•February 10, 2007 • 1 Comment

Yesterday in class I read an article that described China’s relations with several African countries. Also in class we discussed the idea that “ones position depends on where they sit”. I thought that this article did a very good job at describing the various points of views that China and the several other African players have.

Mainly the article presented two ways to look at China’s economic relations with Africa. The fist that China is helping several African nations, like South Africa, and China is also helping promote the development of several countries. The article states that China has aided in several works projects. But on the other hand China many nations feel that China is doing to returning Africa to its colonized state of the early 20th century.

But the fact of the matter is that China seems to be promoting its own wealth and the wealth of others at the same time, what we see depends on where we sit. Say I’m inclined to look at this through a more liberal approach I would look at China’s actions as promoting relative gains through Africa. So what if China gains more x than its partner, the fact is both countries have gained more than they had before. But if more inclined to a realist perspective I’d say that china is in fact gaining more x and therefore is becoming more powerful not only in its relation to its partner but also to all other nations who are not part of this trade.

So what is the truth? As stated before it seems that China is doing both at the same time. A student in our class who lived in South Africa recently even stated that countries like South Africa have benefited tremendously from trade with China, but other like Zimbabwe have been left in the dust. It seems as if the world is watching to see if China will become the new African colonizer or if it actually help the troubled continent.  

Stuck between the media and the White House

•February 2, 2007 • Leave a Comment

Today Orlando Dozier has an article featured on His article expresses an opinion that many citizens have begun to agree with; it is the thought that we cannot trust the sources of information that are available to us. After the war in Iraq seemed illegitimate many of my personal friends stopped trusting their government. But as Dozier points out, the media is not a sanctuary either. Who are we left to trust? If things continue in this fashion Iraq will become the least of our nation’s concerns. Can we expect a society function when there is no trust in for law or its major sources of information?  

To What End

•January 31, 2007 • Leave a Comment

Today former Secretaries of Sate Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright answered questions before the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq. Both Kissinger and Albright feel that the president’s most recent step of adding another 21,000 troops will not be sufficient to bring stability to the torn country, and both feel the United States now more than ever needs to work with neighboring countries Iran and Syria. I agree because currently as Albright said to the committee the United States appears to be a “colonial power”.

I wonder though what will the United States ask of Syria and Iran? And what can these countries offer the United Sates. From the news reports that I’ve read and seen it seems that Iraq is in a state of anarchy, well not complete anarchy, but life in Iraq is nowhere near as stable as life in California seems to be, or that is at least how the media portrays the situation in Iraq. I feel that diplomacy is needed, but it seems no one knows to what end. Will the US ask Iran for military support, I know that won’t happen, will we ask for supplies, or will Iraq become a modern post war Germany and be split into several different areas in an attempt to rebuild the country from scratch? I doubt any of those ideas are even possible but there are more outcomes given there than anything I’ve read. The United States has continuously expressed our goal is to create a thriving and stable Iraq, adding more troops, although it will probably help, just seems like Iraq is being propped up rather than having the capability to stand alone. I wonder if this cry for diplomacy will turn into an attempt to give legitimacy to an ill planned attempt at enforcing democracy in the world.


•January 27, 2007 • Leave a Comment

The most recent blog found on The Cunning Realist’s site discusses the sentence given to an American soldier for the murder of an Iraqi detainee. Ultimately he uses this news to ask a question that many others have begun to ask; how do  repeated incidents of murder affect The United States Standing in the world community, and he concludes that our reputation will be shot if this continues.

But unfortunately I do not see a change to our inhumane war practices in the future, nor am I sure that our army needs any reformation. War has and always will be a terrible and gruesome tool of politics. Putting rules to warfare is very contradictory when you think about it; in essence you’re telling killers to kill but still play nice, at lest to me that doesn’t make sense. Please don’t get me wrong I don’t believe our troops should act as the armies of antiquity and rape and pillage any city they occupy, but I don’t think that our soldiers should be prosecuted for doing their job. In my opinion war is cruel, but once you enter one you must be willing to do anything to win, unless you wish to lose. I never wanted this war to happen and it pains me to hear about the deaths Iraqi citizens that didn’t want this war ether. But the reality is we send troops in to kill people and then our nation punishes them for doing just that, how can that be considered justice?

Hello world!

•January 22, 2007 • 2 Comments

Welcome to This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!