The Democratic Republic of Congo: Externalized Extortion

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.

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!

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.