I'm really excited about the Security course. First of all, it's taught by this cool new prof who just got hired by the department right about the time I left off here a couple of years ago. She's an edgy feminist (do you know how rare that is in this field???) whose syllabus for the course asks interesting questions such as "Are states providers of security or generators of insecurity in the international system?" Dude. Most of the men in this male-dominated field wouldn't even *think* of such a question. A Security course to them would center around how states can best attain national security. They wouldn't even think about trying to define it or ask who's defining it and how that affects things.
Oh, by the way, for my readers who aren't up on my academic field, let me explain that that's because this program, the MA in International Relations, is a course of study for those "intending to seek employment in some realm of foreign relations or for those already working in foreign affairs who desire mid-career training" (from the department's website) which means my fellow classmates are for the most part either in the military or want to work for the State Department. I kinda just want to maybe work for some smallish NGO (non-governmental) doing human rights work overseas and I kinda just like talking and thinking about big issues such as war and peace and international power negotiations and strategic interests and might just use the degree for nothing more than background info for the future obscure, mildly-exciting, Graham-Greene-like-novels I'm planning on writing and so I kinda stick out like a sore thumb. I'm weird like that but at least I tend to make things interesting for my classmates.
Anyway, since returning to grad school, I've been reading a lot more IR books lately including this one, which was slightly interesting but typical. (What can you expect? --he's another old Western white guy in a suit!) What is infinitely more fascinating is this little magazine here: The New Internationalist which is published out of the UK and "exists to report on issues of world poverty and inequality; to focus attention on the unjust relationship between the powerful and the powerless in both rich and poor nations; to debate and campaign for the radical changes necessary if the basic material and spiritual needs of all are to be met". This magazine educates me more than anything else I read on a regular basis because it's got a primarily "third" world perspective. Where else can you get a little editorial such as this?
Regarding the power politics in the aftermath of the tsunami:
"The Government of India made a strong statement by refusing bilateral aid to deal with the tsunami crisis. India has for years worked to present itself as an important regional power with an eye to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Gradually weaning itself from foreign aid (it now allows bilateral aid from just six countries), the Government was not going to let the big wave alter priorities. Instead, it sent $24 million in aid to tsunami victims in other countries, including Thailand, which has a much healthier average per capita income. Its navy sent ships all over the region to offer help. Of course no-one consulted India’s tsunami victims, themselves in need of aid." (from the Currents section).
Now that's something I didn't know and would probably never encounter in a US newspaper. That's NI. They shake things up. They're why I'm interested in international politics.
Comments