week 7 - Reflection

The simulation that we did on Thursday was new and unique experience. I was surprised that even though it probably had been new and strange for them, my classmates were well-prepared and had a lot to say about their stands. I learned a lot from their presentations and found it very interesting to listen to all the different view from different interest groups on the very same topic. To be honest, I got convinced every time when different groups presented their views and reasons. I don't know how the 'big guy,' who actually makes decision, in this case the President, can look at the issue unbiasedly and take in all the information from groups with different interests and come up with the best decision for everyone's good.
One thing I was really surprised about was that the Consumer group actually went for keeping the taxes. I thought they would want to abolish it because it will let more foreign auto maker companies to import their cars to the U.S. for cheaper price so there will be more selections for them to choose from. However, they rather focused on creating jobs for Americans, protectivism and patriotism. They wanted more jobs for Americans, and protect their economy.
Something that I wasn't sure about was one of the Foreign Automakers points why we should abolish domestic content rules. Foreign Automakers aruged that abolishing domestic content rules will bring in a lot of foreign autoplants to the U.S. However, I find it rather contradictory. If we abolish the rules and they don't get taxed on stuff they import, they have to reason to build their plants here and buy parts that mare made in USA while there are cheaper labor and cheapor supplier are available overseas. Domestic Content Rules actually attract foreign companies to build their cars here in the U.S. which will bring in a lot of jobs for Americans. They will earn money then, spend them, and the economy will be stimulated.
I also learned lessons on presentation. It should be clear and to-the-point, and most importantly, TIME MATTERS. Our group failed to even get to the mainpoint because of the time management. I also learned to try different media to present what I am presenting, to interest my audience better.
Overall, it was a memorable experience and had a lot to learn from.

Week 6 - Reflection

The class discussion on Thursday was about whether or not we should pay attention to the marginalized, not just to those with power. It seems like the majority of our class agreed on that we should pay attention to them because they can have a large impact on International Relations.

I think, from a realist view, one of the only reasons why we should pay attention to those that are marginalized is to build a philanthropist image in order to gain more power in the world of international relations. Also by doing so, we can keep the amount of discontentment down so that they won't revolt or what not. Thus it can be easy to keep the central power powerful. Even though those do not necessarily have powers, they can be dangerous and threatening to the stability of a state when the state fails to satisfy their very minimum level of need. If they acts as a whole group, those in power cannot have it under control and the marginalized's act as a whole can overpower those with power.

We also talked about how we can help the marginalized voice their opinions. From a Utopian point of view, we should seek to satisfy and take in everyone's desire and needs and equally distribute power as horizontal. Since usually, uneducated, low-income class have less or no power, some people suggested to give them more opportunity of education and so on, so that we can at least get closer to horizontal distribution of power.

In my opinion, that is totally unrealistic and impossible: e.g. the idea of socialism is wonderful-equal distribution of wealth, but the problem with it is that it is impossible to fully carry it out and practice as it is meant to be. If those marginalized people gained voice and power through education and wealth, they would ultimately become those WITH power and there would be newly-formed marginalized people. We will never be able to equalize power to everyone. There always will be people with power, and also people on the margins with less or no power at all. The best option we have is to figure out the efficient way to incorporate both sides into the world of IR.

New Bretton Woods System?

*Before I get going on my blog entry, I just want to point out that as I looked at the two blog entry questions for this week, unlike the majority of my classmates, I chose to blather on Bretton Woods System rather than Alien Ambassador. Even though I missed the whole discussion on this subject and do not 100% understand the system, I would rather write on it because I personally think that the idea of Alien Ambassador speaks for itself and is too outrageous and ridiculous that I don't even have anything to say about it other than 'I think it is the most absurd idea I have ever heard.'


If I understood correctly, Bretton Woods System was established in 1940s post-WW2 to rebuild the international economic system when the global recession was dragged out for too long after the Great Depression in 1930s. Based on the ideas of fixed exchange rate, the gold standard, gold-dollar conversion system, and the establishments of IMF(International Monetary Fund) and IBRD(International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) for post-war reconstruction and development of underdeveloped countries, Bretton Woods System has done a pretty good job fulfilling what it was expected to do at the time especially during the post-war reconstruction and the Cold War. It helped to stabilize the currency trade market and stimulated the flow of currency between nation-states. It established the first set rules of international commercial and financial relations.

However, as the global market and economy changes time to time, the system has become unfit for the fast changing global economic system. After 1960s, the loss of credibility of US dollar and international liquidity dilemma arose and in 1970s, the U.S. dollar became weak and unstable because of the deficit of the US due to funding of the Vietnam War. After Nixon's claim to terminate convertibility of the dollar to gold, Bretton Woods System has naturally become almost extinct.

I think Bretton Woods System's collapse was completely natural and even helped the evolution of the global economic system. The currency market has become dependent on the law of supply and demand which temporarily enabled the currency to circulate more freely among major industrial nation-states. Stepping into 1980s, capital exchange between countries rapidly increased due to technological development and the arrival of information-oriented era. The global economic linkage has expanded not only to North America and Europe, but also to Asia, South America, and even to Africa.

As the international economy evolves and expands, I believe it demands a newly adjusted Bretton Woods System like many other have argued. A new system to regulate and spur the global economy is needed. A number of world leaders, like the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy and the English Prime minister Gordon Brown, have argued the need of an adjusted Bretton Woods System, aka Bretton Woods System 2. As the world is becoming multipolar, shouldn't only the U.S. dollar the measure of currency exchange, but also those of other major economic countries, and that of further more countries should work together to establish a multipolar international monetary system.



_____________________________________________________________
Reference
-dearest Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system#Bretton_Woods_II
-bunch of Korean websites
http://blog.naver.com/fillesvertes?Redirect=Log&logNo=20108318037
http://cafe.naver.com/onebank.cafe?iframe_url=/ArticleRead.nhn%3Farticleid=16094

Week 5 - Reflection

Higher Authority in control
As we discussed about PTJ's authority and what actually gives him or makes him lose his authority, my brain got almost overloaded with too much thinking and processing, trying to figure out the concept. When PTJ asked us what would make us lose respect to his authority, and many of our class said if he hadn't been in class for so long or he had acted abnormally out of boundaries and what not, and I all agree with them generally but I also thought that if a being in higher authority, that even PTJ had to submit to, existed and dismissed PTJ from his authority, I would lose a sense of respect to his authority. I always thought that every real life situation, even in the realm of World Politics, we need someone or whatever in control that can direct, keep the order and mediate. I don't think we human can peacefully and harmonically live without a higher authority in control.

Bottom Line - Stability and security
Our Thursday discussion was about what kind of advice we would give the President in relation to IR theories when a outerspace space ship launched a little shuttle and it's on its way to land in the Whitle House Lawn. We've discussed and learned about three basic IR theories, and personally I thought realism was the most outdated because #1, it's the oldest theory, and #2 the world is now so different from then so it's not very applicable to today's world. However, when it came to this kind of extremely threatening situation like our scenario here, everything came down to one thing regardless of whatever the theory is up-to-date: stability and security. Our group said that we will declare DefCon 1, which is the very highest level of defense condition, get ready for the worst that could happen, evacuate the city and the white house and block the media for the sake of citizens not to freak out. Whatever theory one might have agreed with the most, but on this scenario, it proves that realism might be ourdated for being here around for awhile, and definitely the one that explains very core and basic of how a society works. Also when the globe was to meet this crisis again, the whole world sets aside their own individual desire and identity, whether it identifies itself again by its responsibility and expectations for it in the situation. It kind of brings the idea of constructivism into the picture but I am not sure I fully got the relation between the crisis scenario activity and constructivism. But I look forward to finding out the unfolded link between them two and learning more.

Week 4 - Reflection

This week's discussion was very interesting for me. We discussed whether or not the U.S. should force democracy on other countries or not. I noticed that a lot of people think that the states should be let develop democracy on their own and go through the slow transition to and self-realization of democratic system. However, I personally think that it is right for the U.S. as a super power amongst nations to take the responsibility and actively promote democracy as it is believed to be the 'best' of what we've got. If legitmate use of force is necessary, I believe, that can be done also .
Imperialism is not believed as the greatest form of world politics any more, but I think because it existed, democracy was able to be promoted and infiltrated into many countries. During imperialistic period, the U.S. and the major world powers of that time went around the globe and basically colonize a lot of places and had them open their doors even with some violence or military force if needed. It is a different context and setting nowadays, but still at best so far.
Even just looking at the example of South and North Korea and how they turned out, the necessary enforcement can be justified and used to promote democracy. If south Korean government did not get any guidance or help or etc., I can't imagine what might have happened. Sometimes it is hard to realize what is good and bad for you, so in that case, you would need someone to tell you what it is or even to enforce it.

There should be a self-set limit on interference, but as long as one doesn't cross the line, the act of enforcement can be justified.

would you rather live in a society that did not have governmental elections?

Despite the fact that elections might have been overly emphasized and praised, I still believe that elections are one of the most fundamental and pivotal aspects of democracy. Therefore, I would not want to live in a society that did not have elections.
The right to vote has long been the center issue for liberalization and democratization. Every society and civilization has struggled for the right to vote. To have the right to vote meant to be recognized, valued, and heard by the ruling. Political acts started with voting right, even almost every human rights movement were started off by fighting for the right to vote. Elections not only are practical system of democracy, but also are the symbol of our possession of rights, and the meaning of life worthy of man. Elections help citizens feel a sense of responsibility for their own society in which they live and practice that responsibility in order to make better society for themselves.

I, however, do not agree with making voting mandatory. I think citizens should still have the right to choose to vote or not to vote. Not practicing the right to vote can be also a form of political acts, and I believe one should not be forced to form an opinion and to make a decision, otherwise, he or she will be more likely to make a poor choice and that will eventually work against the intended purpose. I would rather have people not vote than have them be forced and make a careless decision. Participation in political acts or civil duties should be encouraged and promoted but should not be forced on people for I personally believe that they have the right to be apathetic about politics.

In conclusion, elections, with no doubt, play a critical role and can never be taken out of democratic societies. Yet, voting should not be mandatory because it may cause a contrary effect.

week3-reflection

First of all, I am very regretful for missing out on our visit to Newseum on Wednesday lab. It looks like everyone had a very interesting and valuable experience there and I look forward to visit there myself sometime.
That leaves me with one option to talk about – in-class discussion on Thursday.
We talked about realism and how the U.S. could be benevolent or not, and what makes it different from any other hegemony from the past. I just want to briefly touch on the role of the U.S. from a realist perspective that what the U.S. is doing now is a modernized form of realism. Since the world and the way it operates changed so much over time, military power by itself is not all you need to be the hegemony. You would also have to have dominance over non-military areas such as cultural, economic, and technological. The U.S. not only has the best military power and capacity, but also has the cultural, economic, technological, and social power over the world. Movies and music from American pop culture are in theaters and every corner of streets all around the world. The United States is one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world. The majority of existing and active humanitarian organizations and volunteers are from the United States. It is almost as if the world would not be able to function without the existence of the U.S. You can’t imagine the world without the U.S. present.

The U.S. might be playing benevolent to be recognized as hegemony, but I believe it is, at the same time, extremely threatening to the other nations. If the U.S. turns away from one, the others will do so too just to be in favor of the U.S. The reason is that no one wants to annoy the U.S. because almost every aspect of them is depended on it. The U.S. has become so benevolent to the point that its excessive benevolence is even threatening to countries. If the U.S. stops practicing its benevolence over one country, it will literally be in such chaos.

Maybe the way of maintaining the status of global hegemony has evolved a little and become complicated, but the core of it and the basic rule of dominance have never changed. Today’s hegemony just has to be benevolent enough to be threatening.

Week2 - Reflection

Like the first week, the second week had been a challenging week. I am still trying to get used to the in class discussions, and to process infinite amount of information.
Our visit to spy museum made me think that it is vital to balance politics and relations on surface and undercover. I was really surprised by how much big of a role spying plays in world politics. It also got me thinking on how Machiavelli is all for the ends justify the means and neccessary evil. Spying can be considered as evil, but still it is almost inevitable. Machiavelli's advice on politics can be considered outdated and not very useful. However, it still in some parts applies to today's politic world, like necessary evil which is big part of international relations.
Machiavelli was very challenging for me. It was difficult to understand all the historical background and what he was trying to say. I am still getting used to the whole class discsussion and readings, so I prepared to defend my position which was against the book. However, in class, we were to defend the objecting opinion. I did not know what to do and got little nervous, but I now think it can prepare myself to defend myside even more efficiently. It was all so new and challenging for me, as an international non-english speaking student, but still I will learn a lot from this experience and continue to try.

Should the world be organized into territorial sovereign nation-states?

All will agree that it is safe to say theories are not always practical and clear cut. Theories can only be perfected and carried out as they are intended to be in hypothetical world. With that being said, I will answer to the question of whether the world should be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states. Should it? Under the assumption that theories can be applied to the world with no exceptions, it is indeed ideal for the world to be organized into politico-military rule of nation-states, not only because it is the final and best form of politico-military rule having been invented so far, but also in order to have a sense of organization and order in the Global society, and to efficiently communicate with one another, and to cause the least possible conflict and clash among the entities that exist in the world.

Like Opello and Rosow mention in their book, The Nation-State and Global Order, there are three alternatives of nation-state: city-state, empire, and tribe. There should be various reasons why rule of nation-state is the most efficient form and best fit of all for the world of the present age. To mention one of them, nation-state is the most effective in dealing with physical territorial issues among the world. City-state is incapable of expanding its size because of its incapacity and inefficiency of governing bigger area. Empire and tribe mostly don’t have a sense of territoriality, since they don’t usually have defined territory of their jurisdiction. In the world complex and complicated like today’s world, they are not the most efficient forms of entities theoretically and practically, especially when it comes to dealing with physical territorial issues among entities.

Order and system are very crucial in civilizations and, even in ‘uncivilized’ the world of nature, there exist some type or form of order and system. There is no civilization without order and system and there always is civilization where order and system exist. As the humanity becomes more ‘civilized,’ and to become even more so, it requires of order and system or some sort. I think it is legitimate to say that civilization is mostly establishing order, system, or rules in society. In the same sense, it is critical that there should be a rule or standard agreed by all to keep things in order and to make the world politics work nicely with no confusion. Since the nation-state is the most sufficient and developed politico-military rule so far, it is, at all, agreeable that it should be the basic rule or qualification to have a voice in world politics. By recognizing one another as nation-states, which implies that they also recognize all of the characteristics of nation-state, there established are system and order that make the world coexist effectively. By making those groups on the same social or political level, as nation-states with the same kind of rights and authorities, it makes communication among them become much easier and effective communication brings less conflict amongst those parties.

In reality, however, there can be exceptions and situations in which this does not apply nicely. To name one of the examples, ethnical and cultural conflict can occur within a nation-state or between nation-states that were unconsciously established by stronger countries of the time without considering the nation-state’s tendency to be homogeneous (i.e. the case of some of African countries) In those cases, a sense of unity and national identity, which is one of the characteristics of nation-state, has failed and so it needs to alter or be flexible to fix the problem. In some cases or possible exceptions that could exist in the practical world, the rule of being organized into nation-states can be modified and fitted according to different cases.

Theoretically and ideally, the world should be organized into territorial sovereign nation-states by every mean. However it might require some modification or flexibility on some of the practical issues that can be faced in World Politics.

Week1-Reflection

This week's class was really interesting for me as an international student. Everything is new and strange, but I definitely learned a lot from the first week and expect to learn more in the coming year.
First, our visit to PEPFAR reminded me of how the US actively and voluntarilly gets involved in many of the global issues. I really respect that the US takes responsibility as one of the leading nations in the world and strive to solve those issues we have as one world, using its own resources. I believe this is one of many aspects that makes, with no doubt, the US one of the global leaders.
My experience with my first World Politics class was very interesting and challenging to me. As known, Asian education typically does not require a big part of student participation. I was quite impressed and challenged when I saw my fellow UC students, who I only thought as ordinary students, discussed the book with such logic and constructive perspectives. I really learned a lot from the discussion we had in class and it really did provide me with so many different points of views and ideas that challenge my perspective.
As I listened to my classmates/floormates debating, I also learned how my point of view toward the US as a foreigner, and theirs as the citizens of the country are different. I personally thought that the US is globalized as much as it is resistant to globalization. Like Tom said, the US is uniquely globalized already inside of its border, it doesn't feel the need of globalization that happens outside of its border or doesn't really care about it. I think it is because the basic desire of globalization is fully satisfied inside of the US, it doesn't really need to look outside of its border to fill the needs. Having been studying in the US for three years now, I've felt more and more strongly that the US is rather closed and apathetical towards the outside world, ironically, as much concerned as it is with global issues on bigger scales such as international commerce, environment, nuclear proliferation, etc.
This week, in conclusion, challenged me to learn to discuss and to form a constructive opinion, also how to accept and adapt different perspectives of others. I look forward to upcoming classes and what my classmates will bring forth and learning from it, and I hope I will do the same for them.

The Biggest Homework for the World

As I stepped into the realm of World Politics, I was asked what the most important issue in World Politics is. Even a novice like me knows that the world of World Politics is boundless and comprehensive and has numerous things to focus on. The world has the issues of education, poverty, economy and what not on its hand, but the tension between nations which interfere in establishing world peace is the one which needs to be taken care of, requiring collaboration of the whole globe.

The ideological and military tension amongst nations has always been the unsolvable issue that comes up constantly. From the eyes of a person from the Korean Peninsula, who grew up in the middle of such tension, Korean Peninsula conflict is the example of one of the most important and urgent problems to solve. Growing up, I had to get used to occasional armed fight or threat, learning about starving fellow koreans in the North, and feeling of insecurity and precariousness. It creates a tension and insecurity not only to the Korean peninsula, but also to the neighboring countries, their alliances, and even the whole world. The issues tied to this matter are serious - nuclear proliferation, ideological conflict, poverty, economy, human rights and etc.

The tension between these two small countries has, by no means, small impact on the world of World Politics. Various small and big military or ideological clashes between nations will result in a massive dilemma for the world. It is urgent to find a way to loosen these tensions in order to provide world peace and more and more people to have freedom and the right to pursue happiness as human beings.