Paper on US Presidential Campaigns

This has been the strangest of American election campaigns; the most exciting in 40 years in terms of the closeness of the contest, yet one in which both major candidates have utterly failed to capture the national imagination. The lead in the polls has changed hands half a dozen times since September and, even at this late stage, only the very bravest dare forecast the outcome. Campaigning, alas, tends to bring out the worst in Gore. As the standard-bearer of the incumbent party, he should have long since locked up this election. Yet his turgid style, his maddening tendency to condescension, and his craven unwillingness to depart from the script provided by his advisers have combined to squander the â€Å"peace and prosperity† factor that should have guaranteed victory. It should be said, too, that his Republican opponent, George W Bush, has improved considerably as the campaign has progressed. Not only has he won the personality contest, a vital component of any American election, hands down; he has held his own in the second debate, adroitly focused his attack on Gore's weak points, and avoided the gaffes that everyone expected. In short, he has done enough to make a plausible president. But that does not mean he would be a good president. His short attention span, his pervasive lacks of curiosity, his general lightness of being, remain unnerving. He has mastered his lines, but all too often does not seem to understand them. On the domestic front, Gore's ideas for using the massive budget surpluses ahead are far more convincing; his ideas on abortions, global warming, education, and campaign-finance reform more clearly address the problems facing America. Gore-appointed justices in the Supreme Court would offer added protection against a social lurch to the right. Al Gore believes that a woman should have a right to legal abortions, and that they should be â€Å"safe and rare.† Gore supports FDA approval of abortion pill Mifeprex and he wants to reinforce security around clinics to protect the doctors who perform abortions, and the patients who seek their services. â€Å"I think it†s up to the woman, and I strongly support a woman†s right to chose, and I support the FDA†s approval, assuming it†s safe for the woman who takes it,† said Gore. Bush on the other hand disagrees completely saying that the FDA†s decision was totally wrong. Ensuring Clean and Reliable Sources of Electricity: Al Gore's plan would ensure clean and reliable sources of electricity by enhancing our nation's capacities to reliably generate and distribute electricity and by providing market-based incentives to clean up aging power plants. Gore revived the issue of global warming, a subject from his past that he has generally ignored this year. Seizing on a new UN report asserting that pollution appears to be raising world temperatures, Gore tried to portray global warming as a populist issue. He called the effort to stop global warming a fight against big polluters, in an attack similar to those he has made on drug companies, insurance companies, & health-maintenance organizations. â€Å"It does not have to happen and won†t happen if we put our minds to solving this problem,† Gore said of the predicted rise in temperature and problems that would create. Gore†s turn to global warming suggests he now thinks he can use the subject to cast an unfavorable light on Bush, who has expressed skepticism about the danger. Bush says, â€Å"It†s an issue that we need to take very seriously. I don†t think we know the solution to global warming yet and I don†t think we†ve got all the facts before we make decisions.† In the field of education Gore says: â€Å"We can't reform education with half an agenda. We can't make education our top priority if huge tax cuts for the wealthy are already the first, second, and third priority. That's really the choice we face: a commitment to education for life or a set of priorities that could leave us with budget deficits for life.† He argues that if you drain the money away from the public schools for private vouchers, it hurts the public schools. George W. Bush has a narrower education agenda because his massive tax cut leaves few resources to invest in education. Vice President Al Gore supports reforms to eliminate gray areas in legislation. He backs McCain-Feingold Bill because it†s that important that all of the issues like prescription drugs for seniors that is opposed by the drug companies, will be easier to pass if we limit the influence of special interests. Whereas Bush supports an effort to ban corporate soft money & labor union soft money. Bush thinks that there needs to be instant disclosure on the Internet as to who†s given to whom. Gore supports using $2.2 trillion of the Social Security surpluses to shore up the program and pay down the debt, thus saving billions of dollars in interest, which can be redirected to ensuring the solvency of the Social Security trust fund until at least 2050. He supports the elimination of the Social Security earnings limit, which the president signed into law on April 7, 2000. Gore supports an increase in benefits for widows and eliminating the â€Å"motherhood penalty† — the resulting reduction in benefits for women who take time off from work to raise children. â€Å"I do not believe it's right to play games with Social Security or pit young against old in a scramble to fulfill extravagant and competing campaign promises,† he said in a speech in Kissimmee, in central Florida. â€Å"I believe we have to strengthen Social Security by giving unprecedented new opportunities for families to save more, invest more and get higher returns,† Gore said. Bush does not rule out the possibility of rising the eligibility age for baby boom-era recipients as part of trade-off for private investment accounts. Bush freely admits that he would rely on advisers. They are an indisputably reassuring bunch, led by Colin Powell, his likely Secretary of State, and Dick Cheney, his running mate and a former Secretary of Defense. But what if the advisers disagree? Again, I come back to Bush's lack of depth. The Republican might have won the campaign. But Gore deserves to win the election and the presidency; Gore†s views are clearly more logical and realistic to this country and that†s why I would vote for Gore.

The Arab Spring: Implications for US Policy and Interests

Introduction The political uprisings in the Arab world during 2011 undeniably transformed the Middle East and the North of Africa (MENA) (Dalacoura, 2012: 63). An explosive mix of deepening political grievances and a series of socio-economic problems, such as: high unemployment, especially among youth, corruption, internal regional and social inequalities, and the deterioration of economic conditions were the common causal factor behind all the uprisings (ibid: 66-67). Internationally, these uprisings have had profound consequences for the pursuit of long-standing United States (U.S.) policy goals and interests in the region, with regard to: regional security, energy supplies, military access, bilateral trade and investment, counter-proliferation, counterterrorism, and the promotion of human rights (Arieff et al. 2012). The profound changes in the region may alter the framework in which these goals are pursued and challenge the basic assumptions that have long guided U.S. policies in the international system (Keiswetter, 2012: 1). Regionally, the contagious nature of the uprisings, which started in Tunisia in December 2010 and later on spread to Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain or Syria (Dalacoura, 2012: 63), led either to the overthrow of dictators or to internal fracturing (ibid: 66). While Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia underwent troubled transitions away from authoritarian regimes, in Jordan, Morocco, and Oman, modest protests produced tentative steps toward reform (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 41). In view of such differences, policy makers in the U.S. have adopted case-by-case (and highly unequal) approaches, which range from tacit support to outright military intervention (Shore, 2012). For instance, in countries such as Yemen or Saudi Arabia, the U.S. has turned a blind eye to governmental corruption and human rights violations. In non-allied countries, however, like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, the U.S. has condemned dictatorial practices, issued sanctions and even wars in the name of democracy (Shore, 2012). It could be argued, thus, that the U.S.’ response to the events of the Arab Spring has been cautious and contradictory at the same time. On the one hand, Obama’s Administration has been criticized for its apparent lack of a coherent approach, and its willingness to talk of democratic ideals while protecting national interests. On the other hand, supporters have praised both the pragmatism and principle as a smart approach to international affairs (Kitchen, 2012: 53). Within this framework, this paper will assess the impact of the so-called Arab Spring on the US objectives regarding political and economic reform prospects for the Middle East peace negotiations, energy issues, and security concerns. The main hypothesis of this paper is, thus, that as part of the current international system, where the concept of security acquires multiple and more complex dimensions that go beyond military terms, the U.S.’ policies in the Middle East are extremely â€Å"shy† and cautious. This paper argues that this obvious â€Å"cautiousness† and what many call a contradictory foreign policy of the U.S. is the result of a series of economic interests to maintain oil-flows and global security concerns that cannot be forgotten in the political international arena. The U.S., thus, faces the difficult position of supporting its ideal of democracy and values on the one hand, and its long-term interests and security concerns on the other. This essay, thus, is divided in two main sections. On the one hand, a brief theoretical background on International Relations (IR) theories will serve as a basis to understand the motivations and approaches of the U.S. foreign policy in the region. On the other hand, an analysis of the old and current U.S.’ interests and policies in the Middle East will reveal the contradictions and concerns of the current U.S. Administration and the possible outcomes.Foreign Policy through the Lenses of International RelationsIn order to understand the U.S. foreign policy in the international system and more specifically in the Middle East, with its wide encompassing spectrum of foreign policy decisions, this paper shall approach the issue from the theoretical framework of International Relations (IR) (Vale, 2012: 6).The International SystemThe international system, driven mainly by states, power, and anarchy, has had a profound effect on the United States since its inception (Vale, 2012: 8). It could be said that there are three main different forms of the international system: the multipolar, the bipolar and the unipolar system. Tin the multipolar system, there are several great powers influencing international politics and competing for dominance (Vale, 2012: 10). Bipolar systems, could be described as a battle of titans of sorts –as it happened between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War-, namely, where two major powers oppose one another for dominance in the system. Finally, the unipolar system, is when there is one superpower and no other major powers in the international system –such as the Roman Empire or the United States after the fall of the Soviet Union until arguably the beginning of the 2003 War in Iraq (ibid: 10). It can be said that contemporary international politics does not fit any of these models. Nevertheless, during the last decade a new structure seems to have appeared: the uni-multipolar system. This system has a single world superpower but with several major powers around it in the system which constrains the superpower so that it cannot act as if it were within a unipolar international system (Vale, 2012: 10). Some authors, like Huntington, argue that this scenario is closest one to the current international system; where the settlement of international issues requires action by the single superpower, the United States, but always with some combination of other major states (1999). Indeed, 21st century scholarship within IR moves away from the primacy of the state and second order analyses towards the relationship that individuals have within the international system. This intellectual movement reflects experiences in international history that diminish the role of the state and reinforce the humans and humanity into the heart of a discipline whose origins lie in the motivation for action. This change is a 21st century phenomenon with experiential roots in the terror attacks of 9/11, the Global Financial Crisis, the Arab Spring uprisings, and the rise of hacktivism. These global, historical experiences are fostering the rise of cutting-edge and revolutionary IR theory that embraces complexity and multidisciplinarity (Oprisko, 2013). In other words, â€Å"the trend within IR theory is mirroring the shared experiences of the 21st century: renewed emphasis on terror, revolutions against inequality and social-immobility, and the success of hacktivism† (ibid. ). According to the Neoclassical Realism theory of IR, the international system determines how states act and behave towards each other because the international system is anarchic and states compete for status quo power (Rose, 1998:146). In other words, â€Å"the scope and ambition of a country’s foreign policy is driven first and fore most by its place in the international system and specifically by its relative material power capabilities† (ibid.). The 21st Century, however, is marked not with the political maneuvering of great states with competing visions, but with the elite few accumulating power, on the one hand, and the general public, rejecting such elitism, on the other. The first movement toward a revision of the status quo interpretation of the international system was the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The reaction against this â€Å"new kind of enemy† and the â€Å"war on terrorism† exemplified â€Å"an important reengagement with the social contract ; the state, the sovereign authority of the people, was no longer the only independent actor in the international political arena† (Oprisko, 2013). Closely related to the emergence of the above-mentioned â€Å"new enemies† there is the change of the security concept during the last decades. Authors such as Ole Waever or Barry Buzan were some of the most predominant constructivists who define security after the Cold War, which included non-traditional elements such as human rights (Layman, 2012: 4). The place of human rights in security is widely debated. Although before the Cold War security was traditionally defined in military terms, since Realism was the main school of thought, Constructivism argued for different perspectives, permitting the most thorough definition for security and national interests due to its ability to allow for change in the perception of what defines threats (Layman, 2012: 6). Indeed, as Barry Buzan argues, social norms and cultural phenomena dictate what is a security threat (Layman, 2012: 6). Waever and Buzan define security â€Å"as perceived threats to anything such as the traditional view of a state to non-traditional views of threats† (Buzan et al. 1998: 7) which include society, the environment, and economic laws. Threats are, thus, divided into different sectors: the military sector, concerned with the armed capabilities of a state; the political sector, concerned with the stability of a state; the economic sector, concerned with the accessibility to resources and the market; the societal sector, concerned with the security and sustainability of culture; and the environmental sector, concerned with the security of resources (Layman, 2012: 8). Thus, the Financial Crisis in 2008 and the subsequent austerity endured by common citizens hit a breaking-point with the suicide of Tarek al-Tayeb Mohammed Bouazizi in Tunisia in 2010. â€Å"Dignity-filled rage erupted across four continents as the Arab Spring spread across the Middle East and North Africa and Occupy protests engulfed Europe and North America† (Oprisko, 2013). As we progress from the competing idealist traditions of the 20th Century, the emphasis from structural impositions are waning (ibid.). â€Å"Human social agents and social structures are mutually constitutive, and social change can proceed causally in both directions [simultaneously] from agents to structures and from structures to agents† (Bennett, 2003: 489)U.S. Contradictory Approach to the Middle EastBearing in mind the previously described theoretical framework, the core American national interests at stake in the Middle East over decades should not come as a surprise; namely: protecting the U.S. homeland from the threats international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; ensuring the free flow of oil, vital to the U.S., regional, and global economies; ensuring the security of Israel (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 48); discouraging interstate conflict that can threaten allies and other interests; ensuring transit and access to facilities to support U.S. military operations; countering terrorism; and stemming the proliferation of weapons (Arieff et al., 2012: 1). Over the years, these interests have resulted a series of U.S. policy objectives – advancing Arab—Israeli peace, protecting key oil-producing states, limiting the spread of regional conflicts, or ensuring U.S. military access and freedom of action within the region. Consequently, to ensure these objectives, the US has usually behaved as a status quo power in the Middle East, prioritizing the regional balance of power and a certain order over backing political change (ibid). During the past 50 years, â€Å"the U.S. has played two dueling roles in the Middle East, that of a promoter of liberal ideals, willing to wage war to build democracy, and that of a supporter of dictators who adhere to American interests and ensure stability† (Shore, 2012). It can be said, thus, that the U.S. reaction to the Arab Spring uprisings has exemplified these two opposing policies. While the US was quick to defend the peaceful protesters in Egypt and oppressed citizens of Libya, taking any necessary measures to prevent gross humanitarian crimes, the U.S. has issued little more than formal warnings to the fact that Syrians are being killed under Assad’s rule, Bahrain is cracking down on protestors, and Yemen is moving towards disaster (ibid.). However, the U.S.’ commitment to stability and the status quo partly sustained the regional stagnant economic, political and social systems, leading to the rise of Islamism and Salafism. After failing to overthrow the authoritarian regimes of the region, from the 1990s, terrorism came to focus. Thus, and particularly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the hegemonic interest in the Saudi monarchy -as the largest oil producer- came into conflict with American national security priorities (Kitchen, 2012: 54). However, after 9-11 the U.S.’ determined that the region’s authoritarian regimes were actually the root of the terrorist problem, prescribing, thus, democracy as the solution to the Middle East’s socio-economic issues (Kitchen, 2012: 54). Thus, in 2003, the Bush Administration launched the ‘Freedom Agenda’, asserting that stability could not be purchased at the expense of liberty, emphasizing that promoting democracy was not just about promoting American values, but was in the American national interest, since oppressive regimes created the conditions for radicalization and terrorism (ibid). However, the â€Å"Freedom Agenda† as part of the wider â€Å"war on terror† had obvious contradictions. While on the one hand the US was seeking short-term counter-terrorism measures through the security apparatus of allied authoritarian regimes, on the other hand, it was prioritizing the long-term emancipation of Middle Eastern societies to address the deeper roots of marginalization and underdevelopment (Kitchen, 2012: 54). It could be argued that these contradictions were the background to the US’ response to the events of the Arab Spring (Kitchen, 2012: 55).The Obama Administration and the U.S. Strategy In The Middle EastEven though the uprisings and political change in the Arab world have challenged many of the assumptions that have long informed U.S. policy makers, it can be said that many long-standing U.S. goals in the region endure (Arieff et al. 2012: 1). The Bush administration’s response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, overturned this preference for the status quo. The invasion of Iraq created a power vacuum in the Gulf that Iran tried to fill. The war exhausted the U.S. military, spread sectarianism and refugees throughout the region, and unleashed a civil war. The ‘‘Global War on Terror’’ also brought the US into far more collaboration with Arab security services (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 48). The Bush administration failed to match its rhetoric on democracy with meaningful support for democratic change (ibid). The legacies of Obama’s predecessor’s war on terror had to be addressed, in order improve the US’ credibility and standing in the MENA region (Kitchen, 2012: 55). Thus, during President Obama’s first term, the U.S. announced its desire for a fresh start with the Muslim world, which started by withdrawing the U.S. military presence from Iraq and scaling down the worst excesses of the War on Terror, while maintaining a lower-key counter-terrorism campaign. While the administration has not managed to resolve the Iranian nuclear challenge, it has assembled an international consensus and rigorous sanctions to pressure Tehran. Obama also made the peace process a top priority, although his efforts proved no more successful than his predecessor’s. Then the Arab Spring erupted, reshaping the regional agenda (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 49). It has been said that the events of the Arab Spring took Obama’s Administration by surprise and underprepared (Kitchen, 2012: 55). While the political reform was in the overarching interests of the US, and was both sustainable in the region and compatible with America’s other priorities (ibid: 56), the White House, however, was worried that over-enthusiastic American support could undermine the revolutions’ authenticity. Thus, Obama’s rhetoric in public was cautious, as he sought to balance competing interests in the context of uncertain events, while at the same time the administration used its long-developed relationships in the region to try to shape developments (ibid.). Egypt constitutes a clear example of this delicate situation. While the clear win for the Muslim Brotherhood did not fall within the U.S. ‘s â€Å"expectations† and interests in that country in particular, the following military coup, although morally questionable (at least in the 21st Century), has hardly been challenged. Indeed, having a military regime that wants to maintain the peace with Israel, is probably the most comfortable option for the U.S. in a region where nothing is settled so far. Despite the massive changes across the Middle East ever since 2011, there are still several rapidly evolving dynamics that any viable U.S. strategy must account for. First, the so-called Arab Spring has altered key regional dynamics, regime perceptions of internal and external threats, and the role of different political actors, whereby a mobilized public opinion has an unprecedented role in regional politics. Second, Iranian nuclear and hegemonic ambitions continue to worry its neighbors, Israel, and the West. Third, while al-Qaeda has suffered organizational and political setbacks, its affiliates have adapted in disconcerting ways. Fourth, the Israeli—Palestinian issue continues to be a core element of regional instability and a source of potential violence (Khal and Lynch, 2013: 41).The Arab Spring and the US Interests; Challenges and OpportunitesIn response to the Arab uprisings, the Obama Administration has taken a reactive approach, trying to adjust U.S. regional pol icies while coping with multiple ongoing crises (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 49). In 2011, when addressing the impact of the Arab Spring on U.S. interests, Obama admitted the unsustainability of the status quo and advocated relations based not only on mutual interests and mutual respect but also on a set of principles, including: opposition to the use of violence and repression; support for â€Å"a set of universal rights; and support for political and economic reform in the MENA region that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region (Keiswetter, 2012: 4). However, contradictions were again inevitable. Although the administration recognized the importance of seeking to change in Egypt and across the region, it was quickly pulled up at the prospect of confrontation with Saudi Arabia over a possible political transformation in Bahrain (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 49). Similarly, while the administration recognized the need for democratic change in the region, allowing, thus, the democratic process to develop even when elections produced Islamist victors (as it happened in Tunisia and Egypt), it always resisted calls for a more costly and risky intervention in Syria (ibid.). Despite the Administration embracing democratic reform and public engagement, a workable strategy to implement these principles has yet to be put in place (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 49). Indeed, even when sensible policies were pursued, they have frequently not been communicated strategically, which transmits uncertainty about American priorities in the region. Given the current environment in the Middle East, any attempt to draw a more coherent approach must consider five strategic dilemmas: First, maintaining the free flow of oil may require robust security ties with Gulf regimes, which would increase the U.S. dependence on the least democratic and iron-fist ruling governments in the region. This dependence would undermine the U.S. soft power with the Arab public and may contribute to the emerging Sunni—Shiite Cold War in the region (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 51). The Saudis, among others, have been able to compensate for the disruptions caused by the Libyan events. Thus, a strong US commitment to the security of the Gulf will be vital to oil market stability in the future (Keiswetter, 2012: 2). It could be said, thus, that the main challenge for the U.S. here will be being able to maintain traditional allies while supporting the democratic values it has been forever defending. Second, while a U.S. presence throughout the region and close cooperation with partner governments’ security services may be necessary for combating terrorism, this American military presence in the Arab world will continue to provide extremists with propaganda and recruitment opportunities (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 51). The Arab Spring uprisings, based on universal values and rooted in the demand for jobs, justice and dignity, highlight the bankruptcy of Islamic extremism sanctioning violence as the only way to obtain societal changes (Keiswetter, 2012: 2). While none of the 2011 uprisings in the Middle East was led by Islamist movements or had an Islamist agenda (Dalacoura, 2012: 74), Islamist movements have proved to benefit from them politically (ibid: 75). Indeed, the upheavals provide opportunities, as it happened in Yemen, for Islamic extremists to gain ground (Keiswetter, 2012: 2). As exemplified before with the case of Egypt, the U.S. faces the challenge of having Islami st regimes freely elected in stagnant countries, whereby radical movements are like to mushroom, or take an active role in the future political direction of the region, which will probably lead to international criticism. Third, tilting toward Israel in the Palestinian conflict may be essential to reassure Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 50). However, Israeli leaders argue that the wave of unrest in the Arab world is endangering Israel’s security by potentially replacing relatively friendly neighboring governments with Islamist and potentially hostile governments (Arieff et al., 2012: 3). Fourth, a forceful military U.S. intervention in Syria could hasten the demise of Assad’s regime, reduce humanitarian suffering, demonstrate leadership, and weaken Iran. However, such intervention would also require a major investment of military resources, returning the US to the protracted commitment that it just escaped in Iraq, and consuming resources necessary to deal with Iran and other global contingencies (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 50). Fifth, the unclear prospects for democratic change. The consensus in Washington from the 1990s has been that democratization will lead to the emergence in the Middle East of regimes which are supportive of the U.S. (Dalacoura, 2012: 78). However, the Middle East has been described as immune to the waves of democratization which have transformed other regions. Moreover, focusing attention on democracy in the Middle East has been criticized for reflecting the priorities of western and in particular American political science (ibid: 71). On political and economic reform, the nature of the democratic political systems in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya remains to be seen (Keiswetter, 2012: 2). Indeed, one of the U.S.’ greatest fears is credibility in what â€Å"new† Middle East will emerge from the current turmoil (Shore, 2012). Sixth, it can be said that Iran’s nuclear and regional hegemonic aspirations are one of the major ‘‘pre-Arab Spring’’ concerns for the US. It is feared that â€Å"a nuclear-armed Tehran would increase its support for militancy, terrorism, and subversion in the Levant, Iraq, and the Gulf, which would further destabilize the region† (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 43). Thus, Iran’s nuclear program could have a decisive impact on regional politics (ibid.). Seventh, the Arab Spring has shown the limits of American power in the Middle East. Both the U.S. and Europe are missing the necessary financial resources to shape prospects in the Arab Spring countries. Thus, investment will also have to come from countries, such as the Gulf states or China, who do not share to the same extent the Western interest in reinforcement of democratic values (Keiswetter, 2012: 2). In any case, the ultimate strategic effects of these changes are not clear. â€Å"Many fear the emerging power of Islamist movements, elected or violent† (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 43). The anti-American protests in September 2012 in response to a YouTube video, and the uneven governmental responses to the crisis were a clear sign of the underlying turbulence which might complicate future U.S. policy in the region. In other words, the emerging regional order combines a complex array of contradictory new trends (ibid.). In light of the Arab uprisings, it is highly important to prioritize political and economic reform. However, pushing reform complicates ties with key autocratic partners, may cause a nationalist backlash in some democratizing states, and may also risk empowering Islamist groups less inclined to cooperate with the US (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 51).ConclusionA major question that remains to be answered is whether the uprisings will eventually lead to the democratization of the Middle East and the end of the authoritarianism that has undermined its political life (Dalacoura, 2012: 79). On the one hand, the most immediate prospects for the Arab Spring are: continuing instabilities as states try to solve their political and economic situations, as well as their relations with other countries; rising influence for those countries with the necessary resources to back up their policies; and the continuation of a visible but attenuated role for the U.S. (Keiswetter, 2012: 2). The long-term prospect, on the other hand, includes also the possibility Middle East with a much higher degree of freedom, more democratic, prosperous and accountable, less abusive of human rights, and thus a net positive outcome for U.S. interests (ibid.). With the dramatic rise in popular activism empowered by the new technologies, it is clear that long-term stability in the region will require meaningful steps by all governments towards a genuine political and economic reform (Kahl and Lynch, 2013: 42). The U.S. has had to tread a fine line between support for its values and long-term interests à ¢â‚¬â€œ represented by political reform in the region-, and the protection of its core regional interests (Kitchen, 2012: 57). If the U.S. is serious about turning off its Middle detour, then in the Middle East and North Africa the US needs to prioritize long-term trends over short-term concerns, which may not always mean pushing for revolutionary change in support of democratic values in the region (Kitchen, 2012: 58). The recent revolutions pose an opportunity to establish a new status quo in the Middle East, free an oppressed and jobless youth, increase economic standing and trade, and give democracy a chance to flourish. While the U.S. remains limited in the impact it can have in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, it has an opportunity to change its negative standing in the Middle East; an opportunity to change a stoic, ineffective foreign policy (Shore, 2012).References Andrew Bennett, (2003) â€Å"A Lakatosian Reading of Lakatos: What Can We Salvage from the Hard Core?,† inProgress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, ed. Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Arieff, A., Danon, Z., Katzman, K., Sharp, J. M., & Zanotti, J. (2012) â€Å"Change in the Middle East: Implications for US Policy†.Congressional Research Service. [On-line], Available: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R42393.pdf [21 April 2014] Buzan B, Waever O, de Wilde J. (1998 ) â€Å"Introduction, security analysis: Conceptual apparatus, the military sector, the political sector†. In: Security: A new framework for analysis. Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers; 1998. ISBN 1-55587-603-X Dalacoura, K. (2012) â€Å"The 2011 uprisings in the Arab Middle East: political change and geopolitical implications†.International Affairs, 88(1), 63-79. [On-line], Available: http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International%20Affairs/2012/88_1/88_1dalacoura.pdf [21 April 2014] Huntington, S. P. (1999). The Lonely Superpower. Foreign Affairs, 35-49. Kahl, C. H., & Lynch, M. (2013). US Strategy after the Arab Uprisings: Toward Progressive Engagement.The Washington Quarterly, 36(2), 39-60. [On-line], Available: http://67.159.45.21/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/TWQ_13Spring_Kahl-Lynch.pdf [21 April 2014] Keiswetter, A. L. (2012) â€Å"The Arab spring: Implications for US policy and interests†.Middle East Institute. [On-line]. Available: http://www.mei.edu/content/arab-spring-implications-us-policy-and-interests [21 April 2014] Kitchen, N. (2012) â€Å"After the Arab Spring: power shift in the Middle East?: the contradictions of hegemony: the US and the Arab Spring†, [On-line], Available: http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SR011/FINAL_LSE_IDEAS__UnitedStatesAndTheArabSpring_Kitchen.pdf [21 April 2014]. Layman, C. K. (2012). Conflictual Foreign Policy of the United States: Between Security and Human Rights. [On-line], Available: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=cmc_theses&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.es%2Fscholar%3Fq%3D%2522theory%2Bof%2Binternational%2Brelations%2522%2B%2522the%2BArab%2BSpring%2522%2B%2522US%2Binterests%2522%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Des%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5%26as_ylo%3D2010#search=%22theory%20international%20relations%20Arab%20Spring%20US%20interests%22 [23 April 2014] Oprisko, R. L. (2013). â€Å"IR Theory’s 21st Centur y Experiential Evolution†.E-International Relations (2013).[On-line], Available: http://www.e-ir.info/2013/05/25/the-fall-of-the-state-and-the-rise-of-the-individuals-ir-theorys-21st-century-experiential-evolution/ [23 April 2014] Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy.World politics, 51, 144-172. Shore, S. M. (2012) Great Decisions 2012 Preview: After The Arab Spring, [On-line], Available: http://www.fpa.org/features/index.cfm?act=feature&announcement_id=88 [21 April 2014] Vale, K. R. (2012).US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era (Doctoral dissertation, Office of Graduate Studies, University of Massachusetts Boston). [On-line], Available: http://crhsgg-studentresources.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/KVale_US_Foreign_Policy_PColdWar_2012.pdf [23 April 2014]

Mayella Violet Ewell Essay

Mayella Violet Ewell is Tom Robinson’s 19-and-a-half-year-old accuser and the eldest daughter of Bob Ewell; she has to take care of her siblings (such as Burris Ewell) due to Bob Ewell’s alcoholism. Before the trial, Mayella is noted for growing red geraniums outside her otherwise dirty home. Due to her family’s living situation, Mayella has no opportunity for human contact or love, and she eventually gets so desperate that she attempts to seduce a black man, Tom Robinson. Her father sees this through a window, and in punishment he beats her. Ewell then finds the sheriff, Heck Tate, and tells him that his daughter has been raped and beaten by Tom. At the trial, Atticus proves that it was her father who beat her by pointing out that the bruises are on the right side of her face only. This is important because Tom’s left hand is mangled and useless, while Bob Ewell is left handed. When Atticus Finch asks her if she has any friends, she becomes confused because she does not know what a friend is. During her testimony, she is confused by Atticus’ polite speech and thinks that his use of â€Å"Miss Mayella† is meant to mock her.  By testifying against Tom Robinson, Mayella is trying to destroy the evidence suggesting that she had attempted to seduce him, and to do what her father wants her to do so that he won’t hurt her — to eliminate her own guilt and fear of breaking a ‘rigid and time-honored code’. Mayella is played by Collin Wilcox in the movie.

Towards the Quality of Higher Education

TOWARDS THE QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION Brief review of the quality of Higher Education in Ancient India: The system of higher educaton is started from the ancient times in India. During the ancient times, Education was closely linked with religon. It was taken up by Teachers as a labour of love and by the students as part of their training for culture and citizenshp. It was not universal education. In regard to higher instituton of learning – Tols (Higher Education) was developed among the Hindus and Madrassah (Higher Education) was existed among the Muslim.Although the Hindu and Muslims had separate learning institution, many features were common to both the types of institution. Under the Buddhist rulers in India, Learning was fostered by the numerous monasteries under the guidance of monks and nuns. The Brahmanical system of education mainly centered at home of Individual Teacher was superseded by monasteries system of Buddhist education. For the first time in India, and p erhaps in the whole world, a great famous Buddhist seat of higher learning like Taxila, Nalanda, Vikramshila and Vallabhi Universities were flourished in India which can be compared with modern Universties.These Universities were better well organised than the Brahmanical higher education because they recieved state endowment for many centuries from the successive kings from the time of Buddha. The Universities introduced regular course of studies in different subjects and admission test for all students. There was no discrimination in admission and Technical Education and Women Education were also introduced as it recieved encouragement from the ruler and the rich people. Amongst these Universities of ancient India, Nalanda Universities was take its specialities.Students from China, Nepal, Tibet, Korea etc came to study and obtain valuable knowledge. Entrance examination was very strict and only 20 percent of the candidates succeeded in getting admission during this period. Brief r eview of Indian Education Commission in Modern India: The system of higher education, which we find today in our country, started after the advent of the British in India. When the Brtish established their authority in India, they did not willing to take responsibility of educating the Indian people. In order to trained some Indians for minor jobs in the company’s office, they started schools and colleges.By the charter act of 1813, only one lakh of rupees for the improvement of the quality of education was left. The British rulers only established many government and private colleges and the higher education was in a very disorganise at the time. Within a period of time, The British rulers realised that the necessity to organise and improved the quality of education and appointed Wood’s Despatched of 1854. As a result of the recommendations made by Wood’s Despatched of 1854, the Universities of Culcutta, Bombay and Madras were established n 1857 on the model of London University.On the model of the formers, Allahabad University was also established in 1882. But all universities performed the functioned of only conducting examinations and affiliating bodies and undertook no teaching and research. In order to enquired the standard of Indian education and prepared recommendations, the Government of India appointed various Indian Education Commissions and selected eminent educationist as a members. Within a period of hunhred years, sixth Education Commissions were appointed.The recommendations of sixth Indian Education Commissions can be conveniently studied under the following:- i) Indian Education Commission or Hunter Commisson, 1882:By accepting the recommendation of Hunter Commission 1882, the college education recieved a great impetus and a number of colleges were established during 1901-1902. ii) Indian Universities Commission in 1902:During the period of Lord Curzon, University Education made a great progress. In order to improve the q uality of University Education in all branches, Lord curzon adopted the policy of control and improvement.He appointed Indian Universities Commission in 1902 in order to enquired the conditions and working of the Indian Universities and made necessary suggestions. Two years later, Indian University Act 1904 was passed. This act brought many important change in the organisation, jurisdiction, powers and administration etc of the universties. The expansion of the university education was checked for sometime, due to lack of revolutionary change in the system of universities. But it was admitted later on which improved and reforms the conditions and standards of the contemporary universities and colleges. ii) Culcutta Univesity Commission or Sadler Commission, 1917:After the establishment of Allahabad Universities 1882, no new universitiy was established till 1917. However, a number of colleges were increased. In order to cope with the increased work, the Culcutta Univesity Commission or Sadler Commission was appointed by The British Government. Although, the commission was mainly interfere in the problems of Culcutta University, it gave out reforms and change which were great value into higher education in India as a whole. Now, the Universities were not only examining body, but became a centre of teaching and learning.By accepting recommendation of the Commission 1917, more than 16 universities were established in different places of India till 1947. iv) Indian University Education Commission or Radhakrishnan Commission, 1948:The expansion of higher education has recieved a great impetus after Independence. Number of institution in the field of higher education and enrollement of students in the centers of higher studies were increased year by year. The university education was imparted through arts, science and commerce and professional colleges, researched institution.The institutions deemed to be universities under the University Grants commission Act, 1956. In adition to Central universities, state universties and their affiliated colleges, Indira Gandhi Open Universty and other Open Universities are doing commendable job in the field of higher education. In order to meet the present and future requirements of the country, the Government of India appointed Indian Education Commission or Radhakrishnan Commission in 1948 to suggest improvements and extentions of th Indian Universities. The terms of reference of the commission were very wide and vast.It suggested that various aspects of the university Education in India and means for the improvement and reorganisation of the university education. Research and other standard of university educaton, problems of teachers, curriculum, medium of instructon, religious education, problem of discipline, health and residence of the students an such allied problems in the perspective of the natonal and international conditions. In fact, The report of this Commissions is the most comprehensive repo rt on education, but its recommendations is very important and far reaching consequences. ) Secondary Education Commission or Mudaliar Commission, 1952 vi) National Education Commission or Kothari Commission (1964-66): Since Independence, there has been a good deal of quantitative development of education but qualitative has lagged behind. Unimplementing of the policy of the directive principles of the constitution to make free and copulsory education below 14 years, problem of literacy, low standard of primary and secondary edcation, diversification of curriculum and problem of educated unemployment were the the main problems since Independence.In order to evaluate the different stages of education and to evolved a National system of Education, the Government of India appointed the Kothari Commission in July 14, 1964. The Commission submitted its report and recommendation in June, 1966. People expressed high hopes when the Reports of the Education commission was first published in 1966. Already, several years have passed, nothing has practically been done to achieved the targets as recommended by the commission. The commission give any useful suggestion an the source of finance, on which the implementation of the recommendations entirely depends.If it si of course a fact that it was not the bussiness of the commission to deal with the financial side, but we cannot ignore reality. The suggestion made by the Kothari Commission in respect of different organs of education were very important. The Government have already implemented some of the suuggestions and the effort are still being made to make important the rest of the suggestion. Taking all things into consideration, we may say that the report of the education Commission is a sincere attempt to improve the existing system of education in all aspects and in all stages.If it can be implemented, it will remove some of the glaring defects of our educational system. Problems Higher Education: It is clear from t he above discussion that the expansion of higher education has recieved a great impetus since independence. The policy of the government still has been to increase the number of the institutions of higher education rather than the aim at the qualitative progress of higher education. Besides this, the government did not pay proper attention to the multi-lateral problems of higher education and not made special effort to remove the defects of higher education.Since recommendation made by the Kothari Commission, the government declared National Educational Policy of 1986. It is good that is being given to the specializaton in higher education. The problems of the higher and University education in india is nothing but the problems of Indian society in general. If we want to established a society based on the principles of democratic socialism, we must have reoriented the entire educational structure. Without a hgh standard of general, vocatonal and professional education, democracy can not survived. But there is a still a lag between our Ideal and reality.Our Universities have not been able to shake off the heavy load of bookish knowledge. The main problems for the falling of the standard and quality of higher and universities education in India are under the following:- 1. No definite aims among students of higher education:One of the problem which checked the standard of higher education is its aimlessness. Most of the student are recieved higher education without having any definite aim. the student must have definite aim before starting hgher education. In order to raise the standard of higher education, the university should change the aims and objectives.Newmen remarks the aims of university education in 1952, â€Å"If a practical and must be assign to a university course, the i say it is training of good members of the society. † 2. Increase of Wastage and Stagnation:The problem of wastage and stagnaton exist in a greater degree at the stage of highe r and university education. Most of the important causes of wastage and stagnation are Ineffective methods of teaching, unhealthy environment of institution and society, defective system of curriculum and examination and lack of finance among the students etc.In order to solve this problem, it suggest that to make healthy environment of institutions and society, revised and reforms of curriculum and examination system, raise the standard of teaching and given grants and loans to effort the study of students. 3. Lack of interesting subjects in Curriculum:Most of the the curriculum of college are old and out of date and failed to fulfil the interest of the student which checked the intellectual developmentof the student. Radhakrishnan Commission remarks, â€Å"A curriculum which had validity in the vedic period or the renaissance cannot continue unaltered in the 20th century. To solve this problem, the curriculum should revised and reforms for the interest of young advanced students. 4. Specialisation in Education:University emphasized spacialization in different subjects. After completed University education, students acquired special knowledge and skills in some particular subjects. Their outlook remains narrow and unbalanced to became completely educated in real sense. This narrow specializaton can be remove by establishing harmony between general education and specialization which developed the personality of the students and will became dutiful citizens. Absence of proper Guidance and Councelling for student:The absence of proper guidande and councelling, the students select their course according to their own choice or with thw advice of some inexperience persons. Consequently, most of the students make a wrong choice in their subjects and lost interest in their study. In order to solve this problem, the educational institution should make provision of experience and trained persons to provide proper guidandance and councelling of students from the beginn ing till the end. 6. Low standard of Teaching:The standard of teaching in our colleges and university is very low.Many suggestions has made to raise the standard of teaching in education. The more prominents are – increase the salary of the teachers, balanced workload of teachers, improvement of service condition of teacher, provision of tutorial classes, well-organised libraries and laboratories, encouragement of debates and discussion, Professional training for Junior Lecturers and Re-orientation Course for new Lecturers. 7. Defective Examination System:The present examination system of our universities has many defects and severely criticized by ndian and foreign educatonist.The university education commission of 1949 points out that, â€Å"If we are any single reforms in universty, it should be that of examinaton. † It can be reforms through scientific method. In order to reforms Examination system, it suggest that adoption of continous comprehensive internal evalu ation, semester system and grading system. It also suggest to developed question banks, demarcation of syllabus, setting and moderations of question, Evaluation of answer script and conduct of examinations. 8. Indiscipline among the Student:The problem of indiscipline among students is very serious and complicated in educatonal institution.Financial irregularity, minor and disorderly misconduct, theft and burglary, sex misconduct, misuse of privledge and cheating n examination were the main problems of institutions. Professor Siddhant remarks, â€Å"the best way to solve is to divert the activities into healthy channels including sports, games, cooperative, living in hostels, self-management of masses, organise debates and symposia, councelling of indiscipline students etc. 9. Too much Interference of Student Societies in College Affairs:The student societies in educational institutions of higher education also make a serious problem.They were too much interfered in the affairs of the institutons which prove to be a scourge. In order to reduce this problem, the uiversity ntroduced legislaton for keeping control of student societies. In order to developed the intellectual powers of student and homely atmosphere of instituton, the student societies should also organised programme like leadership training, Life skills training, seminars, workshop etc. 10. Rapid increase of the number of Student:The development of higher education in India is taking place rapidly since Independence. The numbr of students in higher institution is constantly increasing.University Grants Commission remarks that, â€Å"If increasing number admtted in our universites without corresponding expansion of facilities, there is a great risk of the academic standard being imparted further. † In order to checked the ncreasng number of students in university, It has been suggested that the new and modern method of selective system of admission should be adopted. 11. Non-availability of Educatioal Facilities and Lack of Funds :The main reason for the low standard of education in universities is non-availability of educational facilities and lack of funds.The student face shortage of books, libraries are not well-equiped. In many degree college, no proper building and classroom and do not possess even playgrounds. To solve this problem, a high level committee should be appointed for providing necessary funds to the institution. The Government of India, the State Government and non-governmental organisations and the rich people should provide necessary funds and donations to raise the standard of higher education. 12. Poor conditions of the salary Teachers:The teachers of colleges and universties are getting less salaries and allownces in order to meet their expense.Consequently, they are not able to devote themvelves with heart and soul into the teaching works. The Commission has made important provisions to increase the salaries and allownces of the teachers at dif ferent stage should be implemented by the Government. 13. Too much burden of the works and service of the Teachers: The teachers also have been burdened with too much work. and not able to performed th teaching work properly. The prominence teacher of university were given research work.The Kothari Commission has remarked, â€Å"There is much serous concern that in many places there is too much teaching but relatively too little of good teaching. † The Education commission has made important provisions to improvement the works and service of the teachers should be implemented by the Government. 14. Wide gulf between the Teachers and Students:The increasing number of students in higher education making a wide gulf between the students and the teachers. The teachers not able to recognise each students of the class and no interaction between them.While in western countries the students and teachers work together like family and build good relationship between them, there is no r elatinship between the students and teachers and separated their interest in India. In order to build relationship between the students and the teachers, it is necessary to adopt tutorial system. Beside this, the educational institution should also organise more interaction programme like debate and discussion, seminar, workshop etc which help the students to increase their knowledge with the help of the teachers.Almost all the above problems have attracted the attention of the University Education Commission, which has made many suggestions to solve these problems. Most of these suggestions have been accepted by the government and many of them have already been implemented. It may, therefore, be hope that after solving all our present problems, the higher education will make the complete development of the personality of the youth and by developing their intellectual and physical powers will make them able citizens of the country.

How did the struggle to resist segregation create a sense of African Essay - 1

How did the struggle to resist segregation create a sense of African American community, what purely African American institutions, cultural expressions, and po - Essay Example Myriads of blacks heroically resisted ‘white domination’, often jeopardizing their own lives. It is not possible to know the numbers of the African-Americans segregated by Whites were men and women who had confronted by some blatant acts of ‘bravery’, such as walking conceitedly down the roads or talking back to Whites instead of quitting. Anti-racial, socials integrity, desegregation, and even ‘racial equivalence’ enjoyed huge support amid leftists than integration. Even though black civil rights protesters had always stresses on ‘desegregation’ (Robin et. Al 1996). In nearly all white liberal spheres ‘cultural integration’ came to represent solving the Negro problem by carrying black people into previously all-white bodies (Robin & Earl 2005). Leftists, on the contrary, regardless of their beliefs, always struggling for ‘racial integrity’ in terms of taking racial discrimination separately – one of the opportunity for entrepreneurship – so as to create a more dominant challenge to ‘community rule’. From the beginning, they resisted to create systems which guarantee the equal rights for every one, irrespective of class or nation, to live as full human beings (Robin 2002). The split continued to be ever-lasting in 1905 when W. E. B. Du Bois1 established, with William Monroe Trotter who was a detractor of Washington, the whole black â€Å"Niagara Movement†2 (Robin 2002). With the organized challenges by movements like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP3) and Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA4) and their personal insubordination to Jim Crow5, African Americans embraced enriching their cultural life of, mainly, non-political demonstration against ‘white domination’ that infused all divisions of black life (Robin 2002). And in no more than the next twenty years, the NAACP staged a harmonized approach of legalized encounters, taking provinces and states to court to execute

Change mangement in Qantas Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Change mangement in Qantas - Essay Example This section will illustrate the specific principles through the application of the KT approach of project management. This approach will split the project into three basic areas, in which communication occurs over all levels as shown below; The KT process will help Qantas in the analysis of implementation of goals via a systematic process of decision-making. It will apply in this case because it aids in achievement of improved satisfaction of customers, increasing sales, and the elimination of problems in sales (Biech, 2010: p44). The first step is analysis, where they will come up with rough goals to improve business like marketing of new products to clients. The management team will collect information from market data, databases, competitors, and customer surveys and sort through it to collect information accurately since this data forms assumptions on which all KT steps in the future will be undertaken. The second step is the strategy where Qantas, using all relevant data will h ave its management craft cost effective plans that accomplish the goals. They will take into consideration all barriers that may hinder the objectives, scope and types of products and services offered, new business sources, how to attain competitive advantage, as well as goal timeframes (Biech, 2010: p45). Following the strategy creation, a project design will be created and presented to the owner. In the third step, Qantas will consider the designs presented by the managers, as well as have the managers pitch strategies in the strategy session. Qantas, using the management team, will select the best strategy and come up with a master plan. This will include the project’s purpose, its schedule, project stages, and resources that are needed to meet the objectives (Biech, 2010: p45). Following this, the next phase is the implementation of the master plan through assigning various tasks and training the management in the fulfillment of roles. The KT process is emphatic on hands- off approach, which requires little interference where managers and employees only get required skills needed to complete objectives in the plan. Qantas should also ensure that the employees are constantly informed on the progress of the plan, only becoming active in the plan implementation when deadlines are not met. The final step is review, where Qantas while using the KT process need to review whether the plan is working after it is implemented since the plans are not necessarily considerate of all relevant variables in meeting the goals of the business (Biech, 2010: p47). As the project concludes, they should update the master plan to improve on the results. Should the project fail because of inaccurate research, the plan should be scrapped altogether and more time focused on the KT process’ analysis step. It is also opined that that Qantas used the popular Kotter’s 8 steps model as it is displayed in figure 2: Figure 2 steps to successful change The first step th ey would take would be creating a sense of urgency since everyone at Qantas will have to be behind the change and believe in it. They should identify potential threats with concurrent scenarios of possibilities in the future (Cameron & Green, 2012:

An Email Asking for Recommendation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

An Email Asking for Recommendation - Essay Example This author stresses that his professor might know him well and have a regard of his capabilities in order to write a recommendation letter for him. "I am a person with the lively curiosity in business and seeking a guidance on competing effectively for internship in the Farmer School of Business in Miami University. I am interested in the organization called CABO, which is the China-America Business Organization that works as a networking program between the students from China and other countries. They are studying business in the Farmer School of Business and have an interest in doing business in China. A CABO organization works with other multi-national business institutions. Its staff cooperate with the other professionals in order to increase the level of education of its members outside the class studies. A CABO organization tries to create such opportunities for students so they could succeed in international business; it creates job opportunities, offers internship programs in China and the U.S. and facilitates communication between students from China and U.S. For me personally, it is a great opportunity to develop my professional and personal sides. Please let me know if you are comfortable to discuss any questions and provide me with the further information, which will help you to write your recommendation."