Diplomatic talks with the Taliban??

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/world/middleeast/26diplo.html?_r=1&ref=internationalrelations


This is an NY Times article concerning President Obama possibly changing the policy with the Taliban, and resorting to Diplomatic Talks to further "Consolidate" the country.

Personally, I'm all for diplomacy, but I wonder is that even possible at this point? especially given that the US in one aggressive strike, took out the leader of the Taliban regime.

If it gets the troops home, then why not?


I just sincerely have doubts as to this new approach.

Only Time will tell

Obama Announces Plans for Afghan Surge Pullout

Obama Pullout

Above is the link for a New York Times article which says that on Wednesday, President Barack Obama will announce the pullout of surge forces in Afghanistan.

Currently there are 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan that were deployed in the Surge, which have been there since 2009

There have been speculations as to how the withdrawal will take place,however, the one that will most likely take place will be the withdrawal of 15,00 this year, and then 15,000 by the end of 2012.

however it may take place, there are still 68,000 troops in Afghanistan after this removal.

US - Pakistan relations

Gates stresses relations with Pakistan

Above is the link for the article starring retiring Defense secretary Robert Gates who is stressing the importance of US relations with Pakistan.

Pakistan is key in the fact that it is in between  Afghanistan and India, two very pivotal countries in US national interest.

Pakistan has always had a close relationship with the US. Ever since Nixon's China Game

Now, the Pakistan US relations have been deteriorating especially because the Pakistanis feel that their sovereignty has been compromised by the US in the strike that killed Osama Bin Laden. Since then the push has been for an improvement in relations.

Link - NYT Article - Turkish Vote Result Seen as Opportunity for EU

NY Times - Turkish Vote Result Seen as Opportunity for EU
Above is the link for a New York Times article regarding the election of the new Turkish Prime Minister. 

The European Union sees a door opened for Turkey, especially since this country is a candidate for admission into the EU. 

They (EU) feel as though they will benefit the most out of this work they will be embarking on Turkey, as it is a gateway to the Middle East. 

Its all a game of chess right now, their next move better be their best move

NATO and Libya

NY Times - Gates Pushes 5 NATO Allies for more on Libya

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has had an influence and has military forces in Libya to overthrow the Qaddafi regime. The questions, as in the article, are what may be the roles other countries play in the military based strikes.

Germany and Spain both have stated to remain their positions, while the US urges them, and three other more countries to do more in the coup of Qaddafi

The US feels that Qaddafi is at his wits end, and all he needs is a little bit more push from NATO.

Will this effort by the US work? who knows?

- Read the article for more and tell me your thoughts

One superpower or many powers?

In class we have discussed three different scenarios of a world power: 


1) Hegemonic - One big power 
2) 2 superpowers - two countries share the superpower
3) Multi-power - More than one country has the power 


Many argue about which power benefits more. Personally, the multi-power system benefits the system we have now. Countries trade amongst each other more freely now than ever and need the cooperation and the ability to check and balance each other out. 

The Amiriyah Shelter Bombing and the tension in Iraq

in 1991, after the Collapse of the Soviet Union, the US had waged a war against Iraq because of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the control of the oil resources.  This war was short lived when Saddam Hussein and his army had withdrawn from Kuwait. One of the finishing touches of this war was the bombing of the Amiriyah Shelter. This location was the target of one of the Smart bombs the US was ready to launch. After word that there were military forces in this shelter, the decision was made to launch the bomb.

In the aftermath of the bombing, the discovery was made that the 400 deaths as a result of the bomb were not military but civilian (mainly women and children). This became the focal point of a huge controversy in ethics and relations between Iraq and the United States. The US was looked at in a negative image because of this action, and since then had already spoiled relations with Iraq. 

What is interesting is that the US, in the Iran-Iraq war, supported Saddam Hussein, and now quickly turned on Iraq to protect their own vested interest. 

If the US knew where they were launching the bomb to, why didn't they send the bomb somewhere else?

I understand that civilian lives are part of a big price of war, but to what exent? 

Also, this makes you think about why Iraq doesn't like the US as is now and wonder why we are really in Iraq

Power Transition

As a part of class lecture, we studied about the power transition theory. This states  that the largest wars occur when a challenge is happening to the top position in status hierarchy, and also when powers rise to a top position. 

An example of this would be the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prior to this war, the system has one Superpower, the United States. this war caused the abrupt transition from one superpower to multiple powers and the world to be more perceptive of emerging superpowers and what could happen if that happens. 

Now a days, we as a world are more antsy as to which superpowers may or may not emerge from an extreme conflict. 

We must research more due to the fact that the shaping of the world will alter

Nixon's China Game....A reaction

In Class, we viewed a documentary entitled "Nixon's China Game". the premise of this movie is to illustrate how Nixon worked diligently to meet with Mao Zedong to better relations between the US and China. What amazed me is the intricate detail that this mission had. Everything was kept secret until the announcement in 1971. In my opinion, that is the best way to operate, to let as very little people know as possible in order to move forward with a project that would benefit the nation. This way, public opinion is not a hindrance. 
As the documentary progressed,there was a lot of tension during Nixon's stay in China. Rightfully so, because if there was a fatal flaw in the implementation of this plan, than this would consequently cause a rift in the future relations of China and  in turn they would aid Russia. This would have been a severe blow to the United States.Fortunately this China game caused Russia to adjust, which ultimately gave the US a leg up  in the Civil War. 
The rest is clearly documented. 

Background: What is International Relations

International Relations: The study of foreign affairs of and relations among states within an international system. 

Collective Goods Problem: How can a group serve its collective interests when doing so requires its members to forgo their individual interests? 

State: A territorial entity controlled by a government and inhabited by a person

These three terms have to be defined and understood clearly to further understand the field of International Relations. What was unannounced to me was that the topic surrounds us in everyday life. 

Examples : 
Sony, who is a Japanese electronic company, produces most commonplace electronics and the PlayStation Video Game Console. (The only American Video Game Console is the Xbox, which is produced by Microsoft)


The Major Fast food chains (McDonalds, Burger King, KFC) made famous in the United States are also very popular in other countries, for example, We looked up "KFC in Beijing, China" via Google Maps and found 5 all on one street, and way more just in the city alone

The National Debt (Money the US owes) is about 14.3 Trillion...who do you think is lending the US this money? Certainly not US banks 

9 times out of 10, most of your clothes, furniture, electronics, etc. were manufactured in China or Taiwan


In terms of the collective goods problem, we face this even in our own country, how can we act on the best interest of the group, when by doing that, one's individual interest is sacrificed? 

Examples: 
In a relationship, you and your partner have to act and make decisions together to satisfy the relationship (one may want to enjoy a night on the town, but chooses to stay in for the sake of the relationship) 

Congress proposes and passes bills all the time which are supposed to be in the best interest of the country but the arguments that come for these bills are the voices of individual interests. 


Each nation and individual is affected by the basic concepts of international relations, whether one understands it or not. Take a look at everything around you and then think about how it would be different if there was not an outside force affecting it.