Peacebuilding

I think to build peace, "helping", "alliance" comes to my mind. What I meant was helping each other on positive circumstances. In order to help people, people usually think that they have to be powerful enough otherwise they will drag each other down and peace is no longer building, in order to accomplish, a leader for both sides that represent non-violent should step out and negotiate. For example, the peace between the government and the citizens, now this is the most often one and most of the time they deal with the issue without arms. I think that the Peace movement is a great way, without violent people can achieve more, conversation, argument, definitely better than fighting and gun shooting. During a peace movement, thing sometimes can get out of hand, which is when the citizens starts attack by throwing molotov, rocks and weapons at the government's soldiers or police. That is when they take the action of shooting and held down people. Sometimes it can get other around, the government want to get rid of the citizens, they will use non-lethal weapon, although it is not life threatening, it ruin the look and respect people toward government. A mediator is necessary, both sides talk about their stands and negotiate a way that is both win or both lose a little. That is what I think peace should be form with trust on the mediator or a leader.

In order to build peace on our next generation, education and entertainment should be PG. Right now, people find that violent games and movie interesting than movie that talks about peace, although there aren't much movie about peace. To students violent games are the easiest way to learn what is violent from, all these game about war, fighting, killing and torturing, etc. Although history are important, but history textbook talks about war, and war are rate the most violent things in the world. When children learn these stuff that had already happened, additionally war games emulate the war in the past. Is that why children these day are violent. We are living in the most peaceful time, we should let our next generation have the same which I think that remod the education information is quite critical.

When talking about violence, there are three types, direct, structural, cultural violence. We are living in the peaceful time because the world is under a government system called "Democracy". The reason why Democracy is so well used because the decision were made by the overall community. The citizens get to choose, and in order to achieve fairness and peace. "Voting" is the key to democracy, Country who use democracy tend to share the same interest and therefore they are more likely to cooperate. Direct violence, most likely to be a poor community, shanty town, hobo camp, etc. Government tax people base on their incomes, so the middle class and the rich can pay fair amount of tax that can used to benefit the poor and still keep their social status. Structural and Cultural Violence, can be racism and heterosexism, can solve by passing law that remove discrimination among race. Different groups of people will stand out and argue and try to get rid of racism. On the change of education, children can learn that racism is bad and racist is horrible. In the future, racist will start decreasing and when they do not have any advantages. The young should not hate each other, in the future you guys might become friends, colleagues, soldiers and even couples. Since we all live in the same country, why don't we focus on academic instead of thinking how to bully. We must be generous and kind to gain benefit and make peace in our country. 

Structural Violence

          Elitism, form by the understanding of realism, a theory to understand the government and society structure. The idea is to have groups or one strong countries to rule the poor ones. A strong country assumes special privileges and responsibilities to benefit the poor countries.

          Ageism, a discrimination towards old people, basically to disdain them because of their weakness on society and old people are the target. It's almost the same as sexism and racism. 

          Heterosexism, discrimination among people who are gay, or lesbian (LGBT). Part of the reason because gay sexual activities brings diseases. "Special" names were made to describe these people. 

          Nationalism, a belief involves national identity, within one country, many groups are form to benefit the country which all groups has the right to benefit the country does not involve discrimination among race.

         Adultism, the power adults have over children, a discrimination among young people, children follows and bias towards adults and ideas, activities and attitudes

         Racism, a belief that human has differences among human, race. Different kind of people were group by race, and some race believe that they are the higher than the other. 

          In my opinion, I think that Racism is the worst and the most harmful in the history, the worse is Elitism and the bad one is Heterosexism. Racist believe that each race has ability and superior ability among others. It is the worst and the most harmful one because in history, many have died because of racism and many have died just trying to solve the problem. After Germany lost World War I, the Jewish were consider a cause of the losing war and Nazi were putting Jewish in camps and kill them in groups later on. During WWII, USA put American Japanese and immigrant that were one of the Axis group in camps because they believe that they are spy and will send information to their original countries. The civil war was fought because the South and the North has different view on Blacks. Two argument collide and the Civil War started. Elitism are worse because in the past the higher social class groups were abusing their powers over the poor ones. Making the poor people even harder to live. It is kind of like why Marxism form, people fought back and most of time, the revolution overthrown the great powers successfully, although lots of lives taken from it. Heterosexism is the bad one, people have make hate speech, law, death threats to discriminate against gay men, lesbians, bisexuals. The education taught children the heterosexism idea and causing suicide committed.

          I think that to remove these three structural violence can be a hard task, because when you kill one, the new one forms. Although a great deal amount of changes have change these three from extreme negative into slightly negative. Racist action and threat has becoming less but that does not mean people still likes them. There are still people who think their race is higher but laws were made so that people can not publicly harm someone by race no matter with language or action. My guess is that Interstate will make treaties according to this situation at hand. Individual might base on the citizens' opinion, domestic is likely to do public opinion. For Elitism, interstate level will make sure a person does not abuse power, making more alliance.  

Policy Options for NATO Using IR Paradigms

          After reading the three articles, I think these articles are interesting but to me these articles are written in a different view. I find that reading these three article give me a better understanding of President in Russia, Crimea Crisis and other facts in Russia.
          The article "Putin’s Nuclear Option", I think it is written in a constructivist thinking, the guy  Piontkovsky explain the three option that to deal with the crisis happened in Crimea. The first one is the Peace Party, which is Putin just let go of Ukraine and declare victory in it, but this way Putin will looks defeated and with this event, Putin might have to retire from this failure like the previous Soviet Premier. The second option is the War Party, which Putin declare a World War IV on the NATO, but the downside is that given that the military power that the NATO have, it is a risk to take. It will certainly hurt the economy in Russia if he goes with this option. The third option is the Nuclear Attack, it is not a massive launch, but only strikes the small city, but it will angers other country in this situation and which will lead to the all world against him situation. The Constructivists  tend to think that if U.S should get involve with this, help the NATO to stop Putin if Putin make any strong moves on Crimea. Putin should no make any strong approach to deal with this situation because the options can bring back self-destruction
          The realism may think that Russia taking Crimea is a correct move and which that U.S should stop Russia from doing it. After reading the article "Putin's Empire of the Mind", it talks about the point of view he sees of taking Crimea. After Putin came to power, he made a decision that he does not want to make the failed Soviet model of planned economy. In the article, it mention that "Russia already had immense influence on the peninsula which they already pledged $1.5 billion to support Crimea." The problem is that if they take down Crimea, they will anger the West, it is a tough decision to make whether U.S want to help one way needed to stop Russia from having too much power over the West and the other hand helping the NATO to protect Crimea. Russia's power might become the hegemony in the future.
          The realism may think that the U.S should not help the NATO to prevent Russia from taking Crimea, because if they did, the NATO would have too much power and second of all, if they did, they might just make Ukraine worst, the war might bring damage to the EU economy, poison East-West relations even further, and do further harm to Ukraine itself. The choices of doing or not doing is also at a risk.
         To the question of Do you believe a policy of containment or appeasement is a better approach vis-a-vis Russia? I think that containment or appeasement is a better approach because NATO does not have control over if Putin decide to attack a Western country, and if Russia attack, it is going to hurt itself economically and the relation with other countries. Russia should definitely go with the option of talking peace or appeasement with Ukraine, sort it out. Maybe it is good for both nations.

• Do you believe a policy of containment or appeasement is a better approach vis-a-vis Russia?

Articles Review

           After reading two author's article, I have to say that both made important points and truth that I have never heard of, and it shock me how truthfully these two arguments' ideas brought to me. Tom Engelhardt's "Whatever Happened to Imperialism?" mention that what is imperialism and the outcomes of it. Imperialism is about a country using it's power on other country or gaining power by diplomacy or military onto other countries. Now days, economic has become the source of a power. In Sean Starrs's "America Didn't Decline. It Went Global", talks about how countries gain power by increase their economic. One example that I like is that when Japanese GDP was rising, they gain what is call the economic power. Many exports that benefit their own which more firms in Japan and China also has strong economic power, and it is got plenty of firms within the country, but most of them were not important ones, so does country who has strong economic has strong power? Yes, I do agree that now days if a country has strong economic power, which will be a important to the rest of the country. High income gives customers to buy in which exports on other countries. It is going to brought up economic for other countries.

          So Will the international system in the 21st Century be unipolar or multipolar? I guess in the future, it will be multipolar because some countries' economic are in a rising rate, but in that case if there are more rich people, the competition between thus will be a task, which we will face collective goods problem. Who is going to sacrifice to help others? In unipolar, the country itself will have to take big responsibility which may also harm itself.