Guatemala and Power

Anchal Kannambadi

Article: http://panampost.com/carlos-sabino/2015/11/16/foreign-aid-bankrolls-violence-in-guatemala/

This article is about the Norwegian Embassy, and how they are attempting to aid Guatemala in their Oil export, however they seem to have a political agenda, and are causing more violence between Guatemalans. The Norwegians believe that they are working well with the people, however they have restricted the growth of the Guatemalans instead. Since Guatemala has a complicated political system, the Norwegians do not realize that they are promoting extremist groups, which causes more harm.  The Norwegian embassy has the intent to help finance and support the “indigenous communities” within Guatemala, but they are not realizing that their money is going towards organizations that “treat conflict as a profession.” At the end of the article, it is stated that the Norwegian embassy has realized that their involvement with Guatemala is not beneficial, and they have ended their experiment.

This article reminds me of our discussion on War, Politics, and Power, in which we talked about how Power and violence tend to go hand in hand. Although Norway wants to help out Guatemala, they are harming them more, because Norway, which is a democratic country, seems to want to advance their allies and political agenda, but they are causing more harm. I see this idea as something similar to what Michael Foucault believed which was how 'we cannot have perfect knowledge of the world  because everything we know is filtered through biases.' Norway seems to want to help out Guatemala, but their "idea" of what is considered helping, does not seem to help anyone. Foucault's idea on power also is that power is about reaching goals, and although Norway has the right idea of funding other third-world countries, they were not doing it for the benefit of the Guatemalans rather it was for the benefit of the Norwegians. 

Devon's Power Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paris-attacks-survivors-stories_5647688ce4b06037734952ed?ir=WorldPost&section=world

The article above discusses the bombings in Paris, that occurred late last week. It gives detailed description from a survivor's point of view of how violent the attacks really were and what it felt like to be there and experience an actual terrorist attack. Survivor's go into detail about how their normal Friday activities turned into a violent bloodbath creating mass panic and chaos. It highlights how gruesome and merciless the gunmen were.


After reading this article it greatly reminded me of our discussion about Fanon and the use of violence to gain power. I think this specifically relates to Fanon's idea that power means normalizing violence, which is exhibited in all terrorist organizations. This perpetuation of violence to gain power is not only illustrated from the terrorist's side but from the victim's side as well. The French government's response to the Islamic State's attack on its capital was to have a "merciless" response, showing that France needed to prove it was still a powerful nation through its ability to be even more violent than the attacks on France. It also shows how violence is effective because by creating all this panic and death through violence it brings all this attention to terrorists and gets their message across. I think this shows why violence is such a popular method in asserting power because it creates a statement that is hard to ignore and there are instant results. I think this also plays into Thucydides' discussion on the use of discursive power vs power of persuasion. We now tend to rely on violent discursive power to solve our conflicts instead of use our diplomatic power. This shows why nations across the world are being more militarized and are more likely to use violent action than peaceful inaction.

Hyla Power post

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/cpi-corruption-index-integrity-states

This article is about government corruption happening in every state. This assessment of corruption occurring in state governments was done by the Integrity Investigation, a project released by the nonprofit investigative reporting group the Center for Public Integrity. They worked with experienced journalists in every state to assess state government rules and systems that were in place between January 2013 and March 2015. They gave each state a score based on their “transparency,” “ethics” and “accountability.” The results they found were very surprising. The highest grade they gave to a state was a C, which was given to Alaska. Only two other states received a score higher than a D+, meaning that the other 47 states got a D, or below for their level of corruption.

            This article reminded me of Plato’s “Apology of Socrates.” Socrates believed that political power corrupted men and, therefore, men should avoid politics. This article proves Socrates point that many people in politics are corrupt, as seen by the evidence that most state governments are infiltrated with a lot of corruption. These results are pretty depressing and make it seem like there are not any good politicians out there and they all are unjust. Do you all agree that once someone enters into the political world it is hard for him or her to not act in a corrupt way? It seems that everyone enters into politics with good intentions, but often times get greedy with their power and take advantage of it. What do you all think?

Obama to send troops to Syria to fight ISIS

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/syria-troops-special-operations-forces/

The above article discusses how Barack Obama has authorized for troops to be sent to Syria to fight ISIS.  The troops will advise and assist rebel forces who are fighting ISIS.  This will be the most significant escalation of US troops for ISIS to date.  There has been talk that the small ops would not be sufficient but Josh Earnest, the secretary of press, has rejected those claims. He argued that anywhere where Us troops are deployed, they are a force multiplier. There has also been backlash from many Republican candidates on Obama's decision to employ troops to Syria.

The backlash that Obama has been receiving reminds me of Machiavelli's idea of whether rulers should value the idea of love or fear. He argues that rulers should rather be feared than loved if it comes down to making beneficial decisions for their citizens.  I do not know too much about the problem in Syria(which I am working on educating myself about) but I do believe in this idea that rulers should make decisions that others may fear or think is wrong if it may be beneficial The only thing I do not like about this idea is that this makes the assumption that the ruler in charge knows everything and what is right. I think this idea is wrong because everyone in charge does not necessarily know everything or make the right decisions. Everyone can be critiqued.  WHat do you guys think?

Erika's power post

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/donald-trump-small-loan-town-hall/

The link above is about Trump's 'small' loan of one million dollars. He was trying to say that he started out with very little like everyone else, but he made something of himself by working hard. He is trying to gain power through more voters and thinks that saying he struggled in life  will win him more votes, even if that struggle was to the tune of $1 million from his dad. He is attempting to use his speeches to garner voters, he thinks that the best way to gain voters, and in the end power, is speaking. He has very strong beliefs that become evident every time he speaks and this seems to be working for him because he is always on top of the polls. This is only one example of things Trump has said that leave some people with a confused expression on their faces and others following him blindly.

Thrucydides believes that power rests in the ability to not just speak but to be listened to. Power is when people will do what ever you say because you said it. Trump has the ear of many conservative republicans in the country. These people will do anything and everything for him. There are people who believe that he did struggle to stretch the $1 million dollars to create his business and pay his dad back. Others think he is crazy for saying that he struggled in life and used the example of getting a $1 million loan from his dad to back it up. People feel this way because they know that $1 million is more than some people see in their whole life. Thrucydides knew that the way to power was not through violence and fear, but through speaking. If people believe you they are more likely to do what you say. If your speech is empowering, encouraging, and/or meaningful in any way then people will listen to and follow you without hesitation.

The Militarization of US Foreign Policy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSfBXw_yPmU

In this video, military analyst Andrew Bacevich discusses how US foreign policy has become increasingly reliant on military action in place of diplomacy. This increase towards militarization has not only affected military leaders in the Pentagon, but has also influenced the thinking of civilian leaders (such as in the State Department) in making foreign policy decisions. Bacevich argues that even if the diplomacy-oriented Department of State was able to have more influence over the Department of Defense in foreign policymaking, leaders would still opt for military solutions as they are seen as more efficient than negotiations and treaties.

This video reminded me of the discussion we had in class on Friday about discursive power vs. military power. Although using military power in conflicts with other countries may seem faster and more effective at first, it has much harsher consequences, such as worsening relationships with other countries that may effect the United States later on. This also poses the question of when to use military intervention vs. when to use diplomacy. I believe that using military force should be seen as a last resort, and that the US is not making full use of its diplomatic powers and instead using military threats to achieve our policy goals.