Poverty Kills More Afghani’s than Direct Conflict | United Nations

http://worldnewsvine.com/2010/03/poverty-kills-more-afghanis-than-direct-conflict-united-nations/

A report by the United Nations found that more people living in Afghanistan have been killed by poverty than by Operation Enduring Freedom. It is estimated that some 9 million people have been killed by poverty, with another large portion of the population living slightly above poverty. Despite aid funneled into the Afghani government, the poverty rate has not changed significantly over the past decade. The data was gathered from a variety of impoverished areas in Afghanistan and is associated with a variety of other problems in country. The Commission proposed additional funds, international aid and the support of the Afghani government in promoting human rights.

I feel that this is relevant to our study of International Politics in several ways. First of all, this goes back to the slide Professor Wilcox showed on the first day of class. International Politics doesn't need to take the form of high level institutions or grandiose political forums. It can take the form of poverty in the mountains or human suffering in the Middle East. More importantly, however, this definitely concerns our examination of poverty. The Commission that came to these conclusions didn't do so by examining what poverty was, but by making assumptions about the nature of poverty and then proscribing a way of addressing poverty as they assume it exists. Their assumptions are exactly in line with what Pasha claimed people assumed were associated with poverty. The Commission reduced poverty to statistics, putting a certain number of people "below" the poverty line and certain people "above" the poverty line (although they did recognize in the article that this was a rather arbitrary distinction). It also then came up with a way to approach solving the issue of poverty in Afghanistan. This is the reason though I defend the importance of critical theory and believe that critical theory is relevant to policy discussions. The UN has created policy to deal with poverty but didn't challenge and assess the qualifiers of poverty. It could very well be that there solution does not match the problem, simply because the UN's understanding of "the problem" is incomplete. Therefore, I question the effectiveness and validity of the UN's proposal.

Update from Model United Nations Conference NYC

Hi All!
I am currently working hard at the Model United Nations Conference, where students from over 5 continents are coming together to work in different committees under the United Nations to compose resolutions to be passed in favor of the topics which they voted on and are now debating.

My partner and I are wokring for the General Assembly Plenary, on the topic of Climate Change- more specifically Environmental Degredation as a Source of Conflict. Nations prepare speeches to try to convince other nations of their main points, and then they move into caucuses and informal debates where the negotiate their goals. Eventually groups of nations (usually blocked regionally or by developed/developing ) will come together on common grounds and draft a working paper which will be ammended by the chair of the committe. We are still in this process!

On Thursday we will go to the United Nations and hold our final voting on the resolutions as well as have a closing ceremony with speakers who are real UN delegates.

What is proving to be true, that many intellectuals have written about concerning organizations like the United Nations is that there is a lot of talk, and persuasion but very little action comes out of it. What is especially difficult is the lack of knowledge, the lack of recognition and the lack of reality surrounding funding. Without the funds nation states cannot ultimately achieve their humanitarian efforts. This usually means that without the support of wealthy and powerful nation states efforts even on an organizational level cannot be put into action.

Though this is merely a simulation, it is frustrating how overarching and unrealistic some of the goals being proposed in the UN really are. Perhaps if international organizations would be willing to think within the bounds of reality, with realistic financial barriers, they would be able to put more of their resolutions into action.

North Koreans Use Cellphones to Bare Secrets

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/world/asia/29news.html?pagewanted=1&sq&st=nyt&scp=1

North Koreans Use Cellphones to Bare Secrets

By CHOE SANG-HUN

Published: March 28, 2010

North Korea, a very private and isolated nation, is facing a new threat from inside its borders—a network of North Korean citizens using cellphones on Chinese cell-networks and Web sites to share information about the internal affairs of their state with South Korea and other Western nations. While much of the news is contradictory and does not reveal much information about the military or any serious state secrets, there have been some relevant information leakages, for example, the severity of the currency crisis last year. However, the informant system has serious flaws, namely that the cellphones and data networks only work along the Chinese border, and is very dangerous for those North Koreans who are recruited into this espionage business as the penalty for participating is death, usually by firing squad. Despite its long list of faults, this system has proven to be the most effective means of information gathering for South Korea as sending spies across the border resulted in only 1 out of 4 men returning home.

While this could be related to Dillon and Wendt’s work about the spread of information and danger, I feel it is more important to consider this story as a part of a trend of methods of espionage becoming more radical and mercenary, as well as more dangerous. North Korean civilians, usually from the poorer walks, are now putting their lives on the line to relay information to the outside world in order to supplement their meager incomes. This follows the several incidents within our own borders of informants sharing secrets of American technology with the Chinese. However, the penalty for these Chinese informants under U.S. law according to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 is only a 15 to 20 year prison sentence for a serious offense, while the penalty for these North Korean informants for simply sharing opinions on the price of rice is death.

Rift on Iran Emerges as Clinton Visits Moscow

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world/europe/19diplo.html

This article discusses Clinton's visit to Moscow. During a news conference, a difference in strategy regarding Iran was brought up. Clinton stated that “We think it would be premature to go forward with any project at this time, because we want to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians.” In response, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the Russians planned on finishing a nuclear power plant in Iran.

This disagreement highlights two different theories: liberal and realist. Clinton is taking a liberal approach to the Iranian problem. She wants all the states to act together to put pressure on Iran. She wants the world to send the Iranians the message that they will not tolerate an increasingly nuclear Iran. Lavrov's strategy is more realist. Not only has the power plant already been started, but in completing it, Russia would make a huge profit. In addition, by continuing to reach out to Iran, Russia could potentially have a large market in other services, such as weapons. Larvov does not want to join Clinton's strategy because he is protecting his country's own interests.

Lavrov has stated that Russia would continue to support sanctions against Iran, but that Iran has the right to nuclear energy (the US acknowledges this as well.) In supporting the sanctions, Russia is in some ways supporting the liberal approach. However, does its completion of the nuclear plant undermine the goals of the sanctions? Or could liberal and realist theories work together in this case?

Clinton to Meet With Russian Leaders on Arms Control Talks

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/world/europe/18clinton.html?ref=us

Clinton to Meet With Russian Leaders on Arms Control Talks

by Mark Landler

Russia and the U.S. are still struggling to agree on the final details of a long-awaited arms control pact. With hopes to reach an agreement by the end of March, Hillary Clinton has gone to Moscow in an attempt to finally tie up all the loose ends. This agreement would significantly reduce the nuclear arsenal of both Russia and the United States.

“Every time you think you’re done, new issues pop up in Geneva, and what seemed like trivia become major political issues.” The last treaty of this magnitude (The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991) dragged itself out for nine years.

I thought this article was an excellent example of the sheer complexity of all the red tape and political rigmarole that surrounds international treaties and negotiations. Russia continues adding additional conditions to the treaty before it will agree to sign, and the United States must attempt to predict its motives behind each change. As Realists would contend we will always see this constant power struggle between world powers (though most would argue Russia is now better classified as a former world power). The best way for a nation to insure survival is to constantly be building up its arsenal (and in a modern world, this includes nukes).

US-Pakistan dialogue with a difference

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8592472.stm

This article discusses the recent changes in US-Pakistani relations as they have manifested in recent negotiations between the two countries. Recently, the negotiations have become much more productive because Pakistan actually seems committed to fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. As a result, relations between Pakistan and the US have moved away from the "one f-16 in exchange for one Al-Qaeda terrorist" that dominated this relationship in the past. The real concern now is Pakistani and Indian relations, especially Pakistan's use of extremist organizations to achieve foreign policy goals (weakening India, for example).

This article posed another challenge for Realism because of the importance of non-government entities to the relationship between India and Pakistan. Pakistan's use of extremist organizations (like Lashkar-e-Toiba) to achieve foreign policy goals, with their decreased accountability, is an example of this.

Falklands oil disappointment for UK company

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/03/29/falklands.oil.rig/index.html

The value of shares in a British company drilling for oil off the Falkand islands halved Monday, after it revealed the existing supply may not be commercially viable. Potential revenues from oil and gas reignited a long-running dispute between London and Buenos Aires over ownership of the Falklands. The Falklands, known as Las Malvinas in Argentina, lie in the South Atlantic Ocean off the Argentinean coast and have been under British rule since 1833. The island's government, representing a population of around 2,500, remains committed to British sovereignty and the UK maintains a military presence on the islands.

According to Ha-Joon Chang, certain aspects of this situation would be examples of the "Bad Samaritans" at work. Britain, still wielding somewhat of a colonial control over Las Malvinas is hesitant to give up control to Venezuela, especially when it comes to natural resources such as oil. The Argentinean position is that the area's natural resources should be protected; therefore, Britain must accept international resolutions labeling the Falklands as a disputed territory. We see the international community acting for good in this instance. While Britain is undoubtedly trying to take advantage of the area's resources, the international community has placed sanctions on their control. This only goes to prove that international politics can be used for good rather than always manipulated by the "Bad Samaritans."

North Korea warns South to stop border DMZ tours

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62S00Y20100329

North Korea has warned South Korea and the United States to stop allowing tours within the border zone. This warning follows the sinking of a South Korean navy ship on Friday, the cause of which is still unknown. There has been speculation as to the cause of the sinking; possible causes include the explosion of a Korean War-era sea mine and a deliberately placed mine, both from the North. North Korea has yet to make mention of the sinking in its media, but did issue the land border warning. The warning insists that the United States and South Korea forgo allowing journalists and others to tour the Demilitarized Zone, even though the North conducts tours as well.

The North and South Korea conflict still persists to this day, although it is not as violent as it once was. The sinking of the ship, however, will be a new source of conflict, especially because of the mysterious circumstances surrounding it. This again goes back to Mearshiemer and his assumptions about states. Since South Korea can never be completely sure of North Korea's intentions, they are likely to assume that the sinking was an intentional occurrence. This article also describes the hypocrisy of North Korea, which I found interesting, since they are asking South Korea to halt tours while they plan on continuing theirs. The whole North Korea/South Korea debate is very interesting, since it seems like there is no easy way to resolve all the different conflicts between the states.

Cuban hunger striker rejects Spanish offer

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62S4L720100329

Dying hunger striker Guillermo Farinas has rejected an offer by the Spanish government to be transported to Spain. This offer came over a month after his hunger strike, a protest towards the mistreatment of Cuban political prisoners. Farinas has refused both food and liquids since his protest began, and has collapsed twice. The Cuban government had allegedly asked the Spanish government to extend the offer, fearing the consequences of another death. Farinas' hunger strike began after the death of Orlando Zapata Tomayo, who perished after an 85 day hunger strike protesting the treatment of prison inmates. Zapata's death was followed by the international condemnation of Cuba, who now is doing all they can to prevent a like incident with Farinas.

I found this article to be particularly interesting for two reasons. For one, it discusses the effects of one country's actions on it's relationship with the international community. Cuba's condemnation after the death of Zapata shows that countries are held accountable for their actions towards individuals. I also found this story interesting because it incorporates a personal aspect into an international issue. Although one of the larger themes of the article is Cuba's diminishing relationship with the international stories, the article also discusses the personal journey of Farinas. Although we talk a lot about political theory in class, I feel that we haven't really discussed the effect of politics on individuals and their willingness to sacrifice for change. Farinas, for example, is willing to give up his life in order to change the behavior of the Cuban government. I think that this sacrifice is also indicative of the role played by the government; if a man is willing to give up his life to change the government, then there is probably something fundamentally wrong with the way they conduct business.

Obama slips into Afghanistan to voice US resolve

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_obama_afghanistan

By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent
Sunday, March 28, 2010

This article tells about President Obama's surprise and secretive trip to Afghanistan on Sunday. It appears that he "slipped into" Afghanistan for a six-hour stay during the night. The trip was "secretive" because the president left on Air Force One from Camp David, which makes it harder for the press to monitor his activity. All accompanying aides and media representatives were "sworn to secrecy." This was Obama's first visit to Afghanistan, and it came just days after a new message from Osama Bin-Laden, who is supposed to be somewhere near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. While in Kabul, Obama spoke with Afghani president Hamid Karzai and American troops stationed there.It is presumed that Obama wanted to communicate to Karzai that his government needs to do more to fight corruption and terrorism, and to express concern over Karzai's recent visits to Iran, China and Pakistan. When addressing the US troops, Obama emphasized the importance of their work in Afghanistan for keeping America safe. Obama told the troops that, "We did not choose this war," reminding them that Afghanistan was where the 9/11 attacks were planned, and that al-Qaida continued to plot against the US. The article states the visit was probably intended to lift spirits at home as much as those of the troops abroad.

I found that Liberalism seemed to best describe Obama's message and actions in this situation. The things he wished to emphasize to Karzai, to quote directly from the article, were to "demand accountability from Afghan authorities to make good on repeated promises to improve living conditions, rein in corruption and enforce the rule of law to prevent people from joining the insurgency." This seems like Liberal thinking (in terms of political and neo-liberal economic theory), in the sense that Obama assumes that improved material conditions and reduced corruption would deter people from joining the insurgency. As we have discussed, however, many violent extremists don't act out of economic necessity but out of deep-seated beliefs. Obama seems to be trying to spread liberal ideals to Afghanistan in hopes of deterring the insurgent movement.

Chinese Company Geely to Buy Volvo

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/business/global/29auto.html?src=me&ref=business
This article is concerned with the acquisition of Volvo by a Chinese company Geely. One thing which is repeatedly stressed in the article is that after the acquisition, Volvo will remain Volvo, and its management. “I want to emphasize that Volvo is Volvo and Geely is Geely — Volvo will be run by Volvo management,” Mr. Li , the chairman of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group,said at a news conference in Goteborg, Sweden, on Sunday. “We are determined to preserve the distinct identity of the Volvo brand.”
In 2005, Lenovo, a Chinese-based multinational computer technology corporation, purchased the IBM personal computer division. And since then, ThinkPad range has been manufactured and marked by Lenovo. This case is similar to the case of Volvo. Both companies, Lenovo and Geely are private owned company and actually they are started by some Chinese entrepreneurs. I feel like both of them seem to use this way in which they purchase an internationally-recognized brand from a well-known company to boost up their own reputation at China and in the world. Actually, this strategy works pretty well. Fifteen years ago, Lenovo was just a small company in Zhong Guan Cun, a technology hub in Haidian District, Beijing. But now it turns out to be an internationally recognized company and in China, it is a well-known brand. Geely is actually famous for its chairman, Mr.Li, who once said that cars are no more than four wheels and a sofa. But after the acquisition of Volvo, I think the majority of Chinese people will see it in a different light and Geely will have a large chance of boosting up its sales at China.

Push to Eat Local Food is Hampered by Shortage

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/28slaughter.html?hpw

This article is about the trend of increasing demand for locally raised meat, and the problem of a lack of local slaughterhouses to process the demand. While the anecdotes about the inconvenience of taking pigs to the slaughterhouse and the resistance to the conversion of a water buffalo farm to a slaughter facility may not seem particularly pressing issues of international political concern, it made me think about the locavore movement's power to affect the dynamic of international relations. If trust in the prevalence of peace among nations is predicated upon the complex interdependence of their economic interests, particularly when food is an important international commodity, what does it mean for this stable relationship if environmental or social concerns drive an economy to localize rather than expand and encourages only very local, rather than international, exchange of dependency? If peaceful, stable democracies are less likely to engage in conflict with each other in particular because of their intimately entwined interests, is their mutual interest in sustainability (assuming their constructed identity includes environmental concern as part of their "good state" complex) of any consequence in terms of ensuring peace?

Slow Productivity growth in Latin America

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15769879

In recent decades, Latin America’s economic growth has slowed. The Inter-American Development Bank believes slow or negative productivity growth has been the main cause for slow economic growth. Their inability to increase productivity has been traced back to a lack of investment, mediocre education systems, and inefficient transportation of goods. Also the service sector remains the largest sector of Latin American economies, but productivity growth is lowest in services and higher in agriculture and industry. The region has also been plagued by high inflation, the destruction of credit, and political instability.

Chang would likely examine changes in Latin America’s economic policy to note any neo-liberal policies adopted in recent years. If Latin’ America’s developing economies were pressured to liberalize their policies and increase globalized trade, Chang would cite pre-mature Capitalism as the force behind low economic growth. However, from 2007 onwards, many Latin American economies have seen a surge in economic growth. If they have adopted protectionist policies to protect and foster their national economies, there may have been a rise in economic prosperity.

Foreign Policy: Changing Views Of Arab Youth

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124810203
NPR

Ok, so I felt compelled to give you guys some happy news that still has to do with what we're talking about in class. This article shows that most youth (<25 years-old) in the Arab world are optomistic about the future, even though (according to the article) so-called "experts" say there "he Middle East is no place for optimists." Whoa, man, downer, can we please keep it positive, like the young people are doing? Anyway, the article goes on to say that these levels of optomism are surprising, given the current economic, social and political problems in many countries in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. Many surveyed expressed interest in global citizenship and democracy, as well as religion and politics.

This recent discovery puts a serious dent in the Chang's thesis concerning the mostly negative aspects of globalization. The article specifically addresses the idea that the optimism in the Middle East, as well the interest in global citizenship and democracy, are the result of globalization. Perhaps this is an unintentional, positive result of globalization, but nonetheless, it still paints globalization in a better light than a tool of the first world to "kick out the ladder" for the third world, as it were. The optimism that the youth feel overcomes the harsh realities of their respective countries, including economic ones, which would suggest that only the positive, social elements of globalization affect them, and not the negative, economic results.

Europe Looks Uneasily at I.M.F. as Greece Struggles

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25europe.html?hpw

Greece is currently struggling under a tremendous debt, and Europe faces the decision between handling the matter internally (within the euro zone), which would be a great burden to the more financially stable countries, or seeking recourse from the IMF, which is undesirable for its detrimental effect on European pride. The handling of the Greece situation is expected to set an important precedent for future problems like this.

Greece did not keep up its end of the economic bargain, so the other countries this affects now have to create a mechanism for enforcing consequences of this failure. Settling the issue amongst themselves may be more economically risky, but it would save them from having to ask for outside help or from allowing Greece to negotiate with the IMF which they resent for the strong influence the U.S. exerts upon the international organization. This seems to indicate that countries do have feelings, or at least that preferences and identities exert considerable influence on large political decisions, as constructivists claim, although other pressures threaten to exert more influence than the values these countries hold.

Middle Income Nations pick up the slack in trade with developing Nations

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15731508

With the major economic downturn hitting economies all over the world, developing countries could be greatly hurt without the support of richer nations such as the US and UK. However, middle income nations such as Brazil, Russia, and India have stepped in to pick up the slack in loans. The article discuses the possible implications of this move by the middle income nations to help the developing nations that are still in the early stages, stay on their feet.

I wonder how this kind of unexpected shift in foreign market influence could effect the theory that we read in the Bad Samaritans book. Will nations that have yet to reach the top of the ladder still try to kick it down for the nations that are farther down the ladder still? They have a greater incentive to take advantage of such nations because of they need the money even more. But taking a constructivist look at it, they can identify much more closely to the problem than more developed and alienated nations like the US.

Bad water kills more people than war

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/22/united.nations.water.report/index.html

A new report from the UN argues that contaminated drinking water kills more people than war.

If only the resources were devoted to solving this problem as to preparing for wars. That issues like these aren't central to IR theorizing, but war is, tells us something about the perspective from which most IR theory is made-- not from the perspective of people who are at risk of dying from contaminated drinking water, but from people who are concerned about major war (ie, people in wealthy, industrialized nations).

Isreal announces controversial construction plan

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/us.israel/index.html

Isreali Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, announced a plan to build housing units on land still claimed by both Isreal and the Palestinians. This announcement, which happened to occur during Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Isreal, upset the US government, for it jeopardized Isreali and Palestinian negotiations.
While the US has held an interest in supporting Isreal through the negotiations with Palestinians, this article does point out that a major motive for supporting Isreal lies in their partnership in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I wonder whether these interests will outweigh those regarding negotiations. The question is then raised, is US involvement with Isreal based on humanitarian and social reasons, or purely for the purpose of self-interest?
I believe that the US stance behind Isreal is for personal reasons rather than for the benefit of either Isreal of Palestine. The nuclear weapon situation in Iran is merely an example of the US's foreign involvement to preserve power at home.

Chinese Commerce Minister says the US will lose in a trade war

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032101111.html?sid=ST2010032102647

China's commerce minister, Chen Deming, argues that tariffs levied by the US on China's imports will harm America the most. These remarks reflect the growing conflict over China's actions to hold the value of the yuan fixed. Obama wants the yuan to appreciate in value to the US dollar, resulting in an increase US exports to China. Chen argues that current US sanctions against exports of advanced technology like supercomputers and satellites, contribute the widening US-China trade imbalance. Globalization has made US protectionism far more difficult in the present, because the US no longer has the industries to produce goods like TVs and telephones. Chen also says that if the US wants to resolve the trade imbalance, they should adopt a more liberal free trading system with China instead of continuing to restrict exports.

Chen is advocating the neo-liberal ideals that focus on free trade as the main means to improve a country's economy. However, the US is turning to protectionism and trade restrictions to deal with this conflict. Like Ha-Joon Chang argues, many of the world's richer states are still fairly protectionist when it comes to economic trade. He also shows that protectionism and government regulation can still allow for economic growth. However, such policies are less likely to work when there is a -226 trillion dollar trade deficit in the balance. Rigid export sanctions on high-technology to China also has realist elements. By denying China supercomputers and satellites, the US forces China to develop their own technology, and slows China's progress to becoming more powerful state and potential threat.

Ellen's post

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html?ref=world

This article explains that the company Google has closed its censored site in China after it had been repeatedly hacked and violated by the Chinese Government. Instead, they have re-routed users through the liberated Google in Hong Kong. I am unclear about exactly how Google managed such an act, but it has obviously angered China.

I found this article interesting because it suggests that it may not only be great powers that can check the policies of other great powers. Instead, an international corporation has been able to directly challenge the censorship laws within China. Though Google is technically an “American Company” it can be accessed in any country with free internet access. Google is a search engine that allows millions of people access to information on almost any topic at any time. Free exchange of information is one of the crucial aspects of a democratic society. That Google facilitates the freedom of information suggests that it also spreads democracy. This article makes me wonder if the future of the spread of democracy isn’t in the hands of other great powers but in up and coming increasingly powerful corporations like Google.

163 arrested in Nigerian massacre

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/03/22/nigeria.violence.arrests/index.html

163 people have been arrested in connection with the massacre earlier this month in central Nigeria. Of the 163 arrested, 41 will be charged with homicide, according to spokesman Emmanuel Ojukwu. The other 122 will be charged with rioting, arson and possession of firearms.

The massacre occurred on March 7 in predominantly Christian towns near the city of Jos, where about 150 people, mostly Muslims, were reported killed in January. More than 200 people were killed in the March 7th massacre. The ethnic backgrounds of those arrested are mixed, but they are all from the area near Jos. The attacks with guns, machetes, and knives were apparently in retaliation to the previous attacks against Islamic communities. Last week, at least 11 more were killed in a predominantly Christian village.

The violence has put Nigeria on edge. Authorities have sent text messages to residents to attempt to put them at ease. The violence puts Christians and Muslims against each other. However, the attacks are fueled by more than just religion. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjof has said that these attacks are driven by ethnic, social, and economic problems.

The division of Nigeria has been a common occurrence for quite some time now. Social structures are vying for more power and therefore strike down others. Retaliatory attacks lead to more violence. With the government and constitution under reform, there is little structure for citizens to fall under. In addition, UN units of help have been ordered out of the nation and no longer have any control. With little assistance, the future of Nigeria may include a civil war or possible acts of genocide. In this case, intervention is necessary.

China Eyes Investment in Iceland

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthofnations/archive/2010/03/18/china-eyes-investment-in-iceland.aspx

In this post on Newsweek's "Wealth of Nations" blog (also published in the March 22, 2010 issue of Newsweek) it is stated that China is looking to invest in Iceland. China's new embassy in Reykjavik will be the largest in the capitol, and China has increased its inquires to Iceland's official investment agency. Known for it's "ask-no-questions checkbook diplomacy," China is interested in Iceland as it looks for new trade routes across the Arctic as polar ice melts. Iceland could serve as an optimal way station for China. Iceland would benefit from Chinese investment as it is currently battling billions of dollars in debt to Britain and the Netherlands.

This article made me think of the reading we did this week from Bad Samaritans. Ha-Joon Chang writes about international organizations such as the WTO and IMF loaning money to debt-ridden countries with harsh conditions attached. These conditions can interfere with aspects of the country that are very indirectly related to the country's ability to pay off the debt. While China will be investing rather than loaning, and it is not an international organization, it is possible for China to interfere with Iceland's internal affairs. If China becomes Iceland's main investor, Iceland will have much more incentive to go along with China's policies. While increased investment will serve Iceland well now, it could possibly hinder the country later on. This problem is not specific to China and Iceland, but rather all countries that rely heavily on foreign investment.

The end of the blog post mentions that Iceland's relationship with the rest of Europe is currently strained because of the debt it owes. It concludes by posing the question "So why not some new friends from Asia?" I wonder what the rest of Europe's response would be to increasing Chinese influence in Iceland. Would Britain and the Netherlands, the countries that Iceland is indebted to, welcome the investment because it helped Iceland pay off its debt? Or would it be hostile to Chinese investments, fearing the possibility of the North Atlantic controlled largely by the Chinese?

Ban on Elephant Poaching Remains

Group Rejects Tanzanian Bid for One-Off Ivory Sale

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/world/africa/23ivory.html?ref=world

Conservationist organizations such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare gained a victory this week when it was decided to uphold the ban on elephant poaching in Tanzania and Zambia. This 21 year law has been excellent for conservationist preventing the extinction for these wild animals. Now, not only have the number of elephants living increased, but so has the price demanded for the ivory from elephants. Though it seems cruel to conservationists to allow the poaching of elephants and defies their principle, upholding the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora may become detrimental to the people.

There are huge economic gains to be made for African nations through the sales of valuable ivory. Nation states such as Tanzania and Zambia should be able to utilize these natural resources to promote the sustainability of their people...in moderation of course. It is unethical to promote the welfare of the animals before the welfare of the people. With a sevenfold raise in the price for ivory, Zambians and Tanzanians could have an extremely large economic increase.

Money in this case equals power. Many African states have valuable natural resources that they are unable to exploit and profit from for one reason or another. These restrictions prevent African states from gaining economic and thus political power. In this scenario an organization, or a group of conservationist organizations is preventing Zambia and Tanzania from gaining this power. This is an immense power that these international organizations are holding over the Zambian and Tanzanian governments. Clearly if organizations can implement vast restrictions on resources which prevent power and economic growth, they hold a large influence in world power politics.

Karzai holds peace talks with insurgents

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/22/afghanistan.militants.talks/index.html
March 22, 2010 11:32 a.m. EDT

Afghan president Hamid Karzai has held talks with the Hizb-i-Islami terrorist group, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a militant known for anti-US rhetoric. The leaders of the group, which was responsible for numerous deadly attacks in Afghanistan, submitted a peace plan to the president. Karzai has sought peace talks with al-Qaeda for several months, to no avail; reaching a negotiated peace has recently become even more important as coalition forces in Afghanistan plan their exit. The Afghan government has not released word yet of whether they would be accepting the plan that Hizb-i-Islami has put forward, saying they need time to read over the plan. Hekmatyar is a known supporter of al-Qaeda and has referred to the US-led forces as "infidels," calling Afghans to join in the fight against them. His peace plan is probably contingent upon the banishing of westerners from the country.

This event brings up the issue of whether governments can or should negotiate with terrorists. Should the Hizb-i-Islmai group be seen as an important player on the Afghan national stage? Can these terrorists be reasoned with as President Karzai might negotiate with a local governor or the president of a neighboring country? We know the nature of terrorists to be violent and irrational in general, so they couldn't really be members of a realist world of "rational" nations involved in complex relations with one another. These terrorists have committed atrocious crimes in the past, so why should the have the opportunity to work peacefully with the Afghan government now? Many nations would refuse to speak or to work with leaders of despotic states, or any country that had committed crimes against its own people or against another state. For instance, countries like Cuba and North Korea would never be invited to negotiations with the Western states, so why should Karzai meet with these terrorists or consider their peace proposal? They have already proved themselves to be immoral, irrational criminals undeserving of the respect that would normally be involved in peaceful negotiations.

Rift in E.U. Widens Over Importance of Greek Aid

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/business/global/22euro.html?ref=world

The rift over how to solve the Greek debt crisis widened Sunday between Berlin and the rest of the E.U. Angela Merkel of Germany thinks Greece should stand alone, but many other E.U. leaders feel it is the duty of the E.U. to financially bailout Greece. The chancellor stuck to her position Sunday that talk of aid to Greece was premature and would ultimately weaken the euro. Many in the E.U. think this could end up destabilizing the E.U. and lead it in the opposite direction to that of those who inspired a united Europe and its common currency. Opposition to involvement in a potential rescue by the I.M.F. was in retreat, and it appeared likely that the I.M.F. would play a central role. Support for that prospect came Sunday from the secretary general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development saying he was confident Greece would emerge from its fiscal crisis as long as it received a support package. He said the I.M.F. should play a role.

This situation reminds me of Ha-Joon Chang's book, Bad Samaritans. We see the I.M.F. and the E.U. wanting to play a significant role in the bailout of Greece. Even though Greece is not a third world country as often referenced in Ha-Joon's book, it is nonetheless under the influence of larger institutions wanting to contribute to its bailout. Ha-Joon would probably support Germany's decision for Greece's sake. He would want Greece to be protectionist and pull themselves out of their economic crisis themselves instead of being indebted to larger organizations and subject to their latent imperialistic goals.

China's Trade Policies

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/business/global/15yuan.html?scp=1&sq=China%20trade%20&st=cse
This article is concerned with China’s trade policies. Every since 2010, the Obama administration has pressured China to let its currency appreciate. Beijing, despite facing criticism from the US and other parts of the world, refuses to let Renminbi appreciate. The appreciation of Renmibi will be detrimental to China’s exports, which is of crucial importance to China’s economy.
China is one example of how developing countries benefit from protectionism. Ha-Joon Chang in his book Bad Samaritans points out that during the Asia financial crisis in 1998, lots of Asia countries’ currency depreciates substantively, due to the flight of the large amount of foreign monetary investment, because all these countries have opened their investment market to foreign companies. China survived this crisis intact. One of the reasons is Beijing’s refusal to open its financial market, based on its own evaluations of interests. Facing the suggestions and temptations of opening its financial markets from experts of WTO and IMF, China has insisted that it should base its policies on its own situations, rather than a development formula. This point is actually coincides with the point Michael N. Barnett and Martha Finnemore made in their article The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations. They point out that the suggestions and policies offered by IOs usually cannot work very well because those policies are not made for a specific area. Instead, they are just some general formulas based on theories.

Suicide bombers not poor, desperate.

Here is a short piece that expresses what social scientists researching the phenomenon of suicide bombing have learned-- that suicide bombers are largely made up of people who are, on average, more educated and better off than their communities.

This has profound implications for how we think about terrorism generally, and suicide bombing more specifically. If we cannot claim that people undertake suicide bombings because they are poor, and desperate (and therefore perhaps 'suicidal' in terms of mental condition), then perhaps we must take seriously underlying political, ideological commitments of such actors.

I have several peer-reviewed articles written by academics on this question as well. If anyone is interested, send me an email.

'Jihad Jane': How does Al Qaeda recruit U.S.-born women?

'Jihad Jane': How does Al Qaeda recruit U.S.-born women?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100310/ts_csm/286499

This article talks about the recent indictment of Colleen R. LaRose, who is charged as a co-conspirator in a plot to recruit others engage is a "violent jidhad" in South Asia or Europe. She is also charged with personally planning to kill a Swedish cartoonist who had drawn a controversial cartoon of of the prophet Muhammad.What makes the case noteworthy is that LaRose does not seem to fit the profile of the "typical" terrorist. With blond hair and green eyes, she is described as looking more like a "former cheerleader than a Western conception of an Islamic extremist." She apparently became involved in the extremist movement over the internet, and had posted videos on YouTube under the name "Jihad Jane" where she spoke of her desire to do something to help Islamic extremists. While LaRose has not been identified as being affiliated with any specific extremist group, it is clear that she was "radicalized" through internet communication. Counter-terrorism experts say that the recruitment of American citizens for jihads is not new, but has been rare for middle-aged women to be among those recruited.

This article seems especially relevant to the discussion we had in class today regarding terrorism. I think it illustrates the importance of the constructivist ideas of identity formation processes and norm construction. The extremist agenda only works if they can persuade people to be sympathetic to their cause and come to see the world in the same way that they do ("radicalize" them). Through her communications with other extremists, this woman adopted that identity for herself, and acted according its norms. This case is also relevant to the point raised about who we assume the Islamic extremists are and what their motivations are. If you click on the link to the article, you will see a picture of LaRose. I think you will agree that very few people expect an Islamic extremist to look like her, or (if you look at it another way) for someone who looks like her to be an Islamic extremist. It appears to me that this woman acted as she did because she genuinely believes that the extreme Islamic position is the "correct" one, not because it was attached to her political or economic interests.

Euro Unity? It's Germany That Matters

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/world/europe/10iht-letter.html?ref=world

This article outlines Greece's economic crisis, and the debates (or lack there of) about what needs to be done to save them. As of now, Germany stands as the strongest European economy, with only 3.3% debt at this time. The burden of saving the Greek economy, is therefore attributed to Germany, since all other nations feel that they are most capable of doing so. With the Euro continuously losing value, Germany (a country at first opposed to the Euro) is holding the European economy up. The article states "the Germans will be vindicated in their long-held view that for the euro to survive, other countries will have to be, well, more German."

This article is especially interesting in analyzing it through Finnemore's lens about constructivism and world balance. She provides the example of the European Union as a model of excellence in obtaining a political balance, countering the realist idea of regional hegemony. This article disputes Finnemore's idea, and supports realist theory. Though the EU may at one point have had a fine balance of power, Germany's increasing economic strength is boosting it to a hegemonic position in Europe. If Germany continues to have to act as the crutch to all failing European Economies, the Euro may fail, and Finnemore's idea of balance may dissipate.

Taliban Claims Responsibility for Suicide Blast

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/08/pakistan.bombing/index.html

The Taliban said Monday that it was behind a suicide bombing in eastern Pakistan in the city of Lahore that killed 13 people and wounded 113 others. Azam Tariq, spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, stated that the attack was in response to U.S. aggression against Muslims around the world. Tariq said, "I am proud to accept the responsibility of the Lahore suicide blast," in a text message to CNN. "We will follow U.S. and its allies all over the world, even if they are in Karachi, Peshawar, Lahore, Afghanistan or in U.S."

Seven of the dead were security personnel, two were a mother and daughter on their way to school, and 81 were at nearby hospitals.

The suicide bomber targeted the Special Investigation Agency, a provincial law-enforcement agency that investigates high-value detainees. It is where suspected militants have been interrogated.

Due to the rise in complex terrorism, terrorists worldwide have had an easier time doing their worst. Intricate networks dictate where and when U.S. civilians and allies will be at all times including 81 people admitted into hospitals. Terrorists are even able to claim responsibility for the deaths through advances in technology (text messages to CNN). It may seem like a small detail, but through analysis of the Homer-Dixon article, we can see where these small steps are leading. As our societies become more advanced, ironically, we will have a more difficult time preventing terrorists from acting against us. Their understanding of our technology is their best offense, and our understanding is our best defense.

US administration to block vote on Turkey 'genocide'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8553013.stm

US administration to block vote on Turkey 'genocide'

This article describes the Obama administration’s change of heart regarding their support for the declaration of the Armenian deaths during World War I by Turkish soldiers a form of genocide. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians died from the brutality of Turkish soldiers, as well from disease and famine when the Turks deported them. During his campaign for office, Obama promised to support the ruling of genocide. However, now that the House Foreign Affairs Committee has approved the bill by a vote of 23 to 22, Secretary of State Clinton has said the administration does not support the passing of this bill. This change in resolve could stem recent Turkish statements threatening relations between the United States and Turkey if Congress and the president approve the bill. Since the Turks are a major ally in our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot afford to lose their support and friendship.

It is interesting the extent to which our decisions are based on other countries’ needs. A Turkish genocide, even one so long ago, would seriously harm Turkish standing in the international community. Therefore, because we need their support and willingness to allow the transport of oil through their borders, we must keep them happy and innocent. Constructivism suggests that social norms can affect the actions of a country, for instance, to support a humanitarian movement. However, if that movement is going to jeopardize their security in the slightest, it will never be realized. So if countries really only value their security above all else, why do social norms matter? Is it only to make them feel better about themselves? Or have social norms become a social norm and so those who do not display them have to sit by themselves in the corner of the sandbox of the international community?

US led Talks Between Israel and Palestine expected to Fail

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1970563,00.html

This week the Obama administration is set to mediate talks between Israel and Palestine. Negotiations have steadily worsened over the past decades, now communicating through the Americans instead of together. US Senator George Mitchell will travel between Jerusalem and Ramallah. Rather than actually expecting any results from the peace talks, the Palestinians and Isrealis are expected to continue to blame each other for the gridlock. Palestinians hope that America will press Israel to accept a deal they would not agree to without pressure. Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu has been offering Palestine fewer concessions than his predecessors, but still plans to strategically blame the stalemate on Palestine. As a solution is unlikely to come from either side, America as the mediating country will have to choose whether to intervene and put forth a potential solution.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has continued for over a century, but a couple decades of peace talks has produced nothing close to a resolution. The situation has become complex, with the involvement of many Arab countries and the US. Both sides of these talks are approaching the issue from a realist perspective. The Palestinians believe that the Israelis will expand their territory until they claim the entire region, while the Israelis believe that the Palestinians want to take back all of Palestine for themselves. From their desire to survive, both sides refuse to change from their positions in the status quo, refusing to give the other side more power than they have. The US is using its superior position of power to try to bring peace to the region before US involvement in the conflict sparks more violence both in the region and against the US as it did with 9/11.

Sudan's army says rebels ambushed U.N.-AU peacekeepers

This brief article addresses a recent ambush of UN and African Union peacekeeping troops by rebel forces in Sudan. The area where the attack took place has traditionally been controlled by rebel forces but this represents the first incursion into the area in a long time. Army officials in Sudan have denied that the incursions were serious and claim that (by and large) UN forces continue to control the area. Representatives of the movement disagree, claiming that they have always controlled the area. They also deny they were involved in the recent raid. UN forces were not available for comment on claims that they willing gave up their supplies.

This relates to the reading that we did tonight concerning the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. Bellamy claims that one of the two reasons that humanitarian intervention may or may not be done is the perception that it is imperialism by another name. This is the idea that intervention is done only out of the self-interest of the country intervening and that there is no actual humanitarian concern involved. Assuming that the accusations of corruption among UN and AU peacekeeping forces have some validity, there is something to be said for this argument. Even if these accusations aren't valid, the fact that they are being suggested helps to create suspicion and fear among the international community, which could still change the norm dealing with the perception of humanitarian intervention. This angle is unique because it deals with the execution of humanitarian intervention, not how it is perceived on the world stage.

Brought to U.S., Man Is Charged With Aiding Somali Terrorists

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/nyregion/09indict.html?ref=world

This article deals with the extradition of a man from Somalia to the United States due to charges of providing money to a terrorist group, as well as receiving training from them. The man, Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed was transferred to United States custody by Nigerian authorities on saturday night, and appeared before a federal magistrate judge in Manhattan. During the hearing he was charged with purchasing a Kalashnikov rifle as well as two hand grenades and making a transfer of 3,000 euros to a terrorist organization known as Al Shabab. In addition Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed was found in November of 2009 possessing instructions for the making of bombs.

This is an interesting article because it may not be explained simply through realist theory. This is because realism does not account for the actions of the individuals as it believes that states are what one should consider when analyzing international relations. Therefore this article is best explained by liberal theory which argues that individuals are those who who shape the state, and thus the ones that should be focused on. As a result this organization to which Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed belongs should be of huge importance to the United States as they have often times stated their desire to hurt the United States. What is interesting is the relationship between the United States and Somalia, the U.S has in the past given Somalia aid, however because the country suffers from such unstable political conditions it is conceivable that a government which is against the United States will rise to power. This according to liberalist theory could occur simply as a result of political opinion amongst the population of Somalia. Liberalism argues that this is the case as the people are those who bring governments into power, however in the situation of a hostile military take over this theory would no longer apply. Furthermore there has been a lot of discussion over the enrichment of Uranium by Iran over the past couple of weeks as this is seen as a great danger to the the United States. However according to Allison Graham (author of Nuclear Disorder Subtitle: Surveying Atomic Threats) The United States should be concerning itself with hostile groups instead of states such as Iran. This is because states are unlikely to have any real ability to attack the United States due to the U.S's large retaliatory capabilities, while individual organizations such as Al Shabab do not have this issue and thus would be able to attack the United States.

Aid in Africa

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/world/africa/09kenya.html?ref=world

Aid in Africa

I chose this piece primarily because it was one of the only optimistic articles in today’s paper. More than eighty “Millennium Villages” have been aided in Africa, lead by Jeffrey D. Sachs, who aims to show that technology-based aid and education carries great potential to help African villages escape poverty. So far, his “Millennium Villages” have been a success, by teaching farmers how to cultivate new crops, rotate these crops, keep bees and harvest honey, and to use bed nets to stop the spread of malaria. This article showcases the liberalist faith in the importance of non-government actors in international politics. The “Millennium Villages”, lead by one man, have changed the lives of thousands. “Colleagues say Mr. Sachs, 55, has single-handedly done more for foreign aid than just about anybody in recent years.”

However, if this aid were delivered on a larger scale, some argue that corruption would inevitably ensue (i.e. bad leadership, ethnic politics, etc). According to critics of Sachs’s work, government corruption has ruined most attempts in providing aid, especially in Kenya.

We have recently been discussing how humanitarian aid from rich governments has come to be expected, yet how can we insure the aid we provide gets to where it needs to be, and isn’t swept away by corrupt regimes?

For Iran, Enriching Uranium Only Gets Easier

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/science/09enrich.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world

The article discusses the recent announcement by the Iranian government that it had obtained uranium enriched to 20% potency from a scientific perspective, with some commentary about Iran's enrichment program from an International relations perspective (specifically, various countries and international body's opinions regarding the enrichment program). The article also discussed the unlikeliness of Iran actually being able to do anything with their nuclear material. To get it to the point where it could fuel a nuclear reactor for power, they would have to figure out how to form the uranium into fuel rods, and they don't have nearly enough material at 20% potency to make the final push to 90% potency and actually make a bomb. As a result, the idea was that Iran was only enriching uranium to give them extra chips at the bargaining table.

I thought the article was interesting because it offered a good look at the contrast between constructivism and realism. Realists would agree with the assessment given above, that the reason that the Iranian government is enriching uranium is so that they can gain power in bargaining with the rest of the world. Constructivists would say that this not necessarily true, because it rests on the assumption that the Iranian government perceives the rest of the world as anarchical, and that the biggest threat to the current Iranian government lies outside its borders. If you think about it, though, that assumption is not necessarily true. The political situation within Iran is precarious and, from where I'm standing, I'm not 100% sure what the government in Iran will look like in 5 years. The uranium enrichment could have to do with gaining the upper hand in an internal power struggle and nothing at all to do with the rest of the world. Realism cannot account for that.

North Korea on combat alert as U.S. & South Korea hold drills

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62724920100308

This article discusses the current situation on the Korean Peninsula. Currently South Korea is preparing to begin joint drills with the United States, which has put North Korea on a full combat alert. North Korea's paranoia stems from the perpetually strained relationship between itself and South Korea, and the fact that the two countries are technically still at war after over fifty years. The drills, which have been conducted every year for the past few decades without incident, are only intended to test the readiness of the US and South Korea's defense systems. North Korea, however, believes otherwise, and prepares itself so that it can act accordingly in the event of an actual attack.

I felt like this article had a great deal of realist theory laced through it. Mearsheimer talks about the bedrock assumptions of anarchy and realism in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. One of these assumptions is that "states can never be certain about other states' intentions." Here, North Korea is unsure about South Korea's intentions; they see the drills as nuclear war maneuvers instead of simple tests. Therefore, North Korea acts accordingly, aka they prepare for conflict militarily. From this a great deal of tension has arisen, only worsening the situation between the two disagreeing states. However, my question is why does North Korea keep preparing militarily for these drills if they have gone on for decades without an attack or incident? It is a measure of pride or is the North Korean government really believe that South Korea with attack them one of these days?

Endangered US-Turkey Relations?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/03/20103502112450369.html

The article is about a recent resolution passed by the US Congress that labeled the mass killing of Armenians in Turkey during World War I a genocide. The resolution has sparked strong opposition in Turkey, prompting protesters to march in front of the US embassy in Ankara chanting "God damn American imperialism." The resolution also caused the Turkish government to recall their ambassador to the US. However, Hilary Clinton said she, along with the Obama administration, was against the decision, calling it "inappropriate." She, along with Turkish officials, said that the resolution was untimely and put a strain on the already tense Turkish-Armenian relations, which were starting to strengthen.

The decision to call the Armenian killings a genocide does not fit into realist theory. Turkey is an important US ally. It's geographic location makes it a perfect "highway" for US supplies into Iraq. It is also a NATO ally, making it involved in the US-led NATO coalition in Afghanistan. If one was looking at this situation through a realist lens, it would clearly make more sense for the US to protect their interests in the region and not pass the resolution. George Bush did not let this resolution pass in 2007, possibly to protect US interests. This way, US and Turkish relations would remain stable and the US would retain a key regional ally.

However, one could see this move as foreshadowing. The realist lens could still be used if the interests we different. The recent Iraqi election, a "milestone" for the US War in Iraq, could symbolizing the ending interests of the US in Iraq. If all goes well, US troops should begin moving out in May. This would reduce the need to use Turkey a way to get supplies into the country. This resolution being passed could sign that the US interests in the region has shifted enough away from Iraq that the US no longer needs to curry to Turkey's favor.

Blog post from Ellen- women in government, pt. 2

Ellen Toobin

Blog Post:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/03/07/world/international-uk-china-parliament-women.html?_r=1

This article continues my theme from last week, about the integration of women in to foreign governments and how it relates to the theory of liberalism. This article focuses on the lack of integration of women in the government of China. The article contrasts women’s advancement in Chinese business with their continual under representation in government. Chinese women’s economic power and wealth are still lower than men’s. They own 20 percent of business, compared to a world average of 30 percent, however, this number is on the rise.

A startling statistic this article mentions is that though Chinese women are still underrepresented in government, at the annual meeting of china’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC) is one fifth women. This is higher than the 17% of the United States Congress who are women.

Again, I ask the question of the importance of women in democracy. Liberalism operates under the assumption that all people have the same desires and thus must be equally represented. This begs the question, is there a correlation between women in government and increased Democracy? If there were more women in the United States government what aspects of foreign policy would me different? Would the government of China adhere to a less Realist and power oriented approach to foreign policy if women were equally represented? Liberalism argues that the more voices that are heard in a government the more peaceful it will be. I hope as a woman, this is true.