http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/opinion/25kristof.html?ref=opinion
Nicholas Kristof is famous for publicizing horrific human rights violations that the Western world has ignored. He won his first Pulitzer prize for his work regarding the Cambodian sex trade and his second for his work regarding the genocide in Darfur.
His column today, Kristof writes about a school started in Southern Sudan, because of the ambition of Valentino Achak Deng the boy who inspired the book What is the What and the resources of the book’s author Dave Eggers. The school is a boarding school and each class comprises 50% girls. Kristof sites government statistics that last year in all of southern Sudan, only 11 girls sat for graduation exams. This school is attempting to raise that number exponentially. The administrators perpetually have to resist the constant pressure from the government officials to admit their own children. However, the school’s administrators insist that admission is based solely on test scores, with a slight preference given to orphans.
Though this school in itself is not an international event, the girls and boys that it educates may someday become players on the international stage and find peaceful solutions to the turmoil that has enveloped their country. The international support for the school, particularly from United States citizens is proof that international relations is more than just state relations. Realism cannot explain why people feel compassion for those who do not influence or threaten them at all. This school and its international support are proof that people care and effect international relations with no obvious motive other than compassion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would definitely agree that realism does not account for compassion among the people. Realism leaves so many questions unanswered when it comes to politics on micro level. It ignores the influence of individuals on international dealings by focusing only on states as actors. In turn, things like humanitarian organizations, IOs, and other groups are disregarded in realism, even though they contribute a great deal to how nations interact with one another. My main issue with realism is that it does not allow for the emotions and compassion individuals, like the ones discussed in this article.
ReplyDeleteI agree, you make an excellent point about realism's inability to explain the compassion felt for people who are excluded from the high-level power struggle: where nothing is to be gained by assisting them. However, realists would probably argue that this does not go against their theory because it is not a state that is feeling this empathy: thus it does not contradict their statement that states are concerned solely with those who pose a threat to their hegemony and military prowess.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Tatiana that a realist would contend that this event does not correlate with International Theory. Although i personally believe that these kids have a good chance of being important to Sudans future, you would have to have some facts to show realists in several years time to convince them. Their theory only works if it is based completely on cold science, so that is the kind of thing you need to combat them.
ReplyDelete