For SheetalofSOF Only**************INTR7 Dqs resp2

INTR7 Dqs

1. Failure to recognize rather than acknowledge minority groups results in conflict. An example of this is found in the commonly known American history. The rebel revolt of the Patriot group that enabled Americans to break free from British rule and form their own new nation and state was the product of disregard. A nation within the new nation of America arose as the enslaved blacks were emancipated and sought their rights. When the United States refused to recognize their legal rights and peaceful efforts had been exhausted, blacks were forced to use violence in order to earn their respect. These two examples in themselves support the theory that resistance to network groups (those who have yet to achieve a recognized status) will encourage states “to focus more on confrontation and co-optation than on embracing this new form of social organization” (Arquilla 2007, 207). Had Patriot and black needs been acknowledged rather than ignored, peaceful negotiations would have been possible and violence avoided.

All networks consider themselves worthy of recognition as they pursue a common goal. They use organized actions such as protests to gain attention. They may also use media avenues to solicit their cause. These actions prove that they first want to be heard. Patronizing these attempts to communicate naturally provokes violence. Once violence breaks out, activities are often labeled as terrorist rather than criminal or political acts undertaken as a declaration of war. This negative connotation can be used as a political tactic to work against groups seeking freedom so that their political strategies to incorporate violence do not gain in popularity. Determining the intentions of a group to be positive or negative is the key to according them the proper classification.

Nationalism may be used as the umbrella under which to assign positive or negative groupings. Positive nationalism promotes respect and tolerance of others who also love their countries. Negative nationalism constitutes an intolerance of others and a win at any cost attitude (Rourke and Boyer 2010). An example of negative nationalism was the Puritan government of Massachusetts Bay Colonies that promoted intolerance by banishment and execution. These types of religious groups believe that they are the only true religion and that it is their holy mission to convert or eradicate all other peoples. These types of beliefs infringe upon the rights of others and therefore are considered to be negative and must not be recognized or negotiated with. Thus the separation of Church and State is a necessity.

Arquilla’s analogy is correct in that the ignorance of groups does lead to conflict rather than acceptance. However, not all groups are worthy of social embrace when their mission includes human rights infringement. Therefore, equality must be extended only to those who will extend the same liberties in return. Had the secession of Southern American states been allowed to succeed, the Confederacy would have continued exploiting human rights with slavery. Therefore, these types of quests for statehood must be squashed with violence in an effort to prevent further violence when all other avenues of peaceful negotiation have been exhausted. Christy R.

Arquilla, John. 2007. “Of Networks and Nations.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs XIV (1): 207

Rourke, John T, and Mark A Boyer. 2010. International Politics on the World Stage. 8th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

 What do you think? 150 words response and include a ‘direct question’, with a reference/citation.

 

2. Networks and international relations are definitely connected wether they are acknowledged by scholars or not. The emergance of the internet has boosted the scale the these networks have operated but the idea is not new and neither is the way that states deal with them. I think that the idea of networks is the basis of deomcracy; a group of people that work together to support a common goal. U.S. national policy is supposed to be driven by the American public.

I think that Arquilla is looking at networks as if they are something new. He seems to believe that they inherently at odds with states. I think that they are at odds with empires and non-democratic nations. He brings up the difference between self serving networks and state governments. I think that a good government should see the needs of the people and if it fits with the majoirty of its people than it is imperative to keep up with changes of its people. Arquillarefrences the Mexican goverments resistance of the Zapatists movement for limited independence. Outside pressure has always had an influence on political activities. The NGO’s that got involved pushed legislation within the state. If the majority of the nation resisted the change than it probably would not have happened. Other nations also put pressure on one antother based on public opinion. North Korea, for example has many sanctions placed on them because of there horrible treatment of their people and political policies. The country has not conformed to the world standards and has suffered for it. I think that Arguilla’s idea of networks is somewhat convoluted. Grassroots movements have a huge impact of politics all the time. Those grassroot movements are networks. The idea of network is so wide and diverse that cannot simply be classified or categorized. They will be if they have enough support and are organized. Al Queda has a lot of support and operate in multiple countries, but are at constant odds with certain states.  However, nations that do not support them will fight them because they do not fit what the majority of the nation wants. In the U.S. networks of people in the 60’d fought for racial equality and most of the nation was in support so it succeded. The idea of a network being in sync or at odds with a state is simply if the members of that state are generally in support or opposed to the ideals of the network.  Michael G.

What do you think? 150 words response and include a ‘direct question’, with a reference/citation.