nations. Of course, the United Nation’s military isn’t very large, but if a country decided to declare war on the United Nations, then it would be assumed that the nations that comprise the United Nations would join together to take down the antagonist. Therefore, the military power of the United Nations is equal to the combined military power of the nations that make it up. The United Nations IS the relationships between other nations, so clearly the United Nations has the power to coerce nations to its’ will in addition.
The United Nations does have the capacity to govern itself, as it is not short of funds or manpower. The United Nations also has the autonomy to govern itself, and very few people/countries have risen up against it with many consequences. Countries may choose to flex their political biceps and threaten to do something against the United Nations’ policy but countries never do anything that would blatantly create war.

Sovereignty Lies in the Hands of the World Community

Sovereignty is defined as having supreme and independent power or in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. (Dictionary.com) Given this definition and reflecting upon today's contemporary politics, I would say that a group has sovereignty if it's people recognize its authority over them and the world community allows this to persist. In the past, sovereignty came simply with the ability to control and direct politics, trade, and military power within a state's borders. Now there are many states who claim these power over their people, and even exercise it to some extent, but because of the global order of nations, this is no longer enough. Allow me to explain.

Let's use North Korea as a case study. They exercise total and complete economic, political, and military power within their borders. While the U.N. may not agree with and even see the regime in North Korea as an oppressive dictatorship, they have done little to intervene and take authority away from them other than economic sanctions. I would argue that despite being a rogue state with a dis functional system, they remain sovereign because their authority has still remained in place and has been relatively unchanged. They still are allowed to persist in dictating their own state affairs. On the other hand if we look at Iraq, it was determined by at least the United States and NATO that Saddam Hussein's regime was dis functional and not valid to the point that we removed him from power. Despite the horrible things his regime did, he was in control and had authority to conduct his state's affairs as he saw fit. That is until the world community determined he no longer had the right to exercise sovereign power in his country.

The point I'm trying to make is that sovereignty is now in the hands of the global community. Every state if it maintains the three key elements of running a state can be seen as sovereign. However, this can change if the world community ceases to recognize a regime's authority to rule over its state. Because of the strong alliances and international cooperation that exists as a result of the WWII and the Cold War, states now must prove themselves to the world community that they have a right to govern their own state. This is a shift from just having to prove to one's own people that they have the power, authority, and capacity to rule over them.

Some entities that are seeking sovereignty like the Palestinians and the Chechens, still are struggling to prove to the world community that they deserve to exist autonomously. I believe if they could come up with a peaceable and sustainable system of governance over the people that identity themselves with the respective groups, the world would recognize them and put pressure on Israel and Russia to allow them some concessions. Palestine came close in 2003 and 2007, but issues like Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks in Israel sparked armed conflict that ended such talks. (The National) Similarly in Russia, the Chechens have no legitimacy for their cause in the eyes of the world because of the constant terrorist attacks. If these groups moved away from violence and towards more sensible means of dialogue, then they may have been able to sway world opinion in their favor to gain sovereignty for themselves.

Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereignty
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100902/FOREIGN/100909966/1002