written 24 June 2008
Someone in my host family has a lighter with a flashlight built into it that projects an image of Saddam Hussein's face.
"Do you know who that is?" I am asked.
"Yes, it is Saddam Hussein," I say.
"The president of Iraq!"
"The former president of Iraq. Now he is dead," I say.
"Yes, because the Americans killed him. He was a good president because he made Iraq produce oil, but then the Americans killed him, and now there is no more oil from Iraq."
"He killed many Iraqis so that he could stay in power," I say.
"Oh. Then he is not good?"
"No," I say.
"Do you know who Bin Laden is? Did he kill many Americans?"
"Yes, he killed many Americans."
"Do you know why the Americans can't catch him?"
"Why's that?"
"Because he is a sorcerer, and he can change himself into a bug or even into dirt, so whenever the soldiers are coming he just changes himself into a rock or something until they are gone again."
1 comments:
Constructive Sovereignty
Constructive Sovereignty is an emerging theory pioneered by John Maszka intended to address globalization’s increasing onslaught against state sovereignty. The theory maintains that states are not the primary actors, their constituents are. Therefore, their preferences are not fixed. Since states merely represent the preferences of their constituents, they will only adhere to and ultimately embed those international norms that their respective constituencies will accept. Rather than push for larger and more powerful international organizations that will impose global norms from the outside in, the theory of Constructive Sovereignty posits that ultimately change must come from the inside out. That is to say, from each state’s own constituency. As each state’s constituents become more and more international, they will become more receptive to international norms and they will voice their acceptance of these norms both politically and (especially) as consumers.
It is therefore a central pillar of the theory that privatization is not only the driving force behind globalization, but also that private enterprise possesses the incentive to implement those international norms reflected in the preferences of consumers (profit). Private enterprise is also the primary consumer of proprietary data used to measure the preferences of consumers, and as such remains the most up-to-date source of changing consumer preferences. As private enterprise meets the increasingly international demands of consumers, it will itself become more international in scope. The cycle is self-perpetuating. In this way international norms are embedded and viewed with legitimacy by each state’s constituency, while state sovereignty is maintained and respected.
The theory of Constructive Sovereignty ties in nicely with Maszka’s model for combating terrororism. Maszka asserts that terrorism, regardless of its causes, is ultimately only possible with sufficient popular support. Consequently, only once we find a way to eliminate popular support for terrorism will we be able to eliminate terrorism itself. While some minimal definition is necessary to identify terrorism in a uniform manner, knowing what causes terrorism and collecting data on individual acts of terrorism is not as important as knowing how to stop it. When putting out a fire, while it is important to know what type of fire it is before attempting to put it out (e.g. applying water to an oil fire will have the same effect as using a flame thrower), firefighters understand that the key to putting out any fire is to remove its source of oxygen. This knowledge affords them a standard plan of action that varies only in detail (what kind of fire is it, and what is needed to remove the source of oxygen). Likewise, terrorism depends on popular support to sustain itself. Without popular support, the majority of funding, recruits and overall acceptance will disappear. Therefore, similar to putting out a fire, the primary goal for eliminating terrorism is to eliminate the sources of popular support. Measuring popular support for terrorism also affords us a method of measuring and predicting 1) the potential for terrorism in any given society, 2) the direction that acts of terrorism tend to be moving in (e.g. westward, eastward, or remaining static), and 3) broad trends in the support for terrorism, such as whether popular support is increasing among moderates, Westerners, etc…
Post a Comment