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