Beliefs According to Goldstein and Keohane

I was going through the readings this week and was fixated on the Goldstein and Keohane reading (“Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework”, particularly in understanding their breakdown of the three types of beliefs. As we read, beliefs were broken down into world views, principled beliefs, and causal beliefs. Principled beliefs are right versus wrong, and can be used to justify world views; they can have significant impact on human action. Causal beliefs reflect cause and effect relationships and can be seen as strategies. The article used the example of the ideas which lead to the policy outcomes that were used to help eradicate small pox. When I was re-reading this article, I realized that I am still having some trouble really separating the three to a clear distinction in my mind and would like to look at a recent change in US policy and apply those concepts to that policy change.

Congress passed the USA Freedom Act last Thursday (May 22) to limit the NSA’s ability for mass surveillance collection. Many argue that this bill is still weak, but a good start for privacy advocates. This is a change in US policy for how an intelligence agency can conduct its behavior. According to Goldstein and Keohane, would you see this change in policy as one that stems from beliefs in world views, principled beliefs, or causal beliefs?  To me, it seems that this change in policy comes from one of causal beliefs; specifically, if you choose to limit the NSA’s ability to conduct mass surveillance, the effect will be that less freedom will be infringed upon. The reason this bill was created was to find a way to stop the mass surveillance, among other things. However, I think you could also look at this change in policy as one of principled beliefs. The House was justified in passing this bill because it is not right to infringe on the personal right to privacy. Looking at this policy change as a principled belief could also be used to justify world beliefs and cultural attitudes to how intelligence agencies can conduct their business domestically and internationally. The NSA has been conducting this type of surveillance for many years and the American public has been more fully informed since the Edward Snowden scandal. It is perhaps surprising that this bill hasn’t been passed sooner.

How would you asses this change in policy according to Goldstein and Keohane’s three sets of beliefs? Are there any other recent changes in policy that would be interesting to asses? Perhaps any policies that have not changed that are significant?

“For the Game. For the World.”

I’m a soccer fan. Always have been, always will be.   So, when Goldman Sachs predicted the winner of the 2014 FIFA World Cup on Wednesday, I immediately started thinking of ways I could tie soccer to international relations.

           

During class on Tuesday, we were asked to think about a case where interests allowed ideas to emerge or grow.  Although this isn’t a one-time incident, I consider the FIFA World Cup to be a strong example of interests allowing ideas to grow.  In its mission, FIFA states that its goal is “to improve the game of football constantly and promote it globally in the light of its unifying, educational, cultural, and humanitarian values…”  FIFA legitimizes their interest in promoting football through the spreading of positive ideas – cooperation, education, cultural and humanitarian values. 

As an organization, FIFA has inspired countless young soccer players across the globe, and aims to unite countries in shared competition.    For example, in 1967, a two-day truce was called during the Nigerian Civil War so that both sides could watch the famed Pelé play.  FIFA has set a positive example of international cooperation by uniting soccer players in pursuit of a common endeavor despite different worldviews.  By participating, the teams spread national pride and international awareness for their country, connect with other international athletes, and have a chance at international fame. 

There is, unfortunately, a caveat involved in FIFA’s financial support of international tournaments.  Recently, there have been numerous demonstrations throughout Brazil under the banner “FIFA GO HOME.”  These demonstrators are attempting to bring to light the corruption and enormous cost of hosting the World Cup.  FIFA has approved the largest budget in its history for the upcoming kick-off in less than two weeks, but Brazil has yet to finish several stadiums, a light rail project, an airport terminal, and road projects, the latter three of which were intended to benefit Brazil long term.  Federal prosecutors are currently investigating the role of corruption behind a number of the unfinished infrastructure expansions. 

FIFA's interests can allow ideas to grow and ideals to flourish by setting an example through international cooperation and the sharing of different cultural values.  Additionally, many of the infrastructure improvements they sponsor are intended benefit the host country following the tournament, and when done correctly, can benefit the country for years to come.  However, financial and political interests are making it impossible for FIFA to achieve its goals to promote its own ideals. In fact, the wealthy and powerful seem poised to convert the World Cup — in both fact and public perception — into an event that only further consolidates economic and political power. 

Week 3 - Post: Interest or Ideas in Nigeria

I will attempt to examine the US approach to the kidnapped girls in Nigeria from the lens of interest or ideas.

The country of Nigeria is NOT vital to US interests. Nigeria is important because it exports oil. However, the US is not dependent on Nigerian oil. The US interest in Nigeria is Boko Harum and its affiliation as an Islamist extremist group. The critical question that has been debated on the news recently is if Boko Harum is an Al Qaeda affiliate.

With regard to ideas, the rescue of the kidnapped school girls is well aligned with basic American values. The media has been providing a fair amount of sympathetic coverage with US congressman and even the First Lady showing their support for the kidnapped school girls. The challenge from this perspective is if the President of the United States (POTUS) should commit the US military to support a rescue effort.

I think that the current US approach is the correct one. The US should provide US military support in an indirect role. It can provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets to assist in locating the girls. It can also provide a degree of training and operational planning assistance to the Nigerian counterterrorist unit. However, US forces should NOT participate directly in any rescue effort. There is just too much risk in terms of loss of life to one of the hostages or even to an American serviceman. Boko Harum can prepare itself for a rescue attempt and develop a plan to inflict a high number of casualties. This practical approach shows that the US is committed to supporting our values, but understanding it is in our best interest to NOT conduct a military operation unilaterally in the country of Nigeria because of risk analysis.

Week 3 - Turmoil in Syria Persists

Yesterday morning, Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council move to prosecute Syrian war crimes.  This is apparently the fourth time that both Russia and China have vetoed measures to intervene in Syria, and in my opinion represent an instance in which calculated interests are in direct opposition of social norms.  Similar to CajM, I also seem to absorb concepts better when applied to real world situations. (Note: the original article by NY Times’ Rick Gladstone has been replaced by the article the hyperlink links to. Not sure why. I saved the original as a PDF, so send me an email if you would like a copy.) 

The statements made in response to Russia and China’s veto to intervene in Syria were neatly in line with promoting shared values.  Samantha Power, the United States ambassador, made a statement appealing to pathos.  “Sadly, because of the decision of the Russian Federation to back the Syrian regime no matter what it does, the Syrian people will not see justice today.  They will see crime, but not punishment”.  The French ambassador, Gerard Araud, agreed with Powers and said a veto of the resolution was akin to “vetoing justice” (Gladstone).  

The concept of justice is an idea – it is a social construct that we pick up from our cultural environment.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has put this idea on paper, and is commonly referred to in cases of human rights violations, as in Syria.  The mutual common purpose of more than 50 countries on the General Assembly to intervene in Syria is founded on this norm.  They are not asking, “what is most likely to succeed, but rather what is the right thing to do” (Prof. Jackson).

In direct opposition to the quote by Prof. Jackson are the statements of Russia and China.  Rick Gladstone of the NY Times reported that the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin argued that the resolution was a “publicity stunt that would be counterproductive and subvert any diplomatic efforts to settle the conflict.”  The deputy permanent representative of China stated, “To forcibly refer the situation of Syria to the I.C.C. is neither conducive to building trust among all parties in Syria or to early resumption of negotiations in Geneva.”  Both Russia and China’s statements are void of any reference to “justice,” and express calculated interests analyzing the success of an intervention in Syria.  

            While these countries continue to debate the best course of action, the unrest in Syria persists.  My own values are in line with the vast majority of the General Assembly supporting an intervention, and it is hard to understand the interests of the two dissenters in light of the turmoil in Syria. 

Week 3- Post - Intents & Motives in the News

Professor Jackson began his soliloquy this past week by breaking down the terms ideas, interests, motives, and intents. We also discussed in our live session the difference between motives and intent. Professor Jackson defined motive as a “subjective state of mind, what you are thinking at a particular moment” and he defined intent as an “action arises not from internal process but from a collective, outside negotiation”. Jason also explained the differences between the two terms during our live session when he said to think of motives as internal and intent as public justification. Although I am still attempting to fully understand the difference between the two, I think it is interesting to keep exploring them further. Sam S. also explored these ideas in his blog post titled “Motive and Intent” and I think he also did a nice job of clearly laying out the differences.

With this understanding, what are the motives and intents behind Thailand’s military in the recent coup that is currently taking place. Thailand declared martial law on Tuesday after the continuous escalation of politics and unrest with the public. Although martial law has been declared before in Thailand, what are the current motives and intents behind the military’s decision? What do they expect as the end result of the coup? How will this affect the international world? To me, it appears that the intention of the military is to establish their power and comes as a result of the external environment, perhaps not just an internal decision. Although it is difficult to truly understand what a particular actor/state is thinking, we can observe from their actions. It will be interesting to watch how this situation continues to play out over the next couple of days.

For more information about the coup/declaration of martial law: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/05/20/meet_the_law_at_the_heart_of_thailand_s_pseudo_coup

Week Three - Interest or Ideas?

During the lecture by Professor Jackson, I thought about how the dichotomy of interest and ideas ties into Thucydides three motives of war: fear, honor, and interest. It seems to me that interest for both Thucydides and Professor Jackson is based on rational calculation. On the other hand, fear and honor are cultural and contextual. Thus, fear and honor reflect ideas or values as stated by Professor Jackson.

Furthermore, in considering the Melian dialogue where the Athenians deliver an ultimatum to the people of Melos: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. This is clearly an example of interest because the Athenians are acting on rational calculation and not on values. Thucydides provides the famous line in the dialogue that reflects the essence of power politics: "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." This view of power politics is still the core belief of realists.

I think that President Obama's decisions to NOT intervene decisively in Syria or the Ukraine demonstrates the choice of interest or idea. When the president warned President Assad that the use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels would be a red line that the United States would NOT tolerate, it was based on an international norm that most Americans consider consistent with our values. However, after the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, the president first pushed for military action but then punted the issue to Congress. The president's decision was based on the rational calculation that the American public did NOT want US military involvement in Syria. Likewise, President Obama warned President Putin of Russia that violating Ukraine's sovereignty would have consequences. Again, the president ultimately based his policy and US response on the rational calculation to NOT provoke Russia. In both instances, the president has been criticized for NOT upholding international norms and values while also exhibiting American weakness to perceived bullies.

Week 3- Ideas and Interests- Role of Miscommunication

Professor Jackson’s lecture concerning whether or not an action on the world stage is driven by interests or ideas starts off by explaining key concepts and definitions for understanding those interactions. In his lecture he states that ideas are something that do not necessarily arise from a rational calculation, but are part of a broader cultural environment; whereas, interests arise from a rational calculation. During his lecture, I was thinking about how trying to understand an action as an idea or interest really highlights how easily there can be a miscommunication between states and/or actors.

Trying to understand whether an action was from an idea or interest by an actor is difficult to do, and I would agree with what Joy pointed out in her blog post from this week, that it is a convoluted idea. I would say that trying to understand an action as an idea or interest could lead a person to focus their attention to one or the other, perhaps misunderstanding the situation completely. That would lead to a large miscommunication, because they were trying to understand an action coming from an idea, versus an interest. This process may be easier to understand for states, but I think the idea of miscommunication is still very prevalent- if one is trying to understand an action as an idea, versus an interest, they may focus on the wrong detail which leads to a larger miscommunication.

I think that miscommunication can happen often and breaking down actions on the world stage that are driven by interests or ideas highlights this key problem. Continuing to break down the key components of ideas and interests helps to break through this miscommunication between actors and as we continue to study different actions made on the world stage, it is important to be aware of how easy it is to misinterpret those actions. 

Week 3 - Ideas and Interests

In his lecture on ideas and interests, Dr. Jackson asked if it was possible to determine what publicly available ideas and norms an actor is drawing on, and if possible, what happens if it looks like an actor is drawing on incompatible logic.   

The process of trying to separate and characterize the ideas and interests of an actor is, in my opinion, somewhat convoluted.  Ideas lead to interests and interests can lead to ideas.  My understanding is that individual actors are quite a bit more opaque than states when it comes to deciphering ideas and interests.  Individuals don’t necessarily express their ideas and there’s not always an opportunity to do so.  Depending on the particular norm or idea, an actor’s position may change over time or depending on context.   Incompatible logic of individual actors is rarely a matter of major concern, and I imagine a lot of individuals change their opinions throughout their lifetime with little to no effect.

States, on the other hand, are by necessity more transparent.  States are often in situations in which they are required to take a clear position on a matter, such as in the passage of legislation or a public statement, and these statements may reflect internalized ideas and norms.   If they appeared to be drawing on incompatible logic, even that based on the ideas and norms of the majority, the result would most likely be much different than if an individual was drawing on incompatible logic.   States, and the elected officials that represent them, are constantly under scrutiny and their ideas are expected to remain more stable over time.  Their positions are often put in writing for record or publication, and are expected to demonstrate a consistent ideology in order to be considered competent. 

How do we figure out what ideas are actually important? Objectively, they all are.  Regardless of compatibility, the ideas of individuals and States tell us a little bit about their culture and what they consider important.  If ideas are incompatible, this in itself may share a little more information regarding  how their culture might be changing over time.  

Week 2 - Passions, Hobbes, and Economics

After class this week, I was left thinking about the root of cultural differences, self-interest, and economics.  I am taking an introductory economics course with a few of you this summer, and am enjoying it greatly.  Admittedly, I may be enjoying it a little too much since I am now connecting economic theory to almost everything, including Hobbes.

As Prof. Rancatore mentioned in class, Hobbes based the foundation of his argument in Leviathan on the passions.  We are moved by passions and taught to desire and avoid different things based on experience.  These passions are influenced by environment and are constantly changing.   Hobbes also observes that these passions exist in different strengths in different people, and that these differences are partly a result of individual constitution and education (Hobbes, pg. 10).  It is in human nature to endeavor peace, and passions are the foundation of human nature.  Once triggered, our passions lead us down the road to realization, eventually coming across a choice of achieving these passions by way of reasonable or coercive practices.   Despite being self-interested, we don’t always know what is in our best interest, in which case the absolute sovereign is able to dictate what is. 

To me, Hobbes sounds like an economist.  Current behavioral economists similarly believe that our desires or passions depend on our environment, and that we naturally pursue things that we think will make us happy.  But, what makes us happy is constantly changing and self-interest often gets the best of us.  Many of our decisions are made without longevity in mind, or taking into consideration what might be in the best interest for the “greater good” (i.e. saving for retirement).  With this in mind, how can we avoid irrational decision-making in current society and guide destructive self-interest toward constructive government?

Our economics book for this semester mentions the recent book Nudge, written by economists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. Thaler and Sunstein acknowledge that while homo economicus dispassionately evaluates self-interest and makes rational decisions to maximize it, homo sapiens frequently behaves differently. Real humans consistently and predictably make choices that are against self-interest, since they respond more strongly to “passions” like immediate gratification and the aversion to risk. To prevent this and to work for the greater good, Nudge advocates for libertarian paternalism, which allows people to make decisions freely, but “guides them toward a choice that a paternalistic observer would see as good for them” (Colander, pg. 493).  For example, when shopping for groceries, healthy food options would be stocked at eye-level instead of soda or other sweets.  Libertarian paternalists accept that rationality isn’t enough to ensure positive decision-making, and that a benevolent bureaucracy that guides decisions can provide protection from the passions. 

In all, libertarian paternalism doesn’t sound that bad. In return for freedom of action it sacrifices some freedom of choice, since decisions are framed in ways that favor policymakers’ preferences. This seems preferable to the processes of absolute sovereignty, in which actions are restricted to favor the sovereign’s goals.  The risk under both systems, of course, is that the interests of the policymaker (whether bureaucratic nudger or absolute sovereign) might be placed before the greater good. 

Week 2- Idea of Self Preservation

The class last week and tonight has had me thinking a lot about the idea of self preservation and how that plays a larger role in Hobbes as well as the world of International Relations.  Professor Jackson talked about one of the ambiguities found in Hobbes is the idea that people reserve no rights except the right of self preservation. To me, this seems like self preservation can always trump the sovereign and power of the commonwealth, especially if the commonwealth is not protecting its people- which is one thing that allows people to leave the commonwealth, or break the contract. It is reasonable to me that self preservation is as important on an individual level as the role it plays for states on the international scale.

We talked a lot about this in class today, referencing the theory/realistic ways state affairs are currently handled. I think Kyle also brings up an interesting point in his blog post from May 9^th “Reason, Coercion and Crimea” when he quotes an article that says “the US and EU are not willing to go to war over Ukraine”. It appears that self preservation is again overruling the international organizations. There are also a lot of underlying variables that influence this.

This is more something that I keep thinking about from out class discussion today and something I will continue to think about as we explore other thinkers and modern case studies. I will keep in mind how coercion and reason can affect one’s self preservation throughout this course. 

How would Hobbes comment on a modern day civil war and/or protest?

Thomas Hobbes’ writes during the end of a civil war when he describes the laws of nature in his book, Leviathan. His political philosophies are influential worldwide and his ideas can be broadly applied to modern day cases. When reading Leviathan, I was particularly interested in what Hobbes would think and how he would comment on modern day civil wars and protests particularly on the current conflict in Syria. To broadly and generally apply Hobbes’ thinking, I refer back to the beginning of the Second Part, particularly chapter 18. This post is just meant to spark debate and questions, by no means is this a comprehensive analysis of how Thomas Hobbes would evaluate a modern day conflict.

The rights of the sovereign as Hobbes discusses in Chapter 18, the second part of his book, states that there are certain rights, power, for a commonwealth once it is instituted. These rights are included, but not limited to: “the subjects cannot change the forme of government”; “soveraigne Power cannot be forfeited”; “the soveraigns Actions cannot be justly accused by the subject”; “and of making war and peace, as he shall think best” (Hobbes 96-100). Hobbes states that the subjects should not challenge the sovereign and that the sovereign will do what is best for the people. The sovereign, in the case of modern day Syria, is Bashar al-Assad, who has served as the president of Syria since the death of his father. The current Syrian war has been unfolding since the protests that began with the Arab Spring. Syria is in a state of war and chaos; the condition that Hobbes described as the natural state of man.

The point of having a commonwealth instituted is to combat against the natural state of man, which is chaotic. This is due to the fact that “in the nature of man, we find three principall causes of quarreell. First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory” (Hobbes 70). The natural state of man is chaotic, without peace, and is plagued by fear. Man has a right to peace, as explained by The Fundamental Law of Nature, “that every man, ought to endeavor Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use, all helps, and advantages of Warre” (Hobbes 72). So the people of Syria have a right to peace and their instituted commonwealth should protect them from constant war.

The people of Syria are protesting against the government, which according to Hobbes, should not complain about the sovereign because “it follows, that whatsoever he doth, it can be no injury to any of his Subjects; nor ought he to be any of them accused on Injustice” (Hobbes 98). The Sovereign should not be accused of injustice by the subjects. However, Bashar al-Assad is accused of injustice and there is civil strife. I believe that Hobbes would want the people of Syria to enjoy their right to live in peace, but I do not think that he would agree with the method in which it is being carried out now because of the current state Syria is in. Hobbes would

What do you think? How would Hobbes respond to other protests? What if the sovereign is not doing what is best for the people, then can the subjects accuse of injustice? Would Hobbes agree to that? 

Similarities between Leviathan and The Prince

The theme of self-preservation is ubiquitous throughout Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, and is at the core of his philosophy.  This unique ideology brings to mind the work of another early consequentialist, Niccoló Machiavelli.  Written over a century before Leviathan, Machiavelli’s The Prince has similar, if not identical, themes on human nature and politics. 

Although The Prince may not necessarily reflect Machiavelli’s true beliefs as it was written for the Medici family, it has become a political classic.  Machiavelli champions the idea of self-preservation and is often (incorrectly) credited with the phrase “the ends justify the means” – a concept Hobbes revisits throughout Leviathan. 

To Machiavelli and Hobbes, self-preservation is an innate instinct, and to Hobbes, a basic right.  In chapter 14 of the Leviathan, Hobbes writes that “each man hath, to use his own power… for the preservation of his own Nature, that is to say, of his own Life and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement and Reason, hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto."  This belief justifies The Fundamental Law of Nature; that man may seek out war in order to ensure and maintain peace, and therefore the self.  Machiavelli similarly writes that humans are fickle, and act in a way that preserves their self-interest at the expense of their neighbor (ch. 17). 

In The Prince and Leviathan, both Machiavelli and Hobbes hold similar cynical views on human nature and agree that order may be best maintained by a sovereign power.  Both agree that the sovereign in power can do no injustice, as they are acting on behalf of the people (Leviathan ch. 18, The Prince ch. 17)

Although both texts are written for entirely different audiences in different time periods, they have many overarching themes.  The similarities between the two, especially when it comes to human nature and politics, make it appear as though Hobbes was inspired, at least in part, by Machiavelli’s The Prince.  

*I have these texts on Kindle, and referencing the chapter number seemed like the best way to cite the quoted passages