Reflection (Week 10)

Reflecting on this past week is much harder for me than it would be for the last weeks of class. Personal issues that came up over the weekend threw me for a loop and have, for the most part, taken over my focus during the course. It was a lot harder this week to focus on the readings and truly connect with them enough to make concrete opinions on the topics at hand. I could tell that I was not operating at my full capacity this week, and it affected how I felt about my performance in discussions and the class overall. The security documents and the Mueller piece were interesting enough to hold my attention during my readings. However, I could not connect with the Hsia piece, which, for the most part, maybe because I didn't like the writing style. At first, I didn't understand how these two articles were related to the context of insecurity. After on conversations in class on Thursday, I now understand the connection a little better and can appreciate them for what they are. 

In reality, though, there's not much I can do about the situation at hand in my personal life, but to accept it as it is and to move on with my life. I would say that I will try harder next week, but I think being absent for half of the course in the upcoming week will hinder that goal. If I could avoid missing any of our World Politics classes I would, but sometimes life just throws curveballs at you and you can't save yourself from them. With that being said, I'm going to try my very best to remain caught up on class discussions even in my absence and come back after my trip home motivated more than ever before. 

Obviously, I have to address the Halloween aspect of our class on Thursday in this reflection post or else it would be too somber. Seeing everyone in their costumes was the highlight of my day, besides the candy PTJ so graciously provided. I did not end up wearing a costume, for which I regret just a little bit, because again, this weekend threw every plan off course. Maybe next year I'll be able to pull off the Sandy from Grease costume or maybe even Rey from Star Wars to commemorate the end of the trilogy. With that hope for a better next year, I'd like to finish off my reflection post for the week by wishing everyone a safe and happy Halloween!!

#10 The Concept of National Security (ym)

     According to The Report of the Commission of Human Security by United Nations published in 2003, stated that "[human security] means using processes that build on people's strengths and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military, cultural system that together the people's building blocks of survival." Therefore, I think "human (national) security" can mean anything, and anything can be a security issue. The statement above indicates that environmental and cultural problems are also being the part of securing a country, and security also means that the culture in a country is not destroyed. Therefore, I can conclude that "human security is not a concern with weapons, but it is a concern with human life and dignity." Taking an environmental issue as an example. there is a possibility that people are migrating to a country because of natural disasters. This will affect the stability and security of a country.

     However, if the countries want to protect the basis of the country's security (in terms of preventing invasion etc...), then we should have a narrower definition of "national security". It is true that both the National Security Strategy and NSC-68 used broader definition of "national security", and that is probably because the Untied States is trying to include the citizens to agree in these documents and to unify the country. Also, during the class on Monday, we have concluded that the definition of security is examplanding as time passes (publication dates for the National Security Strategy), and it has been expanding from a military perspective to basically everything. One of the reasons for this expansion, is because of the advance in technology and the increased scale of international space (i.e. cyber space etc...).

     During the class on Monday when the other blog groups were reading the board, I was reading the National Security Strategy of Japan and comparing the two contexts. It was obvious that both the Untied States and the Japanese National Security Strategy defined "national security" broadly. However, some of the comparison and interesting points were that the Japanese document mentioned the "U.S.-Japan alliance" as their second key strategy to secure their country. Rather than mentioning he military aspects, "national security" for the Japanese was to have enough skills to effectively analyze the international society and also having improvements in technology in such fields like economics and defenses.

     Therefore, overall, I agree to Wolfers argument of "national security" can mean whatever one wants it to mean, and in principle to anything can be an issue of national security. I really hope we can compare the National Security Strategy between different countries (with good translations, of course). It was fun personally comparing the content between the United States and Japan...!☺️

America and Itself

I agree with Wolfers points on national security and interest, they are vague, especially in American politics. In class, as we saw from all the groups, national identity and security are similar in name. While they had the same concept assigned to it, it is the meaning that is malleable - especially as time goes by. Safekeeping America and democracy and freedom is the main subject of security and interest, but time changes the focus of it. 

During the Cold War, national security meant keeping American democracy and freedom protected against the Soviets and national interest meant bringing the mentioned to those who need and want it. Going forward in time, the focus has shifted from the Cold War to the War on Terror, but only the focus has shifted, the main theme of American democracy and freedom hasn't changed. Now, it is promoting and safekeeping democracy and freedom in the middle east against the terrorists, and helping countries and people escape it. 

Based on the papers read, it seems that there should be a broad view projected to the people such as American democracy and freedom, but that defining it should be narrow and focussed on what is happening currently. Operating this way, makes it easier for the US, and other countries, have a clear and non-fluctuating idea of security. And it is the intricacies that should be malleable. 

National Interest, in this view, should also only be malleable when looking at the ideals closer. It is easier to rally people behind a view they know, than a new one that many people may not even lookup. This gives the people a name they recognize to get behind, and a name for the government to work with. 

- Eli

National Security?

National security has become an all-encompassing term. Anything can be a security issue as long as an individual words it correctly. Currently the government can spin anything into being a national security issue, there is a broadness to the term because of all the different kinds of threats which exist today. However, this use of the word national security has become too general. There needs to be some parameters when justifying something as a national security threat. Now I am not sure how that would look or what they would be, but having a framework for defining national security would increase transparency within the government as well as give them more authority. There is also the issue of being threatened vs creating a threat even if there was not a serious one before. In NSC 68 the Soviet Union was deemed the highest threat during this time period and all developments were being done to hopefully beat the Russians. But really was communism a threat before we, the United States, mobilized against them and spread narratives that the USSR was bad. Our use of the term “national security threat” intensified the issue. From there, not only did it affect our international allies and relations, it also affected processes on a domestic level with the red scare and McCarthyism. “National security” was used in a way to control the citizens of the United States to ensure cooperation and homogeneity. National security is held in such a high regard within the United States, we place a lot of importance into the term and if it is used in an argument or for a justification people usually comply and respect it. Our military plays a huge role in our national security and it is evident that the respect we have for them also plays into our preconceived notion that national security is always beneficial. The world is changing so much, national security includes so many topics and is growing as we are exploring more of the technology world. Besides the military which is a physical representation of national security there are also intangible items which fall under national security such as cyber security, climate change and financial security. In the 2006 Security documents Global Economic Growth is listed as something which needs to be a priority for US national Security. This intangible topic of financial security has become a headline priority, financial stability is important, but can it or should it qualify as an issue of national security? Is it really that threatening? There are issues which the United States places too much of an emphasis on. Intangible security threats are real especially in the form of cyber security or climate change and today’s world intangible threats are becoming more of a focus for national security since they are more prominent. National security should not be all encompassing or taken lightly, it is a term which not only aims to preserve our borders and sovereignty but also the protection of our core values. But at what point do we distinguish between threat and the creation of one due to fear or the need to have a firmer control over the citizenry.

The Malleability of Security

National security is primarily the boogeyman of domestic and foreign policy-making. Say those two words, and policymakers can adopt any measure they see fit. National security has always remained at the forefront of US political discussions, especially with the evolution of threats within our world today. As addressed in NSC-68, national security involved the re-establishment of democratic institutions and the eradication of Soviet influence from the satellite states. From 1947-1991, the US's primary concern for safety was the threat of Soviet influence and the procurement of nuclear weapons. Concerned with maintaining superpower status, the US focused on building up intelligence communities and strengthening the country's weapons programs. National security within the context of the Cold War took on a different meaning than it ever had before. With the passing of the National Security Act of 1947, the federal government was able to expand its powers further into policing the public sector. The establishment of the CIA broadened the authority of national security initiatives as it became the first civilian intelligence-gathering agency. Individual rights to privacy were first threatened by this act made in the name of national security. In doing so, the US government started down the slippery slope of security measures.

 "National security" can take on different meanings for every era of history. Initially, it meant the securement of our physical borders as a means of establishing sovereignty. In today's age, it completely diverges from that primary definition, in that it is now used to justify the reduction of civilian privacy and the destabilization of regions, such as the Middle East. With each decade, and subsequently, each administration, there are different threats to expunge. In the 1980s, it was the threat of the Soviet Union; in the early 2000s, it was the threat of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Now in the late 2010s, it is the threat of ISIS and homegrown terrorists such as those who perpetrated the Orlando and Las Vegas shootings. Despite the ever-growing threats of domestic terrorism within the US, many governmental institutions are reluctant to classify these threats as acts of terrorism because they don't fit within the stereotype with which we have defined it. National security has grown to encompass numerous issues within the past two decades but has ultimately failed to recognize the more realistic threats to our democratic society. Most of the measures made in the name of "national security" have been made in response to terrorist attacks, namely those that transpired on 9/11. While 9/11 was an attack of horrific proportions, there has not been nearly as many attacks in the past two decades, or number or of destruction, to justify the expansion of surveillance. The term "national security" has become so malleable in our political and social institutions that it has become the main deciding factor in domestic and foreign policy. With the transition of political power every four years in the United States, different issues come to the forefront of our political and economic goals. For a Republican administration such that of Donald Trump, national security issues might involve reducing ISIS gains in the Middle East or China's growing political power in the international community. A more liberal administration would probably add topics of climate change or foreign influence in federal elections to their list of national security issues.  In this context, I understand what Wolfers meant in that national security often loses sight of its true meaning when applied to a broad spectrum of topics. However, national security is applicable to the protection of a nation-state, including its citizens, economy, and institutions, which any of these issues above could be categorized.

#9 Reflection (ym)

     The simulation reminded me of Model United Nations. It has been a while since I have recently participated in a Model United Conference, so it was strange, but comparing different stances in each company was fun, and there were contradictions obviously. The point that was different from a Model United Conference, it that there were companies that were under the United States government as well as nonprofit organizations (NGOs). Because governments were involved in half of the groups, it was difficult for us to lead the discussion and incorporate both perspectives into one resolution paper; I think this is totally applicable to the world today.

     In terms of improvements, as we reflected over in class, we focused on the Nigerian perspective more than the United States perspective which was interesting, however as companies and organization from the United States, we should have thought from the United States perspective to benefit our country by involving in Nigeria. Also, I really hope for the next simulation, we get to type in the resolution paper and go through the voting process to decide our resolution for the simulation conference. As a representation of Lockheed Martin, I think we could have played a role to create a combined resolution paper between two different stances (one with the companies and the other with NGOs), and we were having conversations with both of the stances. I personally felt that Lockheed Martin had one of the key role in this simulation, and I wished we had more time for this simulation event.

     Although I have lots of improvements that I can make in my presentation (public speaking skills in general), I think the simulation prepared me in general for the future classes in World Politics. I think I am starting to be able to talk during class which I should, so I should challenge doing the rebuttal in the future debates...

I have no more money :)

The simulation we did in class was interesting. Other students mentioned that it was similar to MUN which I have never done before. I was honestly very nervous when I was making my presentation and figuring out what I needed to say in order to make the Initiative for Global Development seem like a viable solution for Nigeria. The process ended up being fun and once the presentation was over I realized that it actually was not too bad. However, after the rebuttal and during the deliberation period I do not think I have ever felt more flustered. It was really intense when people were beginning to raise their voices and the environment became one that I was uncomfortable in. Obviously the experience of discomfort was short lived since everyone calmed down and dispersed afterwards. I wish we could have just all worked together and imposed strong checks on each other in order to utilize all resources available to support Nigeria, but that would never happen in the real world. And of course the United States as an entity would have to evaluate the value in aiding Nigeria and at point the value is no longer worth it. Overall it was a great learning experience and I am glad it went pretty smoothly even though there was no resolution brought about.

The week itself was fine. I babysat Tuesday and Wednesday, went grocery shopping, and finished one of the face masks I had in my drawer. I loaded up on groceries, I have enough Progresso chicken noodle soup to last me a month and I am not complaining. Last week I had bought white liquid eyeliner so I experimented with it a bit and drew little cloud like shapes around my eyes, it was pretty cool and I might show up to class one day with cloud eyes. Saturday I went shopping in Georgetown I was able to purchase some vegan Doc Martens which I am in love with, they are so comfortable and I put ribbon in place of the laces…I am obsessed. There goes my Christmas present, I bought it 2 months early. Eventually a snack was in order and matcha soft serve was the chosen food. Unfortunately, I cannot eat food properly and spilled some on my white shirt. To end the day, one of the individuals I was with had some trouble navigating so we had a fun time metro hopping on the way home. Sunday I babysat as well and the little girl is the cutest human being ever! Her laugh is contagious and I always end up having so much fun while hanging out with her. Overall not too bad of a week.

Reflection #9

   This week's simulation was a lot of fun. This was one of my favorite activities in this class, and I can't wait for the next simulation.
   I was part of the Shell group, and it was a lot of fun. My group was amazing, we all worked really well together. A lot of us were not traditional corporation lovers, gearing more towards NGOs, so it was interesting to work from this point of view. We had to think in a different way, protect ourselves first, not the people. To become more Shell-like, we gave ourselves official names and dressed up in our Shell personas, which was a lot of fun for all of us. On our notes, we had two sets of ideas, the ones we would show to the people, and our own personal notes that would have been bad if people had found out, and that was part of the fun. Such as putting Nigerians in charge of Nigeria, but between us, we agreed that he would be bribed to think our way. We had to keep certain things hush-hush and focus on certain other things that would make us seem like the protagonists. We focussed on Boko Haram and the pirates making a mess of the country, and not the fact that there was a lot of malpractice by Shell. Our video was very funny. We thought that it would be the best way to portray Shell, especially with the multicultural people popping up with every scene and the bright happy color of the whole thing.
   Interacting with the groups was also a lot of fun for me and I think for everyone else. It was a bit expected that the humanitarian groups would come together in the beginning, but later on, the groups knew that they couldn't be isolated to get their agendas done, so some of the humanitarian groups tried branching out while others were still too stubborn to work with others. While we didn't show it, we as Shell needed those groups, however, we would turn all the information to favor us. We would say that we've been in Nigeria the longest and that without us there would be chaos, and how much of the country's economy is dependant on us. But in reality, we needed their help and their good image to help ours advance.
   One thing that stuck with me after the simulation, was how quickly everyone forgot to focus on the US, their customer. We started attacking others while disregarding the US being the real main player. If we do a simulation similar to this one again, I'll have to focus on the main objective, and not get distracted by all that's around and by facts - it's the group with the best sales pitch that will do the best.

- Eli

Reflection #9

To begin this reflection, I would like to say that not having a blog post this week was a Godsend. There were two fewer things to add to my checklist, and I could focus solely on my papers for other classes. While this was beneficial, I felt like I was thrown off by the lack of blog posts. Usually, I keep a pretty tight schedule when it comes to completing our blogging requirements every week, and not having to complete them created a lot of confusion on my part. 

Simulation Week, on the other hand, was quite the event. Tensions ran high and everyone came prepared to destroy the other teams' arguments. Day 1 of the simulation was more civil because we only presented, and most of us, except for maybe 1 or 2 teams, didn't leave enough time to ask the hard-hitting questions. Every presentation was well put together, but my teammates and I made it a point to note down controversial parts of opponents' proposals or their "ethical" process for decisionmaking. We wanted to have sharp points against their main arguments such as, "How ethical can Lockheed Martin be after dropping bombs on a busload full of children?" or "How will Shell prevent any further degradation of the Nigerian environment?". 

Adding the extra day for rebuttals was crucial as I was able to prepare more for my speech. I didn't necessarily know how to prepare since we had covered possible oppositional questions in our first presentation. We addressed the costs of these programs and why we believed US military intervention would have been more detrimental to the Nigerian people. After discussing the issue further with my teammates, we decided to focus on the humanitarian aid part of our proposal and partnering with other NGOs such as the Human Rights Watch and the Initiative for Global Development. Tensions ran extremely high on this second day of the simulation as the room primarily split into two camps of thought. One side was compromised of the realist groups whose primary purpose revolved around the military intervention. Triple Canopy, Lockheed Martin, and Shell formed a partnership based security purposes. While we, the IRC, were against their mode of intervention, there were some points with which I agreed. Obviously, I couldn't argue for the use of military intervention, being an NGO, I had to place myself in the shoes of a liberal humanitarian aid organization. I tend to lean towards realist arguments during our discussions, so having to think within a liberal mindset was quite hard. Being able to argue both sides of an issue is essential and I think this simulation was a good example of that. We were placed into groups that challenged us and made us think more critically about the methods of intervention. I know I've learned greatly from those two days of class and I would really love to complete another during the remainder of our time this semester, if at all possible. The simulation really broke up the normal pattern of reading and then discussion and I really needed that break at this point of the academic season.