Congo is being assaulted on different levels externally and internally. The jist of it is that after the Rwandan genocide many rebels migrated to the Congo and have since begun to enslave village people to mine coltan and tungsten, the former is used in cellular devices such as Cell Phones and Blackberries.
Human rights violations are taken very conservatively throughout the media because the major corporations frown at potential loss of money.
What I wonder about is how they'd have known to take advantage of that market
Rwandan rebel groups come in to take control over the coltan/tungsten trade. Officially, however, the Corporations taking advantage of the suffering people of the Congo purchase the materials from villages, so they can wipe the blood off their hands.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Obama: Machiavellian in Nature
In January of this year Obama made the tough decision to send more troops into Afganistan. This issue is multifaceted, but I believe Obama might have made the best decision for himself. Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan is truly exemplar of his Machiavellian mannerisms for 2 main reasons. His decision is helpful because after sending them in, he is able to appease the leftists with his plans to get them out. His decision to send them in was mainly for votes on the Health Care bill from the Republicans. But while doing what not everyone wanted, he is Machiavellian in the sense that it was able to benefit him, and a Machiavellian ideal is that people will forget your mistakes if you make them earlier as a pose to later on in your term in office, which is what Obama has done. But at the same time, he has his image to uphold. He went back on his word so fast, despite his electoral promises on instituting free health care, and taking the troops out of Afghanistan. But this is overlooked, because he is able to juggle the conflicting interests of the public and his image.
Harper and the G8: Upholding his image
If you were to notice all the positive news coverage of Steven Harper's seen view on the G8's strategies, you would be out to give Mr. Harper a firm pat on the back. The important factor here is that Harper is not as out for change as he is to better/reform his image. When it comes down to it, as a realist, Mr. Harper would have the interests of Canadians in mind instead of committing to reinforce the G8's ideals. But appearing to be interested in such an idealistic problem will often help his cause. The biggest problem with this is that I believe it has an affect on a politician's credibility. If he is pledging to operate in our interests, he should stick to that. But who knows, it may be an easier way see to affirming our interests.
The concept of seeing to aid and reform in the third world is a noble one, but seen from a Machiavellian lens it shows how Mr. Harper values his image.
Reading the Globe and Mail article here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/stephen-harper-wants-g8-to-honour-past-promises-not-make-new-ones/article1447278/
It came to me that Harper has a few promises to keep on his own word, again, as Machiavelli would say, keep your image in shape, man!
The concept of seeing to aid and reform in the third world is a noble one, but seen from a Machiavellian lens it shows how Mr. Harper values his image.
Reading the Globe and Mail article here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/stephen-harper-wants-g8-to-honour-past-promises-not-make-new-ones/article1447278/
It came to me that Harper has a few promises to keep on his own word, again, as Machiavelli would say, keep your image in shape, man!
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Michael Ignatieff: political prodigy, or cosmopolitanist simpleton?
I suppose that a lot can be said about Michael Ignatieff's extreme idealist views, but I believe that his views on peacekeeping are simple. Ignatieff's beliefs are jaded in the sense that Cosmopolitanism shouldn't necessarily imply altruism. Extreme idealist, left-wing ideals that cannot be objectively used should not be our framework for peacekeeping and every issue that arises. The preachy idea behind his peacekeeping ideas is all well and good, but he cannot expect to drive a country to police the entire world. International affairs and development are a pertinent issue to be assessed by the respective authorities.
I can't bring myself to praise Ignatieff for his views on peacekeeping. True, peacekeeping is done in the fashion he supports, (e.g. heavy military action) but he acts like he sincerely believes that it is done for the country. I think there are much better ways to go about Generally, peacekeeping is done for the benefactor in this day and age. The vast majority of things we choose to initiate our countries in are done in our own interests.
Ignatieff's cosmopolitan ideas preach the concept of morality in politics, where it cannot prosper. In some ways he operates thinking that people have an obligation to help, when it is all a matter of choice, and it is up to people to decide to be charitable by their own means. The fact that he has a lot of imperialistic ideas sort of detracts from his whole objective way of looking at foreign affairs is sort of hypocritical. I mean, look at how he's a post-modernist. The basic way doing things through imperialism--which first of all means to uphold unequal economic trade-- implies that there are inequalities, but he still thinks defending everyone's moral interests is important. So overall, I think he's not quite the prodigy he seems among the extreme leftists.
I can't bring myself to praise Ignatieff for his views on peacekeeping. True, peacekeeping is done in the fashion he supports, (e.g. heavy military action) but he acts like he sincerely believes that it is done for the country. I think there are much better ways to go about Generally, peacekeeping is done for the benefactor in this day and age. The vast majority of things we choose to initiate our countries in are done in our own interests.
Ignatieff's cosmopolitan ideas preach the concept of morality in politics, where it cannot prosper. In some ways he operates thinking that people have an obligation to help, when it is all a matter of choice, and it is up to people to decide to be charitable by their own means. The fact that he has a lot of imperialistic ideas sort of detracts from his whole objective way of looking at foreign affairs is sort of hypocritical. I mean, look at how he's a post-modernist. The basic way doing things through imperialism--which first of all means to uphold unequal economic trade-- implies that there are inequalities, but he still thinks defending everyone's moral interests is important. So overall, I think he's not quite the prodigy he seems among the extreme leftists.
Monday, November 9, 2009
A War on Terror?
The War on Terror.
This name harbors some of the largest misconceptions in the Western World. By definition it is the predominantly militaristic conflict against Islamic terrorists or radical forces.
Do we know what happens in the Middle-East? Day by day we receive news and updates pertaining to the advances in the Middle-East, but do we understand what these advancements necessarily mean? How do these issues affect us?
The fact that we wage war against these individuals as some ridiculous terrorist entity is highly contentious. The subjectivity in our use of the word "Terrorism" is alarming. Terrorism is a tactic of war, which cannot be fought against. The whole concept is flawed, but at least the establishment of a Democratic state is not completely out of the picture.
Without proper knowledge of the subject, we are ignorant to the vagueness of the common goals/interests set in Afghanistan, and whether we are anywhere near attaining them.
The common ground here is that the public, no doubt, wishes for a peaceful Democratic State in Afghanistan, but we do not have the means. In all seriousness I believe that this CAN be attained; but the means in doing so must be changed.
The fact that we feel that our ideology is undoubtedly the right one makes us hypocritical in our application of it. The fact that the United States is occupying Afghanistan makes it seem as if we almost enforce our ideas.
This implies that we actually are ignorant of these people, we are being far too objective in our assessment of their ideals, and application of our ideals.
Obviously, as is in many other countries, there are breaches of Human Rights, and undoubtedly these can be frequently be linked with terrorist activity. However, this is aside from what is currently being done, and mostly what has been done in Afghanistan by thet US Military.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/02/1093939076300.html
This name harbors some of the largest misconceptions in the Western World. By definition it is the predominantly militaristic conflict against Islamic terrorists or radical forces.
Do we know what happens in the Middle-East? Day by day we receive news and updates pertaining to the advances in the Middle-East, but do we understand what these advancements necessarily mean? How do these issues affect us?
The fact that we wage war against these individuals as some ridiculous terrorist entity is highly contentious. The subjectivity in our use of the word "Terrorism" is alarming. Terrorism is a tactic of war, which cannot be fought against. The whole concept is flawed, but at least the establishment of a Democratic state is not completely out of the picture.
Without proper knowledge of the subject, we are ignorant to the vagueness of the common goals/interests set in Afghanistan, and whether we are anywhere near attaining them.
The common ground here is that the public, no doubt, wishes for a peaceful Democratic State in Afghanistan, but we do not have the means. In all seriousness I believe that this CAN be attained; but the means in doing so must be changed.
The fact that we feel that our ideology is undoubtedly the right one makes us hypocritical in our application of it. The fact that the United States is occupying Afghanistan makes it seem as if we almost enforce our ideas.
This implies that we actually are ignorant of these people, we are being far too objective in our assessment of their ideals, and application of our ideals.
Obviously, as is in many other countries, there are breaches of Human Rights, and undoubtedly these can be frequently be linked with terrorist activity. However, this is aside from what is currently being done, and mostly what has been done in Afghanistan by thet US Military.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/02/1093939076300.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)